August 22, 2007
You know how those BP commercials always seem to have some environmental message in them? It seem hypocritical concerning what has recently been a growing concern. There is a huge controversy a-brewin' here in Chicago, and it will definately make me think twice about swimming in the lake.
"BP, which aggressively markets itself as an environmentally friendly corporation, sought to dump more ammonia and suspended solids into Lake Michigan as part of a $3.8 billion expansion that will enable the refinery to process more heavy Canadian crude oil.
More here.
Apparently they found a way to increase the amount of sludge and ammonia they can dump without breaking the law (written in the 70's). As long as they don't go over the dumping limits as spelled out in the law, they can increase the amount they are dumping.
They therefore managed to get a water permit to pump 35 percent more sludge and 54 percent more ammonia into the lake, right up to the limit set by the '70s pollution law.
Now, I'm not a scientist, but this doesn't sound good. As an argument to the controversy, Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune writes...
Note also might be taken of the fact that no ammonia limits are imposed on a bunch of papermakers and cities such as Milwaukee and Green Bay.
and...
Also conveniently missing from the debate is the context that could be provided by comparing BP with other industrial and city "dischargers." According to the EPA, BP's 4,925 pounds of suspended solids allowed a day compares with 16,630 at International Steel Group's East Chicago plant and 121,861 at its Burns Harbor facility. Ispat Industries' East Chicago plant is allowed 130,453 pounds, about 27 times BP's limit. Chicago, of course, is on another planet, permitted 243,000 pounds, almost 50 times BP's.
Not mentioned is the fact that BP alone is responsible for 3 pounds of mercury a year being dumped into the lake. The lake that provides drinking water for millions of people. Not to mention the sport fishing that takes place. And once again, BP says that the environmental effects are negligible. However, there have always been limits on consuming certain fish in the lake due to mercury, and the only outlet for the lake is the St. Lawrence River, which heads out to sea (that's how Chicago is an International Seaport).
Now, granted a lot of this isn't dumped in the lake, and Mr. Byrne says much of it is dumped in the river (which may be worse, it's like sharing the crap with everyone down river), and it's still stunning when you realize these figures are PER DAY, but pointing out someone else doing the same thing still doesn't make it right.
It's like the argument I have to have with my kids,
"But Mom, she has a cookie!"
"Yes, but that still doesn't mean you can have one."
Whether or not I agree that the stuff they are dumping is harmful or safe, I think that the growing controversy surrounding this issue is a good thing if it raises environmental awareness so all companies that dump waste into the lake or river, regardless of how much that might be, find a way to reduce waste.
More here.
Apparently they found a way to increase the amount of sludge and ammonia they can dump without breaking the law (written in the 70's). As long as they don't go over the dumping limits as spelled out in the law, they can increase the amount they are dumping.
They therefore managed to get a water permit to pump 35 percent more sludge and 54 percent more ammonia into the lake, right up to the limit set by the '70s pollution law.
Now, I'm not a scientist, but this doesn't sound good. As an argument to the controversy, Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune writes...
and...
Not mentioned is the fact that BP alone is responsible for 3 pounds of mercury a year being dumped into the lake. The lake that provides drinking water for millions of people. Not to mention the sport fishing that takes place. And once again, BP says that the environmental effects are negligible. However, there have always been limits on consuming certain fish in the lake due to mercury, and the only outlet for the lake is the St. Lawrence River, which heads out to sea (that's how Chicago is an International Seaport).
Now, granted a lot of this isn't dumped in the lake, and Mr. Byrne says much of it is dumped in the river (which may be worse, it's like sharing the crap with everyone down river), and it's still stunning when you realize these figures are PER DAY, but pointing out someone else doing the same thing still doesn't make it right.
It's like the argument I have to have with my kids,
"But Mom, she has a cookie!"
"Yes, but that still doesn't mean you can have one."
Whether or not I agree that the stuff they are dumping is harmful or safe, I think that the growing controversy surrounding this issue is a good thing if it raises environmental awareness so all companies that dump waste into the lake or river, regardless of how much that might be, find a way to reduce waste.
amy · 08:45 AM ·
take your meds ·