Quote:
Originally Posted by Peanut
This is a real concern. But I think they are still testing the waters and the full impact hasn't been determined. I don't really know much about metals tailings, but it might depend on the height/level of the breech as to how poor the water quality was? Like the whole theory of tailings is the worst parts settle out to the bottom and the water on top is cleaner-ish. So if the breech was near the top it might not be that bad? Could be wishful thinking on my part I guess. It would make sense that the breech is probably closer to the bottom because of the weight of the water. Anyways.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned AMEC yet (the engineer of record for the dam). Or the engineering company who handled the dam prior to 2010, when AMEC took over.
I don't think there's much weight to campaign contributions and liberal support dating since 2012 from Edwards and Imperial Metals. The dam was designed and built long before that. And I think it takes a lot more than a few thousand bucks Christy Clark's way to get international and national dam engineering codes and standards "relaxed". If that even happened. Which would be easy enough to investigate with some googling but I don't particularly care to, because I doubt it did.
|
Yeah, I don't know what the impacts will be on salmon. The scope is large, but the severity is unknown. Redlan seems to have more experience with tailing ponds than me. But with sockeye and all the other fish that use the Fraser River (e.g. Chinook salmon), this could have impacts. The current belief for salmon fisheries biologists is that the first year in the marine habitat is the real driver for recent declines in salmon numbers, and strongly influence survival and ultimately stock productivity.
Anyway, there is a leap of logic in Thymebalm's argument that he shouldn't cheer for the Flames because one of the owners is involved in this disaster. For this to be logical, it would mean that the owner actually willed the tailing dam to fail (i.e., a direct link). As you pointed out, AMEC might be to blame too. Regulators, Policy makers, scientists... anyone that at any time had anything to do with this project could be to blame. The fact of the matter is, the only way to be 100% bullet proof against an accident like this is to not mine there in the first place. Fat chance.
It's nice that the topic has been brought to the forefront of this forum, but I do agree with many posters, Backcheck! in particular, that the finger pointing is really just finger pointing. There are many better avenues to pursue to help things. What's the most frustrating is that when disasters like this happen, it's always about who is to blame, and less about how we can fix it. I really wish these arguments were more solution-oriented.
I feel like it's the guy on the street corner trying to stop me to sign a petition for Greenpeace. Me - "No thanks"; Him - "What's the matter? Hate the environment?". I just walk away but sometimes wish that I could just say "if you really cared, go get a real job that influences the environment in a positive and meaningful way".