Quote:
Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan
From ev mans own articles, the only filtration being used is a physical barrier which will filter rubbers and tampons but does nothing to filter toxic chemicals and pharmaceutical saturated liquids.
|
Even if a sewage treatment were to treat the water for "toxic chemicals and pharmaceutical saturated liquids" (which remains in question, by the way), what happens to them once they're filtered? Is dealing with them on land better?
Quote:
|
“The other thing to remember,” adds Garrett, “is that secondary treatment doesn’t destroy many contaminants. Some are still discharged into the sea, and others simply get concentrated in the leftover sludge instead of the liquid effluent. Whether that’s worse for the environment or not depends on what you do with the sludge. If you dispose of it on land, it may contaminate surface and groundwater. If you incinerate it, it may produce dioxins. What’s the environmental impact compared to the contaminants being absorbed and buried in the sediments around the outfalls? We don’t know, because an objective comparison hasn’t been done.”
|
The bottom line is, the system we have now works, and is proven to work, and is proven to not damage the environment beyond any reasonable level (you guys in Alberta should know all about such a criterion).
An alternative system, which will cost a billion dollars, is not likely to have any net environmental benefit, and is actually far more likely to be FAR more damaging to the environment.
There's a reason why the former Liberal Environment Minister under Chretien has spoken out vehemently against the initiative.
Also, since when do communities ever balk at $500,000,000 of federal funding? Here's a hint: when it makes zero sense, is horrible for the environment, and is a blatant waste of FEDERAL taxpayer money!
I live here, I pay taxes here, I consider myself an environmentalist, I vote Green, and I'm about as progressive as they come. I, of all people, should support this, if it was worth supporting. My strong disapproval of this measure should be a clue that it is beyond ridiculous and has zero support in science or fact-based policy.