West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(45 posts)

West Seattle and Mercury

Started 3 months ago by wakeflood
Latest reply from Anonymous

wakeflood
Member Profile

So, I suspect you all know that most of West Seattle has significant amounts of arsenic and other nasty stuff in the soils due to the Asarco Smelter from years ago. But we have a significant new threat. And it's likely nastier. It's mercury from coal burning in China landing here. Here's a report discussing how it's pervasive and deadly.

Can't we just try to stop beating the crap out of this planet and every living thing on it all the damn time? If there is a god and it has an awareness of our existence, when it looks down on this mess, it surely, surely wonders why we went mad and destroyed paradise.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/mercurys_silent_toll_on_the_worlds_wildlife/2617/#.UQqDNTXR7Tc.facebook

Posted 3 months ago #
JKB
Member Profile

It supports my new career, making hats.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

Ah yes, but where to get all the beaver pelts? Where is that Hudson's Bay Co. when you need them?!?

Posted 3 months ago #
FionaEnzo
Member Profile

A couple of years ago I saw a warning notice on ametro bus in several languages which cautioned parents not to let their young children play in the soil here. Really caught my attention - have seen no warning before or after. Dont know what theyre telling kids in local schools.

Posted 3 months ago #
WSB
Member Profile

The soil safety program and Asarco aftermath has been going on a long time. You can read all about it here

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites_brochure/dirt_alert/soilSafety/soilsafety.htm

including seeing maps of the "soil safety program" area (southernmost West Seattle is the northernmost area involved).

TR

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

Wakeflood, thanks - I had no knowledge of this, and I work with soil. Wish I'd known. I'll be more careful about contact from now on, and definitely will not be planting vegetables in anything but clean, raised beds. Now I'm also wondering about pets that spend time outdoors...

Meanwhile, the miles-long coal trains are chugging their way through Seattle day and night to supply those Chinese coal plants.

Posted 3 months ago #
FionaEnzo
Member Profile

Thanks very much for the refresher posting, WSB. I had forgotten about this.

Posted 3 months ago #
Admiral2009
Member Profile

is it time to tax carbon?

coal is lower cost energy with a nasty environmental bite. remember during our industrial age it was our big source of energy, it is cheaper up front; but we now know the adverse effects now.

the most feasible alternative (based on today's knowledge) is nuclear that also has challenges but is far preferable to coal in my opinion. and with china they already have nuclear know how.

yes solar, wind, geothermal will also have a bigger role. however for base energy nuclear (the sun sometimes does not shine or wind blow) is most viable at this time.

Posted 3 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

I am not against this. I know how awful Mercury is. That is why I was against the US forcing us to adopt the use of CFL lighting over incandescent. Those CFL's also contain items such as fluorine, neon, and lead powder as well as mercury. LED's are much more safe. Plus CFL's have another problem. People just toss them. According to http://www.lightbulbrecycling.com, each year an estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in U.S. landfills, amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste. Astonishingly, that's almost half the amount of mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants each year. It only takes 4mg of mercury to contaminate up to 7,000 gallons of freshwater, meaning that the 30,000 pounds of mercury thrown away in compact fluorescent light bulbs each year is enough to pollute nearly every lake, pond, river and stream in North America (not to mention the oceans). (Sourced from the Organic Consumers Association)

I see the Lobbyists for saving Loons and wildlife are busy. I have no problem with the author sourcing the report but the BRI is a non-profit. Not some hallowed research center. I like their agenda, but they are a non-profit - © 2012 Biodiversity Research Institute a 501(c)3 non-profit.

The mission statement is to try and sway attitudes and legislation towards their point of view. I am OK with that.

Mercury has proven to be very toxic. It has shown so many horrible effects.

The less mercury the better. Just keep the facts straight madam writer. We do not need false information like Rachel Carson provided over 50 years ago.

Posted 3 months ago #
dhg
Member Profile

Yeah that darn Rachel Carson. Without her we wouldn't have all these eagles pooping on our heads.

Posted 3 months ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

"Is it time to tax carbon?"

The question that arises from this question is what does taxing carbon accomplish, exactly?

I don't know the answer to this problem, but after years of discussion with my wife, I can tell you an answer such as taxing carbon doesn't even begin to address the situation. My wife is a high-level environmental consultant and deals specifically with air emissions. She acts as an intermediary between business and government regulatory agencies on all levels to help them remain compliant.

I get to hear about a great many ideas regarding this issue and none of the answers are good. It seems the closest, most realistic answer we have for controlling the explosion of carbon emissions is cap and trade. It has many pitfalls as well, but is the only answer that seems to be able to address the situation in a realistic way in the SHORT TERM. Beyond that, it's really all about conservation and efficiency. We need to use less energy, and that is not a worldwide possibility for the foreseeable future.

It really is a field where the vast majority of otherwise well informed people in the general public are grossly under-informed as to the reality of our current situation. Every time I proudly trumpet the environmentalist viewpoint du jour, it amazes me with how many well reasoned and thoroughly complete responses based in reality are put back into my face to refute my assertion. It's amazingly frustrating and also a source of intense personal growth at the same time. Doesn't make me any more popular with most environmentally minded people I meet, though.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

You're not alone, WC. It's hard to know what the rational options even are at this point. What's doable? What's the best cost/benefit?? I sometimes assume that the oil companies plan all along was to drag out real change to the point where it was just too late to do anything substantive.

I used to think that carbon sequestration was an option, now I don't think scientists are even pondering new/better ways? Wasn't there a million dollar prize at one point? Did it even get awarded?

I'm trying to stay open-minded about solutions without throwing in the towel to the deniers who are now emboldened yet again. Dig! Frack! Pump! Burn! Don't worry, you're screwed! Ugh.

Posted 3 months ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

AS far as what the oil companies' plans are/were, I don't believe it's actually as you put it:

"the oil companies plan all along was to drag out real change to the point where it was just too late to do anything substantive."

I do, however, happen to know they will resist change as much as possible with absolutely no interest in the public welfare. The bottom line is all that is important to them. All you have to do is look at how they do business in the rest of the world as compared to here in the US. Where they operate in other countries with little to no restrictions, there is absolutely zero effort to adhere to reasonable standards. Their emissions are atrocious. And then when you look at the amount of money they could be making if the emissions limits would be kept to US standards around the world, it becomes infuriating.

It's only with regulation that progress has been made, but only in the areas where the regulation is enforced (ie. US, Europe, etc.) All a reasonable person has to do is look at their actual current practices worldwide and it's understandable how one can become sickened by their utter disregard for the world in which we live.

The problem is, this contempt turns into calls for regulation that either a) Isn't do-able with current technology, b) Leads to use of equally bad (or worse) practices or c) doesn't actually enable the facility to implement current technology which would make a MASSIVE difference in the amount of pollution emitted RIGHT NOW. It's so frustrating to hear the stories of how places like the Sierra Club as well as many more lesser known local activist groups are fighting against their own interests with their actions. There's just such a lack of trust between the parties involved (and for good reason) that it's hard to find a good place to begin to make progress.

Now, if we could just get China and India on board with these standards, it would at least slow down the damage while technology catches up enough to make a difference. Because, it isn't there quite yet...and it may take quite a bit more waiting for it to arrive.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

Just another gut punch brought to you by the wonderful world of "free" market/short term profit motive/capitalism. Again, I wonder what it would take to shame some of these people? The whole notion of it seems foreign to them. Their whole world is built around the capacity to NOT empathize with anything but the Board of Directors and majority stockholders, and their bonus checks. Long term is for suckers.

I'd call it sociopathic but that gives them an excuse. They're just greedy, heartless and careless.

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

i suspect China is starting to get the message, Beijing pollution has been off the charts as of late.

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

Beijing pollution is our pollution. We all share the same atmosphere, one that is becoming hotter and more toxic by the day. India and China are big contributors to be sure, but so is the dude in Westwood with his truck idling out in the driveway for 15 minutes. Individual contributions add up, and make a big difference - whether for harm or for benefit.

Posted 3 months ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

And then there's the "Wonders of Natural Gas" and our new found wealth with regard to it's plenty.

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

WC, exactly right. Truly benign alternative energy sources do not seem to get any support; in fact, it appears that they're being actively suppressed. Could it possibly be because of lower profits in those sectors?

There have also been incredible developments in architecture, i.e., houses that are built to thermally self-regulate with no outside energy sources, regardless of climate. I really believe the technology is being squashed.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

They have and utilize the standard menu of options to reduce green competition: Lobbying for new regulation and purchasing patents and sitting on them. Buying up promising small companies and dissolving their capacity to innovate.

Not implementing or starting and stopping tax breaks for early adopters which reduces investor security and stifles product development (see: Wind Power) Lobbying against subsidies to these nascent technologies even though we're still subsidizing old energy to the tune of billions/yr.

We're working really hard to become a third world nation. And when we do, all those monied folks who CAN, will be living in some Banana Republic they've set up with all the luxuries they desire. Probably have their own bio domes...

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

anonyme agreed pollution in China and India contributes to our pollution. we in the US are also guilty. yes our vehicles are far less polluting than in the past but there are millions and millions of them.

as chinese citizen's see (i mean actually see, taste and feel) the pollution hopefully this will prompt positive change.

Posted 3 months ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

While I believe the issue of competition and maintaining market share is important to energy companies, I think you have to understand the inability of alternative sources to fill the void. There are promising developing technologies and fuel sources, but the reality is they can not be main stream the way our current system is set up.

We've got a major problem brewing. It is not profitable to refine oil. Oil companies are getting out of that portion of the business and refineries are/will be closing because the cost of doing that portion of the business is prohibitive. No one wants to buy them up. This is in no small way due to the environmental regulations we have heaped upon them. These are regulations I happen to think are necessary to maintain a level of environmental stewardship consistant with slowing the impact on our atmosphere/water supply. The problem with this is, when someone wants to buy or re-open these facilities, they must be brought up to current standards. It makes no economic sense to invest in a venture like this when you cannot recoup your money, so these facilities will be closed for a long time until we figure how to get past this problem.

I hate to say it, but we've actually legislated beyond our ability to let capitalism work to our advantage. I don't have a good answer how to fix this. It (in my opinion) is not an option to loosen regulations. Our planet is changing faster than it's systems can keep up with and we are the main drivers of that change. Maybe the answer lies with tying this problem in with national security. Our government MAY have to get into the refining business in some form in order to bring these facilities up to current standards. If we don't there could be pretty significant consequences with regard to our security. But this would be a de-facto subsidy to the oil companies allowing them to profit with minimal investment in the infrastructure they so heavily depend upon to function.

The big picture behind the scene problems that you are so concerned with (stopping tax breaks for competition, lobbying against subsidies for new tech., squashing patents, etc.) may or may not be valid. I can't speak to that. What I can speak to is the current and real problem we've gotten ourselves into. The answer needs to be found soon or we're al in for a rude awakening.

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

WC interesting comment #21.

if it is not profitable to upgrade the refining portion of the business the supply of gas production would be limited. presuming basic unfettered economics the price of gas will rise to a point where installing the environmental controls makes economic sense. essentially a back door mechanism of a carbon tax.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

Well, nothing's mainstream until it is. The fact that we spent almost a trillion dollars in today's money to go to the moon with the only thing at stake being national pride essentially, tells us that the WILL to do something is the starting point. When Kennedy pledged us to do it, we hadn't figured out much of anything about how it was going to actually work. We suspected it could be done and we dove in. Because we were America and someone had thrown down the Sputnik gauntlet. And now, Mother Nature's slapping us square in the face with the back of her hand almost daily. And we relentlessly ignore it and keep on squeezing the life out of our lifeboat.

It's not a priority until it is. And as long as Big Oil can make record profits (however they manage to do so), means they're not going to drive change.

I believe we need to forge a Environmental Industrial Complex. We need an Apollo program for clean energy. Publicly financed at the start with tax dollars funding private industry much like the War Dept. did during WWII, buying best in class technology and implementing it wherever possible. Eventually, you have a self-perpetuating green energy complex. It won't be particularly efficient at the beginning but you may end up with the next Rockefeller or Carnegie of green energy, and frankly I don't care if it turns the thing around.

The only real impediment to this type of big thinking is that the idiots, and I do mean idiots, have methodically torpedoed faith in gov't to lead us on any big endeavor if it ain't WAR. Yes, it's about profits and that won't change but we're going to have to starve THAT DOD beast sometime, might as well put the $ into a worthwhile investment.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

The tyranny of diminished expectations. In action.

Posted 3 months ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

Great idea, wakeflood. Count me in. But...

What do we do about the problems we have now?

We can make a substantial impact on emissions NOW with current technology, yet we've managed to make it cost prohibitive to do it. No one seems to want to admit or face this problem.

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

and we still benefit from all the spin off technological advances due to the Apollo program today :-)

efficiency is an area that has improved significantly and needs to continue to improve. today's appliances use far less energy than appliances that were made a decade ago. this is very good and needs to continue.

building/home construction today requires significantly improved efficiency. yes the upfront cost is more but the monthly energy bill is far less so in the long run the benefit exceeds the cost. and i believe that financing finally acknowledges energy efficiency factoring.

more needs to be done!

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

And for the shortsighted folks who yell "Solyndra" anytime you raise the specter of gov't investment in green technology, well, show me a large-scale change that required tons of technological R&D that batted a thousand? Or even .500?

Go ahead...I'll wait.

You might not want to start with weapons development. You'll find a hundred Solyndra's there. But keep looking.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

WC - what do we do about the problems we have now?

It's a good question. My response is that you do what you can do. And it starts with leadership. Political joined with private.

How many nascent companies with promising technologies could Obama marshall if he wanted to stand with them at his side during the SOTU address and had an audience of environmental groups give him a 5 minute standing O when he announced a big idea for change?

How many of those companies would see instant renewed interest from the billions of investment $ sitting dormant on the sidelines right now?

How many of those products would we start reading about as potential solutions every day in mainstream media? Further fueling the fire of R&D and momentum for change? I'm telling you, it's just sitting there waiting for leadership.

And it could happen tomorrow, if he/we wanted it to.

And since the UK's defense dept. and the U.N. have already gone on record saying climate change is THE BIGGEST threat to future security, we surely must have folks at the DOD who feel similarly and could be prodded to publicly support this type of change. I know they do behind closed doors.

I know many of the technologies aren't ready for primetime but use what's out there now at subsidized rates and build momentum.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

But alas, we have a President who campaigned on "clean coal" in 2008. Ugh.

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

the coal i have seen is black and sooty

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

Well, according to industry sources, they've got new, better coal. The black is now all bright and shiny and the soot is like, waaaay less sooty and stuff. Seriously. Waaaaay less sooty.

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

the use of coal to generate power, even though it is much cleaner than in the past, is still dirty compared to the alternatives and is the worst option in my opinion.

improving energy efficiency is the obvious low hanging fruit.

nuclear power generates no emissions thus from an atmospheric view is a great option; the challenge is with waste disposal and yes safety concerns (that improved designs can keep very minimal).

natural gas that is far cleaner than coal; but is an energy that is easily distributed and can be used to power transportation.

wind, solar and thermal are also good sources that have a definite role but also have challenges.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

I was being factious, GR. Coal is killing the planet. There ain't no such thing as clean coal.

Natural Gas is also very problematic. They just released a study showing that the methane release into the atmosphere is WAY higher than the industry claims. Imagine that? A polluting industry claiming they're clean? Shocking!

And that's on TOP of what they're doing to water tables with fracking.

The bottom line - if you're talking about fossil fuels, you're a part of the problem, not the solution. Even as a transitional energy source. You're trading one evil for another and I'm not sure which is evil-er. Is dying by asphyxiation better or worse than dying by poison?

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

WF - yes I understood your comment on coal and agree with you.

natural gas is is no saint, but is better than coal.

energy conservation is clearly choice #1.

creating a stable base power resource is imperative; and right now nuclear power is the most viable option that I am aware of.

of course wind, solar and thermal will also be a part of the equation.

WF I am curious as to what option you believe is best? I agree fossil fuels need to go the way of the dinosaur, pardon the pun.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

Well, if you force me to NOT choose my option of an Apollo-level program for renewables, then, with a gun to my head, I choose nuclear as a partial solution along with heavy conservation and as pumped up as you can get with renewables as fast as you can. License every solar, wind, tidal plant you can get on the boards asap. Even if you're subsidizing or they need to be replaced/upgraded in 10yrs. due to obsolescence.

You CAN make nuclear safer than the 1st/2nd gen plants still operating here but you can't build another plant until you sort out waste storage. Yucca sounds like it ain't gonna' happen and if that's true, I haven't heard of a viable 2nd option. Wonder what France is doing with all their spent material??

It's just a pity that we have to keep talking about 20yrs. from now as the time when we can make a big push for change. We've been talking about this issue in earnest since the 70's and we have only been burning up faster instead of making change. The "environmental" generation forgot that many of their brethren sold out to greed and resisted change in exchange for $. Shame on all of us shortsighted fools.

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

waste storage is a big challenge, Yucca from my limited knowledge is the best option. But I know the NIMBY attitude has created a big road block on this.

too bad President Carter could not press his energy policy more successfully.

licensing all solar, wind and tidal without due process would not be appropriate. i agree they are a very important part of the equation but these resource still need to be developed based on reasoned economics and be appropriately mitigated.

Posted 3 months ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

Storage (for nuclear) isn't the only issue. You will never build another nuclear facility in the United States. Can't be done. No one wants it anywhere near them. The regulatory hurdles are far too high. It's a total non-starter. It's the same issue with refineries. We need more of them, *edit- and cleaner ones which are very possible* but another will not be built, and more are going to be closing in the relatively near future.

The problem is there's an insatiable appetite for energy and no way to provide for it in a clean way right now. We could clean up the facilities, but have made it too expensive to do so. Also, in many cases, in order to clean up the current facilities, you have to apply for a permit to do so. These permits by default change the output levels of the facilities. When you do this, the public weighs in and there is a huge outcry to stop the perceived expansion of the facility in question. This leads to inaction and in effect is the public's ignorances working against themselves. It's a huge problem.

Look, fossil fuels need to go away and the quicker the better. I'm just saying there's no way that's going to happen any time soon, and as a society we lack the basic understanding and trust of the industries who supply them to elicit real immediate change for the greater good.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

OK, so what's the reasoned economics behind massive subsidies for Big Oil?

And where's the "due process" for fracking, and opening up massive tracts of shoreline to oil wells?

What, exactly, are we waiting for? Someone to tell us what the lesser of evils is by a specific percentage? Like that calculation wouldn't be challenged any way it was figured? Mitigation comes down to $. Paying landowners, land swaps, etc. Why are we offering those options to fossil fuels more readily than renewables?? Oh yeah, they own Congress. So, tell me again, what you consider "due process" and what "reasoned economics" you need to see? Are you implying that the true, burdened costs are being used to calculate fossil fuel production and use?? What would any simple addition of a simple PORTION of that cost do to the equation?

I need to know more about this, "let's not be bold" strategy. I mean, it's worked so well so far, right?

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

wf - no argument regarding oil company subsidies, the lack of due process for fracking and shoreline oil wells.

the price of fuel, in particular gasoline should factor in environmental cost. the prevalence of cheap gas (even at $4 a gallon) is a big part of the problem and challenge. politically even tacking on a small increase in the use fee and people scream bloody murder. yet the use of gas is adversely effecting the planet.

europeans pay significantly more for fuel than we do in the US. personally i would support incrementally raising the use fee by say $0.10/year indefinitely. thus eventually pricing gasoline to a point of extinction via pricing. by doing it incrementally theoretically it gives people and the economy time to adjust.

Posted 3 months ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

Not what I'm saying at al. I'm just telling you how it actually is. In my opinion we need the Apollo Program styled thinking. We need to be bold. However, we also need to be realistic in our approach to our current situation.

Here's what I propose. Instead of having it as an "either or" situation, we need to address the current problems we have. Subsidies aren't the problem, it's the way they are being spent that is. The money should go to mandatory updating of all our major production facilities (refineries, pulp and paper, concrete, etc) to bring them to modern standards. This will make a MASSIVE difference in their impact on the environment. We also need to end all tax breaks to oil and natural gas facilities and divert that new found income to your R&D idea. We can implement the best ideas as the technology becomes viable for widespread use. Next, we need to stick that nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. I know this is basically directly screwing the fine people of Clark County, Nevada (what gets buried next to Vegas, stays next to Vegas), but the security issue alone is enough to make that hard choice a necessity. Solar panels should be put on every roof in america. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Yeah, this is a massive undertaking, but in my opinion, this is one step that can single handedly fundamentally change the security of this country for the better.

So the big catch to this is pretty obvious. We must be prepared to pay much higher prices at the pump, which in turn means higher prices for pretty much everything else as well. Which means in the short term, stifling economic growth. Which means a lot of people REALLY pissed off. Which means the political will to make something like this work doesn't really exist in a democracy tied to monetary gains. Which means we need to take the big money out of politics. Which means election reform from the curent officials currently benefiting form the system....

You get the idea.

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

Sorry for the screed but there's a bottom line to this. There is no magic bullet here. Cold Fusion isn't going to run my dishwasher next week. But for godsakes we make all these economic concessions to fossil fuels simply because they own gov't.

If we don't have the will to develop renewables with some vigor, we're doomed. Look at every major scientific advancement that went from theory to practice. Manhattan Project. Apollo Program. Both those took leaps of faith, will and TONS of $!! Why isn't saving the planet worthy enough for that level of effort? It is for some countries? Did you know China is busy buying up the rights to 21st century high tech, limited availability minerals needed for solar panels and all those other new technologies?? Guess who's going to be naming the market price for those in 5 or 10 yrs.??

I'm just baffled by the reluctance to be bold. It's not like I don't get that the economics aren't great today. What would someone charge you to build a Saturn 5 rocket in 1960, when Von Braun conceived it??

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

We were writing at the same time. :-) You're dead on. This stuff is all tied together and the political will isn't there. I'm trying to get $ out of politics any way I can. (Publicly Financed Elections anyone? Anyone??)

And yes, Yucca has to happen. At least you put all your poison in one place.

So, we agree on much. Thanks for the discussion. :-)

Now that we've solved the country's energy problem, I'm off to chores!

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

and maybe go for a walk, the sun is out :-)

Posted 3 months ago #
wakeflood
Member Profile

Is THAT what that is??

Posted 3 months ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

yes the yellow thing, it was a nice change.

Posted 3 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2013, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^