Enviornmental Issues in the GOM

[Gadagirl]

There Are Massive Chemical Dumps In The Gulf We Know Almost Nothing About

In the 1970s, the EPA allowed chemical companies to dump toxic waste into the deep sea. Now, oil giants are drilling right on top of it.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6080551be4b03fc5b217aba9

I find this very disturbing. More disturbing than the recent event in Florida. Also curious what else was allowed off of east and west coast that we know nothing about. And knowing we probably are not the only country that did such things? Or not knnowing what other countries are dumping now, or more recently. It's no wonder all living creatures have traces of dangerous chemicals running through their blood streams. It's so disheartening.

[boatman61]

A historic example...
During 1955-56, the British dumped a further 17,000 tons of captured German munitions. During 1956-1957, the British disposed of the remainder of their stockpile of chemical weapons: 8,000 tons of World War II vintage mustard and phosgene munitions. News reports indicated that ocean dumping in the 1950s occurred mainly in the Irish Sea.
However..
The London Convention on the Disposal of Wastes at Sea (1972) and the Oslo Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution in the North East Atlantic (1972) ended munitions disposal on the UK Continental Shelf. The Oslo and Paris Conventions later became the OSPAR Convention (1992).

[Gadagirl]

Well it seems more managed in your country. I'm cocerned about idustrial waste produced worldwide also. If the US was doing it who else also? Do ypu know that industrial waste wasn't dumped? Only munitions waste? Not like munition waste should be taken lightly.

[skipmac]

Besides dumping in the ocean there's serious things going on inland. US regulations one allowable method to dispose of chemical waste is deep well injection. Guess the government thinks if you pump a few thousand feet underground it will disappear forever.

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Besides dumping in the ocean there's serious things going on inland. US regulations one allowable method to dispose of chemical waste is deep well injection. Guess the government thinks if you pump a few thousand feet underground it will disappear forever.

Exactly. And that is the source of tainted drinking water and soil, and air. And cancer clusters around chemical, coal power plants, other chemical Industries and military installations.

[S/V Illusion]

Deep well injection has been used for decades as has ocean dumping. My advice is to get used to it unless everyone wants to eliminate the petrochemical industry on which we are dependent for everything from boats, pharmaceutical, building materials, fertilizer, cars and trucks, electricity, engine fuels,...., all of which inherently generate waste byproducts.

I suspect everyone worried about pollution uses them all.

[sailingabe41ds]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Deep well injection has been used for decades as has ocean dumping. My advice is to get used to it unless everyone wants to eliminate the petrochemical industry on which we are dependent for everything from boats, pharmaceutical, building materials, fertilizer, cars and trucks, electricity, engine fuels,...., all of which inherently generate waste byproducts.

I suspect everyone worried about pollution uses them all.

Second that....take a look at what it took to make your sailboat, car, the beautiful dress you wear or colored hair. Radiation, meteors, global cooling, global warming, ozone layer, farting cows...list goes on. You can lead a miserable life thinking about it and making yourself ill or..."don't worry, be happy".

Abe

[GordMay]

Chris D’Angelo’s article is an interesting and informative indictment of the practice of corporate ‘externalizing’* of the inconvenient costs of their industries.
It should be required reading, for all ‘deregulation’ theorists.
➥ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/toxic...b03fc5b217aba9

Originally Posted by Chris D’Angelo

”... Needless to say, these claims (by Charles McCreery) are a lot harder to substantiate than what we know to be true: that Shell and other chemical companies dumped a lot of chemicals in the Gulf 50 years ago, with the permission of the EPA, and we have very little information about what has happened in the years since ...”

* In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit that is imposed on a third party [society] who did not agree to incur that cost or benefit. For the purpose of these statements, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the imputed monetary value of benefits and costs to all parties involved.

[dannc]

Decades ago when I left South East Florida, they were finishing up, or had finished up, a well in Broward county used to pump treated waste water into the aquafer. The waste was pumped into a non drinking water aquafer well below the aquafer from which drinking water was pumped. Or so they said. This was done because environmentalists did not want the treated water pumped into the Gulfstream.

Lets not even go to the gazillions of dollars that have been spent destroying the Everglades and waterways feeding the Everglades, no the gazillions spent, but wasted, trying to fix what was done....

Later,
Dan

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Deep well injection has been used for decades as has ocean dumping. My advice is to get used to it unless everyone wants to eliminate the petrochemical industry on which we are dependent for everything from boats, pharmaceutical, building materials, fertilizer, cars and trucks, electricity, engine fuels,...., all of which inherently generate waste byproducts.

I suspect everyone worried about pollution uses them all.

You are preaching to the choir regarding chemicals. I am in chemical business and deal in some rather nasty products so of course am not blindly opposed to the manufacture and use of chemicals. In fact I have made similar statements to yours to others in the past. You don't like chemicals? Then you have to give up your computer, car, your nice house, heat and air-conditioning, move to the woods and live in an unpainted log cabin you built with stone tools and wear clothes made from untanned animal hides.

However there are better and worse ways to deal with chemicals, to dispose of the waste and in some application switch to more environmentally friendly chemicals. People can switch to more efficient cars, conserve energy in other ways, recycle whenever possible including recycling and reuse of chemicals generated as waste or byproducts.

Saying get used to the dumping of toxic waste in the ocean or pumping it down a well where it does not go away but instead can easily migrate back into the water table at best ignores the potential for long term and irreversible damage to the planet and so far we only have the one. Arguing that something is justified because it has been done for decades is specious at best.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by sailingabe41ds

Second that....take a look at what it took to make your sailboat, car, the beautiful dress you wear or colored hair. Radiation, meteors, global cooling, global warming, ozone layer, farting cows...list goes on. You can lead a miserable life thinking about it and making yourself ill or..."don't worry, be happy".

Abe

Being aware of problems and working to find better solutions does not seem to make most people miserable nor ill. I spend most days feeling quite happy.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Deep well injection has been used for decades as has ocean dumping. My advice is to get used to it unless everyone wants to eliminate the petrochemical industry on which we are dependent for everything from boats, pharmaceutical, building materials, fertilizer, cars and trucks, electricity, engine fuels,...., all of which inherently generate waste byproducts.

I suspect everyone worried about pollution uses them all.

I'm afraid you hit the nail right on the head.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by skipmac

However there are better and worse ways to deal with chemicals, to dispose of the waste and in some application switch to more environmentally friendly chemicals. People can switch to more efficient cars, conserve energy in other ways, recycle whenever possible including recycling and reuse of chemicals generated as waste or byproducts.

.

Switching, conserving, recycling or reuse, etc... are all actions we can and are taking which, at best, only reduce the need for waste disposal, not eliminate it. It sounds good and pandering politicians like to sing those tunes. Unfortunately, the need for disposal will continue and it’s naive to think otherwise.

Best management practices are the practical goal, not some ‘pie in the sky’ vision of waste elimination which is both technically and economically infeasible.

[billgewater]

An interesting text relevant to all the above is "In Government We Trust - Market Failure and the Delusions of Privatisation" by Funnell, Jupe and Andrew. ISBN 978 086840 966 5 (pbk). A bit dated but it deals with Australia, NZ and Britain's economic models and how politics has allowed those responsible for much of the mess we are in to evade any responsibility. The general gist is that the wealth created supposedly enhances everyone's lives, but the caveats are firm. The wealth generated does not really trickle down but the environmental (and financial) catastrophes are socialised. One of my past students once observed that the real serious pollution problem is all the old folks hanging around. Malthusian? Cheerful stuff eh?

[Gadagirl]

And here we go! Pacific dump site.

apnews.com/article/health-science-environment-and-nature-business-government-and-politics-4c3fb6b069e44e3421a34280268efd1d

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Marine scientists say they have found what they believe to be more than 25,000 barrels that possibly contain DDT dumped off the Southern California coast near Catalina Island, where a massive underwater toxic waste site dating back to World War II has long been suspected.

The 27,345 “barrel-like” objects were captured in high-resolution images as part of a study by researchers at the University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. They mapped more than 56 square miles (145 square kilometers) of seafloor between Santa Catalina Island and the Los Angeles coast in a region previously found to contain high levels of the toxic chemical in sediments and in the ecosystem.

Historical shipping logs show that industrial companies in Southern California used the basin as a dumping ground until 1972, when the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, also known as the Ocean Dumping Act, was enacted.