|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Jonnyboy
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 22806
Location: location, location
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 29, 09 1:38 pm Post subject: |
 
|
Any bit in particular? |
|
|
|
 |
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 16803
Location: York
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 09 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
| bodger wrote: |
| Rob. if you sit down and read what i've put on this thread, I think that i've made my position abundantly clear and repeating myself is not going to make it any clearer. |
Bodge. I've been sitting down, and I've been reading (several times in some cases) your posts (and my own) to see exactly where you have answered the points/questions clearly. OK, you think you have answered your own, but you certainly haven't answered mine, though I have tried to deduce the logical conclusions from what you did actually say. Repeating yourself does not make anything clearer (apart from in the spoken word), which is why I don't ask you to repeat yourself. Your position appears to be entrenched, and if this is how you reply to a post in which I say I agree, it makes me wonder how you would respond to someone out rightly dismissing your views.  |
|
|
|
|
bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 6704
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 09 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
Not entrenched at all. The position that I'm sure that I've made clear to most people,  is that without demise of heavy industry within the UK, no amount of good work by environmentalists and the like would have gotten our rivers into the improved condition that we now find them in.
As well as the fact that less pollution is being pumped into our rivers because the polluters have ceased to be, it can also be argued that if we still had and needed our coal, coke and steel industries etc to survive economically then the regulations that we have to protect the environment would never have been brought into being.
When has idealism and right been stronger than the pound ? |
|
|
|
|
Nick
Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 17541
Location: Hereford
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 09 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
Do you dispute James' last post, then?
I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I'm minded to think that James has actual facts and knowledge, rather than guess work. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 16803
Location: York
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 09 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
| cab wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| So, a downturn in the industrial economy, with margins being tightened, means it is now more affordable to clean up? Yeah OK, if you say so. |
The decline in heavy industry was something that was, in a lot of places, disproportionate to the entire economic state (as evidenced by the deepening North/South divide of the '80s). So, yes, the downturn in heavy industry causing immense harm to certain waterways really did coincide with more funds for cleaning up waterways and better policing the remaining industries. |
Thanks cab, for your earlier concise response to my question on page 5.
The above quote of myself is taken a little out of context from the post to which it refers however. From Jonnyboy's 'regardless of their growth, or decline?' and the response, it sounded as though we could only clean up after declining industries & would be less inclined to clean up after the ones that did still have a worthwhile (even increasing) economic role. I don't believe that is the case, as there are more drivers for change at work here than the change in the financial contribution of industry. As such China & India are good examples now but already we are beginning to see, they are just on the same cycle we have come through. I don't see what reason is there to suppose that improved quality of life (in this case in the form of the environment) is a result of, as opposed to a precursor for, industrial decline. As they, as a populace, become richer I can't envisage them putting up with & adding to the pollution they have brought upon themselves just because it continues to make them money. With wealth usually comes a desire to improve one's surroundings that is not coincidence- that wealth being a direct result of the success, not the decline, of industry. In agriculture we are seeing tightening of spray & fertiliser regulations. I don't think that it is any coincidence that wealthy people in commuter belts are complaining about such things happening on their doorstep and it is contributing towards, as opposed to a result of, making agriculture less competitive on the world market. Those that remain will either have to find ways of cleaning up and remaining competitive, or leave the industry. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 16803
Location: York
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 09 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
| bodger wrote: |
| Not entrenched at all. The position that I'm sure that I've made clear to most people, is that without demise of heavy industry within the UK, no amount of good work by environmentalists and the like would have gotten our rivers into the improved condition that we now find them in. |
I was assuming entrenched as I find your replies to me quite patronising, such as the rolling eyes & addressing me by name as a single sentence, even when I am largely in agreement (I think). Please just answer me this, what proportion of environmental improvement do you think is down to industrial decline & concious efforts, respectively? I assumed, because of your abrupt question-as-an-answer, that it would be less than 100/0.
| Nick wrote: |
| I don't think you're necessarily wrong |
Incidentally, I concur. |
|
|
|
|
James
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 2674
Location: York
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 09 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
| bodger wrote: |
| When has idealism and right been stronger than the pound ? |
when its enshrined in law |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 30158
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
| James wrote: |
....and yet the river quality has improved. Fish counts are up, Seal numbers are up. Its one of the few industrial estuaries that is now a salmonid water course. |
You're right, the Tees is clearly cleaner than it once was... If I recall correctly, the Tees is one of the rivers most studied for finding the link between levels of industry and pollution, is that correct (seems to be an example you're most familiar with, hopefully that means I don't need to re-read this; I was reading up on lead and arsenate contamination a couple of years ago, can't remember where I'd have the papers stashed away now  )
There have been a series of interesting papers on it; do I recall correctly that the levels of heavy metal contaminants (and also things like arsenic/arsenates) have been directly linked not only with peak levels of mining in the Tees basin, but with the processing of said mined materials in the catchmetn of the Tees? So yes, there are still petrochemicals there, there is still a steelworks there, etc. but you're not really comparing like with like; older, environmentally damaging industries have been lost, they've been replaced with other sectors which are not spread out around the river, they're based on the estuary because of the transport/freight/pipeline links that offers. They're bigger individual sites, making monitoring feasible, meaning also that tracing contamination is possible for the first time.
I don't seek to put down the good work done in monitoring these sites in any way; but would there be any way of doing that, indeed any point in doing that, if there were dozens/hundreds of mining/extraction operations in the catchment zone for the Tees each contributing a small, practically untraceable amount, which in totality were causing more harm than the well monitored big operations? Wasn't that, historically, where most of the serious contamination in the Tees came from? |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 30158
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
| I don't see what reason is there to suppose that improved quality of life (in this case in the form of the environment) is a result of, as opposed to a precursor for, industrial decline. |
Reflecting on James giving us the Tees as a counter example to the one I used (the Tyne), it strikes me that there are three phenomena going on here. One is industrial decline, i.e. major polluting industries are killed off and stop contributing pollutants to waterways, the second would be the change of heavy/chemical industry away from being many small sites into fewer, larger, easier to monitor sites, and the third is the intentional enforcement of better environmental standards.
Talking to old timers back on Tyneside... I dunno, but you never hear them say 'oh, gosh, but it was dirty the Tyne, it would have been nice if someone had enforced better standards of cleanliness', what you hear is 'well, the river was dirty, but we had work in the shipyards; my dad was a left handed riveter, he earned more there than his brother who stayed in Stanley and went down the pit'. People who grow up with heavy, dirty industries supplying wealth and work, people who entirely rely on that, don't tend to be nimbys. And even now if you go into the CIU clubs in Wallsend and tell them that the post-industrial Environment is better so they've got a better quality of life, they'll laugh at you; your definition of 'quality of life' has more reliance on a clean environment than many others would have. |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 30158
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
| Nick wrote: |
Do you dispute James' last post, then?
I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I'm minded to think that James has actual facts and knowledge, rather than guess work. |
It would be foolish to dispute the facts as laid out by James, but I do think that the story of pollution in the Tees is broader than that. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 16803
Location: York
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
| cab wrote: |
| People who grow up with heavy, dirty industries supplying wealth and work, people who entirely rely on that, don't tend to be nimbys. |
That wasn't my inference though. Environmental work is rarely the concern of old timers (until they come down with some nasty industrial disease). Their children, grandchildren often move away from the industry ('escape'), yet have still benefitted from the wealth it generated and it is them who seek to improve the environment for themselves and their children (or even for their aging parents/grandparents). Wealth generation seldom ends at the factory gates. Quality of life is something that is measured across the population, rather than at individual level and the environment affects it in so many ways particularly health, socially & economically. |
|
|
|
|
James
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 2674
Location: York
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
| cab wrote: |
| do I recall correctly that the levels of heavy metal contaminants (and also things like arsenic/arsenates) have been directly linked not only with peak levels of mining in the Tees basin, but with the processing of said mined materials in the catchmetn of the Tees? |
Yes, you're correct. Much of the contamination is from the waste materials associated with the mining (which was used as cheap/ free aggregate across large areas of the pennines), and also the proccessing of the lead ore into lead.
However this re-inforces an earlier point I made: just becuase the industry no longer exists, it doesnt mean that the contamination has stopped.
Much of the lead slag heaps in Swale Dale and Tees Dale are still leaching lead, made worse when the MOD decides to bulldoze them to make tracks through their training grounds
And one particular lead works which you may be familar with, St. Anthony's lead works (Walker river side, Wallsend), is still leaching lead and antimony into the Tyne.
I agree it's a heck of a lot easier regulating one large industry than many small ones, but I'm sure Rob and lots of other farmers will tell you that small companies are being targeted just as hard. Its not like the one man bands are being let off.
How environmental regulation would have evolved had not the thinning out of the 'small boys" occured is another argument all together. I'd suggest it would still have occured, just in a different manner.
What we are moving towards is a risk based approach. In environmentally sensitive areas, we will provide more help and guidance to firms to ensure they meet their statutary requirements. We will also concentrate on firms who have a track record of not looking after their hazadous substances safely.
Likewise, if your not in a sensitive area, or if you're known to work with your substances safely and correctly, then the chances are you'll see a reduction in Environment Agency involvement. |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 30158
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
| James wrote: |
Yes, you're correct. Much of the contamination is from the waste materials associated with the mining (which was used as cheap/ free aggregate across large areas of the pennines), and also the proccessing of the lead ore into lead.
However this re-inforces an earlier point I made: just becuase the industry no longer exists, it doesnt mean that the contamination has stopped.
|
Kind of; while the contamination (and other ongoing problems like subsidence) does not stop with cessation of mining, it does rather change and slow down once you deal with the major waste heaps, once you're no longer accumulating new waste. Presumably there would be a steady decay curve for rate of contamination?
| Quote: |
Much of the lead slag heaps in Swale Dale and Tees Dale are still leaching lead, made worse when the MOD decides to bulldoze them to make tracks through their training grounds
And one particular lead works which you may be familar with, St. Anthony's lead works (Walker river side, Wallsend), is still leaching lead and antimony into the Tyne. |
Errm... I know where it is I think, but the lead works... Heck, when did that close? Long time still to be leaching out pollution! What do you suppose the rate of leaching is now relative to, say, peak output?
| Quote: |
I agree it's a heck of a lot easier regulating one large industry than many small ones, but I'm sure Rob and lots of other farmers will tell you that small companies are being targeted just as hard. Its not like the one man bands are being let off.
How environmental regulation would have evolved had not the thinning out of the 'small boys" occured is another argument all together. I'd suggest it would still have occured, just in a different manner. |
Ahh... Heres the crux of the discussion really. Would the emphasis on keeping our rivers clean be possible if we were still seeing lots and lots of little industrial sites each contributing a very small amount to a greater whole? I would maintan that it is unlikely, because each 'little' player would struggle to afford to be clean, and that the net impact of higher environmental standards would therefore be politically unacceptable; it isn't like agricutlure because, of course, the total number of people working at such sites was relatively large. So the economic and political cost of enforcing better environmental standards would be much greater.
| Quote: |
What we are moving towards is a risk based approach. In environmentally sensitive areas, we will provide more help and guidance to firms to ensure they meet their statutary requirements. We will also concentrate on firms who have a track record of not looking after their hazadous substances safely.
Likewise, if your not in a sensitive area, or if you're known to work with your substances safely and correctly, then the chances are you'll see a reduction in Environment Agency involvement. |
The practical aspects of dealing with the EA have always been far less intimidating than the written codes; people I've encountered in the organisation have always shown plenty of common sense, just as you describe. Personally, I'm glad we're now in an era where the true value of the work that the EA do can be appreciated, but I remain skeptical whether that could have occurred in our dirtier industrial era. |
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 14668
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
Found out today that many of our old works (particulalry after heavy rain) still have to deal with historic contamination from metals and chemicals leaching into the sewers and the disturbance of sediment in the sewers. Many of the chemicals have not been in use for decades, either phased out or due to closures but we are still treating the legacy. One of the major problems is something used in mothballs or for mothproofing carpets and textiles. Naturally this is considered to be not a good thing if it gets in the rivers. |
|
|
|
|
James
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 2674
Location: York
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
| Cab wrote: |
| Presumably there would be a steady decay curve for rate of contamination? |
yes, its probably many hundreds of years. The ore held within the tailings needs to weather and breakdown to release the lead.
| Cab wrote: |
| Errm... I know where it is I think, but the lead works... Heck, when did that close? Long time still to be leaching out pollution! What do you suppose the rate of leaching is now relative to, say, peak output? |
Last one closed in 1871, so its still got a few centuries of pollution yet to go. The concentrations relative to when it was active... yes, it'll be lower, but its all relative to how the indevidual particles break down, and thats a constant rate, so it wont be that different.
p.s: I'm going on holiday this evening, so I'm signing off from this discsussion |
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts