Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
All you posted was the same articles released a week ago, a fact sheet from none other than BP, and some idiot with a blog who merely regurgitated what was on BP's fact sheet.Top Wop wrote:I dont know if you are trying to make yourself look credible or not,
ah, but these multiple report links are EXACTLY the point, which is that some few reporters inaccurately wrote stories and that now the public is reacting (wildly and hysterically, imho) to the bogus information in these stories. So multiple links of the same thing are just indicative of the fact that the reporters are just parroting data without doing their own research.... but all of those links at the beginning ether talk about the same thing or are ponitless, just posting one same thing after another 4 times, just different sources.
If someone starting spreading incorrect information about you all over the newspapers and the airwaves, wouldn't you seek to respond to it and get that information corrected?All you posted was the same articles released a week ago, a fact sheet from none other than BP, and some idiot with a blog who merely regurgitated what was on BP's fact sheet.
(a) yes, they have a permit for more TSS, but the discharge will still be within compliance limits set in the Clean Water Act.Yellow journalism or not, this doesn't change the fact that they will be discharging more TSS than before. I don't know if you have heard of Lake Erie. We have enough problems as is with invasive species in Lake Michigan.
Actually, none of the links I posted discussed what TSS was.Here's a link I believe is more informative and credible than some of the others you posted:
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/BACT/info/TSS.html
You must REALLY trust interplay thenTop Wop wrote:...I dont trust them one bit. Not while they are making record profits.
Come now, Mr. Hawthorne, you are too modest!! The article in question was from July 15th, where you said the followingMichael Hawthorne wrote: Few complained about the permit while it was under consideration earlier this year, something critics said could be attributed to paltry outreach by BP and Indiana regulators. But following a Tribune story about the project in mid-July, opponents gathered more than 100,000 petition signatures, …
(all emphases are mine, unless otherwise stated), andMichael Hawthorne wrote: The massive BP oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., is planning to dump significantly more ammonia and industrial sludge into Lake Michigan, running counter to years of efforts to clean up the Great Lakes.”
As I have demonstrated in previous posts, Mr. Hawthorne either (a) read the permit and did not understand it, (b) read the permit and decided to completely ignore the clear statement in the permit that said that sludge dumping of any kind was not allowed (and hence BP could not have been making an application to dump more sludge into the lake), or (c) he simply did not even read the permit. Yet Mr. Hawthorne and his editor(s) left the story as they did, and I do not believe that yet to this day have they retracted any of this false assertion of sludge dumping.“Under BP's new state water permit, the refinery -- already one of the largest polluters along the Great Lakes -- can release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more sludge into Lake Michigan each day. Ammonia promotes algae blooms that can kill fish, while sludge is full of concentrated heavy metals.”
Come now, Mr. Hawthorne, where is the confident assurance of your previous writing that BP was dumping actual sludge into the lake? Since when did this become “suspended solids”? But notice the way he still tries to eke out a measure of respectability for his prior report by stating that the suspended solids are “tiny sludge particles”. These micron-sized particles can come from anywhere in the wastewater treatment process, so trying to rescue his previous statement of sludge “full of concentrated heavy metals”, to coin a phrase, simply does not wash.Michael Hawthorne wrote: The permit allows BP to put an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of suspended solids into the lake every day. The amount of solids, tiny sludge particles that pass through water treatment filters, is the maximum allowed under federal guidelines.
