Environmental experts: Does pumping 'toxic gumbo' into the Gulf of Mexico

[GoBlue]

make sense to you?

[tk2kewl]

1. what is the alterative, though?

[rfkrfk]

10. where does the toxic 'muck' go, when cleanup begins ?

470,000 dump truck loads of muck will soon be leaving N.O. ,
head towards who knows where

or could the threat of lawsuits,
stop this poisonous journey

[slor]

2. I am furious that it is even on the table!

I do not know an alternative, but that should NOT be one of them. Truck that shit out and run it through Thermal Depolymerization if necessary. I think all coastal states should be warned that dumping it into the Gulf is being considered so they can fight it tooth and nail!

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Impossible. Think about it this way. Everytime it rains it ends up in

gulf. If people left completely, it would end up in the gulf.

If the River were allowed it's natural course, it would end up in the Gulf.

It's major pollution but if they don't pump it out, it will end up in the gulf anyway, and there is no humanly possible way to truck it out.

Think of all the pollution from all those millions of trucks.

[GeorgeGist]

6. If NO is mostly below sea level can it still get to the gulf if it's left

in the bowl?

[slor]

7. OK...so do not truck it out...

build a thermal depolymerization plant right there, and run the pump pipes right to it. Anything has got to be better than more pollution in the Gulf. Every city should have at least one anyway, not just for renewable fuel, but for what I see as a better use, sewage treatment. So we build a New Orleans plant NOW.

[FloridaPat]

3. Just depends on how long you want NO to remain under water.

I don't it's too environmentally toxic. It's very toxic because of human remains. The ocean gets lots of dead human every year. Just look at the tsunami.

[Submariner]

5. The pollutants will contribute to the "Dead Zone"

offshore of the mouth of the Mississippi River, but the Gulf's fisheries are already a total wreck.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Depends on which toxins are involved

Organic toxins will biodegrade over time; human waste can biodegrade in a matter of hours in the right conditions, and even plastic biodegrades, most of it within a few years. In situ bioremediation would seem to be the best method to pursue since the Gulf is already ecologically "stressed out". Rainwater, composting, and picking out metals for recycling might make the most sense if most of New Orleans is going to be uninhabited for five years or more.

The phrase "Toxic Gumbo" is a journalistic invention to make the news as exciting as possible. Petrochemicals and poop may be toxic to humans in the short term, but they are not impossible to deal with in the long term. I would be more concerned with the rehabilitation of the remaining natural and artificial "structures" from buildings to bedrock (as in: can they be rehabilitated at all?). The long-term stability of the earths and rock systems may be especially critical. Soaking them in water for a long period of time seems likely to weaken them severely and make re-building problematic.

And then there's the problem that we just don't know what kind of damage we'll find once we start looking at the damage.

I hope that covers it -- feel free to add or correct any of my "errors and omissions".

--p!

[applegrove]

9. I don't know what to say. Toxic Gumbo is dumped into the oceans every

single day. Certainly raw sewage is and the odd Cruise ship dumps hazardous chemicals into the sea if they can get away with it.

My first worry is for the people of NO. Will they suffer from cancer, cholera and all in numbers? If so - what other choice do you have.

I mean I like the environment - and if NO is empty then perhaps they can dispose or clean up some of it up in a proper fashion.

I really don't know that it would be a choice. I think that is what it comes down to.

That is why the State needs to keep control. Cause they - unlike the feds - have a conscience.