Yambag - That’s actually not a terrible idea, but I don’t think the bottom of the river in that area is higher than the lake. So they would also have to block off lake water and pump out the river water. Not a very easy or cheap thing to do, I’m sure.
Agreed, that method is commonly used in certain applications, but I don’t think this will be one of them.
It’s a shame the area is so polluted, but I guess that’s par for the course with all the industry around there over the years.
It has to be higher than the lake, or the lake would be flowing INTO the Buffalo River.
I think he was pointing out that yambag’s plan involves waiting for the Great Lakes to run dry once you damn up the Buffalo River.
They have ways to mitigate the spread of toxins during dredging, but they won’t get everything. And even if a little gets by, the point is to remove the concentrations of the toxins. Concentrated amounts are harmful, the .0001% that might remain or spread out is no more harmful than what’s already free-flowing.
It’s not like they’re dredging out a chemical weapon stash and everyone (including the fish) is going to die.
When you put it that way it sounds terrible. But when you dredge stuff like this it needs to go somewhere. Putting it on virgin land would be dumb so they’re placing it on a brownfield location that’s already contaminated. From there it will be remediated like everything else. This is exactly what they should be doing.
The color of the water is just turbidity (sediments suspended in the water) and not “pollution.”
The only problem you guys would have is if you’re constantly stirring up the sediments at the bottom of the river.
Bacteria however is entirely another problem…
Ah, good point. Regardless, I think removing dry toxin laden dirt is a lot worse than wet. I’m picturing a giant dust cloud of awful spreading over the downtown area the first time the winds came up.
As it stands now that giant dust cloud will only go into Lackawanna with where they’re dumping all the sediment.
You sound like an expert Josh. Is this what you do for a living?
Sorry, I should have said it like this: The BOTTOM of the river is lower than the SURFACE of the lake. So blocking the water upstream would never allow that portion of the Buffalo river to run dry because it would be back filled by lake water. I’m sure SOME water would drain, but I doubt the area where the grain elevators are would see too significant of a drop in water level.
Does this make more sense or is the 2 hours of sleep I got last night showing? lol
EDIT - Yes thank you, Fry. lol
Paulo that makes sense.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. It probably should have made sense at first but I’m pretty tired today too.
I still don’t like the idea of dumping it on the waterfront, brownfield or not. Just because something is polluted doesn’t mean you’re free to mess it up even more in the name of cleaning up another area. I’m sure they’ll claim that there is zero percent chance it will leach into the lake but with the track record this area has had I’d be a lot more comfortable with it being put somewhere else. Lake Ontario Ordnance Works ring a bell? And I mean that as an example of how they’ll fuck it up, not that we should put it there.
That’s debatable, but nothing is going to get swept up in a windstorm, lol. The gov has regulations that require construction areas to contain CLEAN dirt from being picked up by the wind and blown off construction sites, so you can bet these sediments will be contained. They’ll likely be inside or covered to prevent rain water from leaching the toxins further from the dredged sediments into the soil or water table.
Not what I do for a living, but what I went to school for.
This is a good thing guys. Buffalo is one of the most polluted areas in the country and part of the reason why nothing gets built on the waterfront. Any movement to clean things up is a step in the right direction :tup:
I know, just dig it up and use it to make roads.
We could call these guys they could dig a giant hole and hide it?
http://www.wben.com/Feds--Extensive-Asbestos-Fraud-at-Buffalo-Project/10534106
Radiological contamination has nothing to do with THIS thread topic, lol.
Well, it kind of does, because it’s part of a pattern of corruption and incompetence when dealing with these issues on a local level. I agree, cleaning this up is a GREAT thing, but citizens need to keep on top of this and make sure the right questions are being asked or there is a good chance it will be made worse than it was before.
They should just dig it up and spread it out in the lake.
You’re comparing the knowledge & decisions made in the 1940’s to 2011. The EPA wasn’t even established until 1970. They have nothing in common.
Would you all PLEASE give the politicians and the lawyers a chance to make this worse than it already is! Thank you.
I’m sure it will get blocked by at least one lawsuit. It’ll disrupt the habitat of a mosquito or something.
LOL Remember when the signature bridge got blocked because it would distrupt the habitat of a bird or something?