Kim:Ok....so where is the argument? We all know that ships that sink by accident can create HUGE problems, but Bill was talking about ships that have been sunk on purpose and cleaned for it. I'm interested. Are you really saying that you don't think they are cleaned well enough as it stands now? Can you explain it with examples so that people who think that what's happening now is OK understand why more should be done because it's not OK? (this is not a trick attack or something - I mean it) To most people they do an awful lot to make sure that ships are as clean as possible before they are sunk - then folks dive them and see loads of fish etc. Why should they think that more needs doing? Is there any actual factual evidence to support those requirements?
I'm really not trying to knock what your saying down - I want you to explain it better....with evidence.
As for what I do.....well, as I thought you knew, my wife is the Environment Officer for this particular area of Japan. She's responsible for everything that can harm people that gets dumped, plus animals that die, get sick etc. Whether it's people dumping car batteries, or factories burning PCBs, chickens with bird flu, rabid dogs - it all ends up on her desk. There's probably a load more that I've forgotten to mention - recycling, rubbish collection, hospital ventilation systems (and other public buildings)....but maybe you get the idea.
Me...I'm a teacher...I teach kids.
It's obvious that I didn't read the previous posts well enough. I have no contention with ships cleaned to EPA standards. However, I'm not crazy about it either. I do know that purging a ship of pollutants is a massively time consuming and expensive affair. PCB's being a real nightmare. It is actually impossible to remove all the contaminants short of going nuts, or doing something completely else with the hulk. Embedded cables, paint and caulking leach poisons out over time. They have controlled studies, but who knows what they will do in the long run. I don't often see a tracking program for these projects. Again, a compromise for diving and tourism.
My own work with ship-borne pollutants (non-intentional sinking) was nasty and costly for the owner, cheap-*** insurance company and local government. In the end, very unsatisfying as we discovered that a lot of poison had leaked out prior to our efforts and that more sits waiting for time and the ravages of nature. You feel good only for the moment. These pollutants are all so patient. :shakehead
Your wife does a lot. I applaud her for taking on what is a tough and vital job. I do hope that she doesn't have to deal with endless bureaucracy as well.
Teaching is cool, and I hope that your school lets people voice and view both sides of the coin. My experience with small nations, and egocentric ones like the US is that there is a very narrow band with respect to the environment and the wellness of their own economies. Really, given a choice I would live in Sweden.
In closing, my take is that in the end, compromises usually lead to a poor environmental outcomes...ones that our kids will have to deal with in a harsh future.
X
