Animas River Contamination
Don't drink the water.
http://www.durangoherald.com/apps/pb...late=mobileart
Thankfully the EPA was there to protect against this sort of thing happening.
Oh, wait...
Woops! Oh well, s*&t happens. Sounds like it will be very temporary, but too bad for any harmed wildlife. Sure looks nasty....
If your gonna give yourself an anima, please do it at least 200 feet from any water source...this is just common since.
I was at the EPA briefing today in Durango. They are warning that there are lots of dissolved heavy metals in the water - you definitely should not drink it at this point in time. Really, you should probably never drink from the Animas that close to Silverton anyway - fish could not survive between Silverton and Elk Creek even prior to this spill.
There is a very good water source (Molas Creek) just after you cross the river on the southwest side. (Guthook Mile 406.2)
This is how the river looks near my house in Durango:
image.jpg
Just saw this on the news tonight...yikes!Originally Posted by bearcreek
Mining sites, in use, "suspended", or abandoned, and mining activities, including the supposedly more environmentally sensitive modern mining techniques, especially, but not limited to, the larger more industrial mining operations, have been some of the most destructive blights on the environment I've ever come across. I've encountered an abundance of abandoned mines, and activities associated with mining. While offering some historical, engineering, and exploratory interest on hikes they largely resemble human centric waste dumps often rife with dangers many hidden.
A sudden drop in the pH of the water from 7.5 to 5.8 certainly is huge and not to be taken with a cavalier attitude. That alone could be detrimental to aquatic life and flora in and along the river. Nor is a cavalier attitude to be taken about the well documented very real risks of cadmium, a noted highly toxic metal, even in low concentrations, a known carcinogen with no safe exposure levels. Even more concerning, not to be taken lightly, are the dangers of cadmium in high concentrations as it was reported, but I'm sure that information will be quickly "contained" by being marginalized, especially as the EPA itself factored into the cause of the contamination into the Animas River, and the effects downstream particularly noting many agricultural irrigation ditches connect with the Animas River, the lost recreational opportunities on and along the river's watershed, and the economic impacts to the businesses associated with these activities and Durango tourism.
BTW, animas refers to ghosts or souls.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/eng...doned-mine.htm
EPA morons! These are the same people that claim they can control the weather.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Very thought-provoking response. This was an unfortunate but accidental release that occurred in the process of remediation of an abandoned mining operation. What wasn't accidental was how the mine apparently operated for years until the owners took the money and disappeared, which is why its an NPL "Superfund" response. What also wasn't accidental was how ineffective and possibly illegal waste handling practices left the site leaching heavy metals, and typically cyanide, into the river. Mine owner saved money by not treating the production waste, taxpayers get to pick up the tab and suffer the environmental and economic damage. These cleanups aren't simple due to the sites often being unstable and the scientists and engineers responsible for cleanup design not having the luxury of mine operation records and as-builts. So if you are going to place blame, look to the mine's owner/operator.
Last edited by Offshore; 08-08-2015 at 11:16.
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Kudos to the EPA for their efforts. There are 22,000 old mine sites in Colorado, who knows how many have such spill hazards, but at least the EPA is working on it, though they made an unfortunate boo-boo knocking out the little "plug" and causing this spill. the heavy equipment operator is to "blame", but he/she simply made a mistake.
what puzzles me is this: They keep quoting "one million gallons". Well, isn't one million gallons a mere drop in the bucket for the general flow of the mighty Animas? Seems like a mere 1M gallons of pollutant would clear away fairly quickly. Maybe someone slipped a couple of digits....
The one million gallon number quoted by the EPA is woefully understated. There are still hundreds of gallons per minute spilling into the river (several days later). Ron
http://www.daily-times.com/four_corn...imas-river-san
1,200 gallons per minute still flowing out of the mine?
http://www.denverpost.com/environmen...s-edge-waiting
I was not being sarcastic, I'm as serious as a heart attack. You can't administer these things through a bloated, politicized bureaucracy in Washington. The EPA should be abolished and the States administer these sites. Washington can set maximum pollution limits and the States can take it from there. For current sites, the Feds can provide funding.
The EPA is a joke. Now they are in the process of eliminating coal as a fuel source, assuming natural gas, or maybe wind power or pixie dust, will pick up the 35% of our electric base load now generated by coal. This is going to be another boondoggle, since this it will either mean more fracking or the price of natgas will go through the roof. How would you like your electric bill to triple? If you think I’m wrong, roughly eight years ago, before the fracking boom, gas was selling at $13.00 per MCF, now it’s $3.00. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of coal, but you have to have a viable alternative before pulling the plug.
Regarding comments made previously about mine operators, this travesty was created well before there were any environmental laws. Industrial waste was disposed of in the cheapest was possible, which usually meant dumping into the nearest water source. Today, any company operating a mine, or any other industrial facility for that matter, needs to post financial assurance that any potential spill can be remediated. The States do a pretty good job of this without any help from the EPA.
Wow, tell us what you really think! Standard, droid-media-crazed response. Read up on your facts regarding what the EPA has done for our country. Start with air pollution trends over the last few decades. then go to water. Get educated before making ridiculous remarks like this one.
Perfect organization? Hardly. What US gov't organization can be? Let it up to the states? I typically say "yes" to most topics on this, but when it comes to pollution, I tend to go with a central controlling body, but you may be right on that one point.
I meant to post this article first before submitting last post, one of man kudos for the EPA:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...irst-40-years/
I was considering visiting Gold King Mine and "Museum" and Ghost Town as a side day trip while on a CT hike, being a typical example of what I do on my "zero days." After seeing some pics, while admitting it held some historical interest for me, I came to late recognize it in a different light. It is/was a junkyard an ecological wasteland a testimony of the legacy that humans often leave behind after they have sucked the resources out of the area no longer viewing the "operation" as financially viable wiping their hands clean of responsibility leaving the aftermath of debris and destruction that they created as someone else's problem, typically involving the expenditure of taxpayer money to clean up, and then moving onto their next economically viable venture where the cycle usually repeats itself. The EPA itself, an agency created by and part of the very gov't that greenlighted mining operations and techniques, factors in to the cause of problem mining operations and the aftermath allowed to be left behind. The EPA for all the well noted good it has accomplished is not entirely innocent and does NOT simply factor in as the clean up hitter on all pollution issues. The mining industry has a long history of leaving behind their waste often in abundance and often presenting environmental hazards. The industry has done much to reverse or hide this perception. It amazes me the scope and size of the debris left behind sometimes in remote areas that leave me scratching my head wondering how all this heavy large decaying debris was hauled there in the first place. Often being in remote areas on private land/landholds largely out of the public eye is one of the reasons why this was allowed to occur for so long and so extensively.
Rex, while making some recognized good points I have to agree with CR. The size and scope of the costly clean ups on some pollution issues on the state level easily overwhelm state's abilities.
Nice propaganda piece. So you're saying that none of this would have happened without the EPA? Really?
Let me tell you how it works, once the EPA steps in and declares a Superfund Site, PRP's (potentially responsible parties) and their lawyers go to Defcon 3. Litigation can stretch out to decades before anything gets done, if ever. I personally worked for a company that was, along with other PRP's, negotiating with the State DNR on cleaning up a site when the EPA stepped in, without warning by the way. This was 20 years ago and, to date, nothing has been remediated.
One final note, in the article, they mentioned the EPA championing the eradication of DDT. I read a report recently that refuted the science that DDT was the cause of thinning egg walls in birds. What is rarely mentioned, however, is the fact that the eradication of DDT is responsible for millions (yes millions) of deaths in Africa due to mosquito born illnesses.
Funding is an entirely different issue. I said previously the Feds can provide funding but let the folks on the State level handle things. They are closer to the situation, better equipped and, hopefully, less political.
"Seems like a mere 1M gallons of pollutant would clear away fairly quickly."
What does that suppose to mean? If you're suggesting because we don't visibly detect pollution dangers with our naked eyes or without more meaningful investigation than somehow that guarantees it isn't present that's a hugely wild unfounded mistaken speculation. In this incident, just because the Amimas River returns to it's previous color with a cursory visual inspection from the now carrot juice look does not mean everything is "clear."
Posting Permissions
Colorado Trail
