EPA says: Coastlines in trouble!

[Sir Fredrick]

Linky

A landmark report card on the nation?s coastlines says they are deteriorating to the point that they can no longer fully support marine life or human activity. Overall, the report rates coastal conditions as fair to poor. The Gulf of Mexico area ? with its vast ?dead zone? ? fared worst in the first-ever nationwide analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies.

 

[Amused]

When was the last time you ever saw a government agency dismantled because it had fulfilled it's mission?

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Do you disagree with the report? I don't know about you, but every river I've ever been near has been far too nasty and polluted to swim in or enjoy, really. I made the mistake of wading in to my waist once when I was a kid, and got a very nasty rash shortly thereafter.

 

[Miramonti]

Cool, more beaches. 😎

 

[SuperTool]

When is the last time you went into water on the beach? If I ever go, I just walk around and enjoy the view. I wouldn't touch the water with a 10 foot pole. If you want to swim find a nice chlorinated pool 😉

 

[manly]

<sarcasm>
Damn this is shameful.

If more FUD likes this leaks out, Bush/Cheney will have to install a new shill to head the EPA. 😉
</sarcasm>

 

[HappyPuppy]

SirFredrick, not all rivers are running with pristine, clear blue water. The Mississippi River is called Old Muddy for a reason. Unless the river is known to be infested with schistosomiosis, I don't worry about it.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< SirFredrick, not all rivers are running with pristine, clear blue water. The Mississippi River is called Old Muddy for a reason. Unless the river is known to be infested with schistosomiosis, I don't worry about it. >>



Naturally dirty water is one thing, water that has become toxic/harmful due to the chemicals that have been dumped into it, is entirely another.

 

[Jimbo]

It looks pretty dire. I just wonder how long it is before some Federal Judge lights this study on fire because the EPA failed to follow established scientific protocols in evaluating their own data. I hope this time they at least refrained from issuing a conclusion prior to BEGINNING the study.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Have they failed to follow these protocols in this study? Link?

 

[Jimbo]

<< Generally, the nation?s coastal areas were rated as poor if the mean conditions for these seven indicators showed that greater than 20% of the estuarine area in that region was degraded. >>


By this standard 80% of the coastal area under study can be just fine, but if the other 20% were off by any measureable amount the rating goes to POOR.
Here's another zinger


<< Limited available data have been used to provide a qualitative, but statistically unsupported, estimate of condition. >>


This statement sums up the West Coast.
What about Alaska, the darling of the eco-aware? Uhh.. No Data!
Ok, what about the Puget Sound?


<< The 2000 report identifies pollution, loss of habitat, and continuing development as the greatest threats to the health of the Sound. Despite improvements such as the reopening of several commercial shell fishing areas and the declining trend of PCBs found in harbor seals, a number of indicators show that the health of the Sound remains threatened. >>


That sounds bad, can you qualify the term threatend?


<< Highly Susceptible-Moderately Susceptible-Susceptible >>


The BEST an area coud do is Susceptible!

 

[Novgrod]

The Gulf of Mexico area ? with its vast ?dead zone? ? fared worst in the first-ever nationwide analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies.

Hahaha if you go to Galveston (and I do) everybody's in a huff about the vanishing beaches. They're barrier islands. They come and go. The funny thing is that people built their houses on piles of sand and now they want taxpayers to erect God knows what to save their ugly beaches.

Meanwhile, Padre Island and South Padre Island continue to grow.