Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chris gadsden]

We ALL have to ask ourselves, what are WE doing to stop these things from happening?

[Dave]

I think it’s too late Chris … imo, the only way to have prevented these increasing environmental calamities was for our parents not to have children, or at the very least, far fewer.

[chris gadsden]

I think it’s too late Chris … imo, the only way to have prevented these increasing environmental calamities was for our parents not to have children, or at the very least, far fewer.

Its never too late if enough people care enough.

[shuswapsteve]

So at this stage the Sto:lo are attempting to piggy back on the TNG vs. the province of BC decision, but somehow it wasn't an issue before this facility was planned for this site. Well, for one thing, non-aboriginal environmentalists and anglers (like Clapton and Angelo) who are allied with the Sto:lo in opposition to this recycling facility should be careful what they wish for because any similar decision to what happened up in the Chilcotin last year will likely impact their activities (including the members they represent) in and around the Fraser River.

If spillage and accidents are such a big concern as noted by Angelo then what about the railways that are on either side of the Fraser.  There are dangerous materials being transported daily within metres of the Fraser River by rail, but we are not relocating railways away from the river up into the mountains. If the Sto:lo are operating dump sites along the banks of the Fraser already that doesn't help their argument much because its hypocritical.  We all watched the video from Aevitas.  The containment and safeguards built into the proposed facility are likely far greater than what is done in these dump sites. 

Again, what Angelo doesn't mention is where are these other suitable sites he has been talking about. Let's find solutions instead of just saying "NO". Angelo, Crey, Clapton and the other environmentalists should go out and find a suitable site (because apparently there are many) and publicly give their stamp approval for that new location.  Now this "new" site may not be as good as what environmentalists think it is, but at least it will have their approval and they can deal with the any new opposition instead of the proponent.  We can move forward and recycle this toxic material instead of having it in a landfill or along the ditch of a Forest Service Road.

[chris gadsden]

So at this stage the Sto:lo are attempting to piggy back on the TNG vs. the province of BC decision, but somehow it wasn't an issue before this facility was planned for this site. Well, for one thing, non-aboriginal environmentalists and anglers (like Clapton and Angelo) who are allied with the Sto:lo in opposition to this recycling facility should be careful what they wish for because any similar decision to what happened up in the Chilcotin last year will likely impact their activities (including the members they represent) in and around the Fraser River.

If spillage and accidents are such a big concern as noted by Angelo then what about the railways that are on either side of the Fraser.  There are dangerous materials being transported daily within metres of the Fraser River by rail, but we are not relocating railways away from the river up into the mountains. If the Sto:lo are operating dump sites along the banks of the Fraser already that doesn't help their argument much because its hypocritical.  We all watched the video from Aevitas.  The containment and safeguards built into the proposed facility are likely far greater than what is done in these dump sites. 

Again, what Angelo doesn't mention is where are these other suitable sites he has been talking about. Let's find solutions instead of just saying "NO". Angelo, Crey, Clapton and the other environmentalists should go out and find a suitable site (because apparently there are many) and publicly give their stamp approval for that new location.  Now this "new" site may not be as good as what environmentalists think it is, but at least it will have their approval and they can deal with the any new opposition instead of the proponent.  We can move forward and recycle this toxic material instead of having it in a landfill or along the ditch of a Forest Service Road.

You would make a good politician.

[shuswapsteve]

Good deflection....but I understand why environmentalists don't want to stick their neck out and announce publicly what these "suitable" sites are. It's less riskier for these groups to bash authorities and the proponent and wipe their hands clean at the end of the day then to take initiative and find solutions.

[chris gadsden]

Good deflection....but I understand why environmentalists don't want to stick their neck out and announce publicly what these "suitable" sites are. It's less riskier for these groups to bash authorities and the proponent and wipe their hands clean at the end of the day then to take initiative and find solutions.

Where would you think it should be located or do you think the proposed site is a good spot?

[chris gadsden]

http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/News_Releases/UBCICNews02061501.html#axzz3R7CLQDwT

[chris gadsden]

http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/breaking_news/291102691.html

[shuswapsteve]

Where would you think it should be located or do you think the proposed site is a good spot?

That's the whole thing, Chris. I don't know what would be a good site, but guys like Angelo do.  Apparently, it can't be located in a watershed so that pretty much eliminates a whole lot of land.  If it's moved anywhere else someone is inevitably going to complain. It will be too close to residential house...it's too close to farmland....it's too close to schools....it's close to Costco. 

MOE still hasn't given final approval. It may turn out not to be a "good spot".  Hopefully it is based on the merits of the site and not the rumblings from the Sto:lo.  If the decision is that it is not a good place then another location will have to be found because the alternative to not recycling these materials safely is actually worse for the environment.

[chris gadsden]

Here is the video I filmed of the hazardous waste plant press conference from Friday, part 1. The wind was terrible so it makes watching and listening hard because of the wind noise, sorry about that.

 Thought I would post it anyway so you can view what went on. Of course you donot have to suffer watching it for too long. Maybe part 2 will be better as the wind did die down some.http://youtu.be/A37m21eDSfU

[shuswapsteve]

I watched all the videos from this press conference. One guy from the Friends of the Chilliwack Riverbed was bringing up concerns about trucks transporting hazardous materials with mercury and PCBs to and from the proposed facility.  He was started talking about the threat of these trucks crashing on Hwy #1 - dumping these materials into the Fraser River.  Well, not sure how he proposes to move hazardous materials to recycling facilities if it is not by trucks or rail.  How precautionary are we going to get here?  How do we get it from the consumer or industry to a recycling facility to safely dealt with?  Again, there are railways are either side of the river already transporting potentially hazardous materials. Is he protesting about potential accidents from train derailments which are more likely to happen than his other concerns?

He is missing the big picture, in my opinion.  The fact is that most CFLs end up in the trash.  These CFL bulbs are already being disposed of improperly in landfills or some back road - releasing mercury into the environment potentially contaminating water and the atmosphere.  The real more immediate concern he should be having is that the recycling of CFL bulbs is voluntary - even in his own backyard of Chilliwack.  So, if he is really concerned about hazardous waste in our environment due to some accident then he should be focused on what is going on right now rather than to solely focus on the possibility other potential accidents. In addition, his opinions kind of go beyond concern about the proposed site as he seems to be opposed to any hazardous waste recycling facility in the area.

I also didn't see much knowledge at the conference of the company (Aevitas), their operations, their safeguards or the emergency planning measures they propose. Everyone has a right to oppose this and be heard, but instead of just looking at what can go wrong some folks should look at what is being proposed and the technology behind it. A representative from Watershed Watch Salmon Society suggested that they would assist in finding another site which is as close as any critic on this has been to being constructive; however, I didn't see any suggestions coming from the rest of the group.

Some information on CFL bulbs:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/compact-fluorescent-bulbs-often-end-up-in-trash-1.2580693
http://globalnews.ca/news/1798793/ontario-could-ban-compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-from-landfills/

[chris gadsden]

Video 2 of the press conference re Aevitas proposed plant. http://youtu.be/d3DOrPaxP28

[chris gadsden]

http://www.theprogress.com/news/291560761.html

[chris gadsden]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/toxic-waste-facility-could-risk-catastrophe-fraser-stolo-advisor