Mainecoons Posted January 2, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 Wrong name, right river, gross pollution, nothing being done about it. Do you believe what is practically in your back yard? https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/lerma-river-15-km-are-biologically-dead/ https://globalvoices.org/2010/10/15/mexico-the-lerma-river-is-dying/ Quote Some people consider the 400-kilometre (249 mi) long Río Grande de Santiago, which continues from Lake Chapala northwest towards the Pacific Ocean, to be a continuation of the Lerma River. From Wikipedia. The wastes noted in that second piece are almost all readily treated with simple biological treatment that has been developed for decades. There is simply no excuse for this and this country should be very ashamed of it. The chemical and petrochemical wastes are a mixed bag and some are best handled by upstream process changes or waste removal using physical/chemical processes. All of it is treatable and has been so for 50 years or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmh Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 A lot of the chemicals also come from the irrigations techniques that have been used for century and waste and contaminate water.. I have followed the Lerma on the way back from Mexico a few time and that river is a sewer... totally contaminated.. it is a shame what is happening to rivers in this country.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkWebles Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 13 hours ago, Mainecoons said: I was there in the U.S. when the EPA was created and I was directly involved in developing the technology and working on the clean up. Now who's living in the past? I think you'll find that the EPA is just a leaky little boat when compared to what was envisioned 50 years ago. As for finger pointing, why not make an example of the American companies dumping in to the Rio Lerma? Do they escape responsibility for their actions simply because the government won't act? Who's at fault here, the companies doing the dumping or the government that signed-on to NAFTA that permits the rape of the environment? I wonder if, under NAFTA, anyone can in fact do anything. Profit over people. As a high-school drop-out, I'd say The US is about to commence the return portion of it's round-trip trip journey from the '70s. People are still suffering in Flint and in Pureto Rico. Push back? Nada. Hypocrisy and American exceptionalism? Same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyBee Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 NAFTA is no longer and by the way where does most of the dirty oil produced from tar sands go to ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyjillin Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 22 minutes ago, HoneyBee said: NAFTA is no longer and by the way where does most of the dirty oil produced from tar sands go to ? Are you referring to what are called tar sands in Utah which may be just like the OIL sands in Alberta? And what do you mean by dirty oil? Yes NAFTA is no more but it is being replaced by the USMCA which has yet to be totally ratified with the same 3 players all of which are in North America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gringohombre Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 NAFTA is still in effect. It was ratified bu the US Congress but the other 2 have not ratified yet. Just a matter of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyjillin Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 12 minutes ago, gringohombre said: NAFTA is still in effect. It was ratified bu the US Congress but the other 2 have not ratified yet. Just a matter of time. I stand corrected yes NAFTA is still in effect until the USMCA is ratified by all three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted January 2, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 1 hour ago, MarkWebles said: Now who's living in the past? I think you'll find that the EPA is just a leaky little boat when compared to what was envisioned 50 years ago. As for finger pointing, why not make an example of the American companies dumping in to the Rio Lerma? Do they escape responsibility for their actions simply because the government won't act? Who's at fault here, the companies doing the dumping or the government that signed-on to NAFTA that permits the rape of the environment? I wonder if, under NAFTA, anyone can in fact do anything. Profit over people. As a high-school drop-out, I'd say The US is about to commence the return portion of it's round-trip trip journey from the '70s. People are still suffering in Flint and in Pureto Rico. Push back? Nada. Hypocrisy and American exceptionalism? Same thing. I'm not a high school drop out, I have a Master's in Environmental Engineering and you really don't understand what you are posting about. For example Flint was caused when local authorities tried to save money by switching sources. Puerto Rico's problems, much like Mexico's, are a failure of their own government. And your ideological bent cause you to ignore the fact the economy responsible for one quarter of the world's total output has managed to be far cleaner than places like China or Mexico and it is continuing to do so. I don't know why you hate the U.S. and frankly I don't care. What I do know is that the U.S. is the most generous nation on earth, taking in far more needy immigrants than anyone else and is largely responsible for the lack of another world war for some 80 years now. I also know it isn't perfect but when I see something like this I know it sure beats the hell out of a lot of other places. Quote In December 2018, Jalisco Governor Enrique Alfaro told reporters gathered at the Santiago River’s contaminated Juanacatlán waterfall that his newly-elected government would invest more than 3.4 billion pesos to tackle the pollution problem. But the Times said the pledge was a “bold” one given that his power and resources to address the issue are in fact limited. When Alfaro asked the federal government for funding, he was told that there was no money available even though the federal environment secretary has called the Santiago River an “environmental hell.” Elizabeth Southerland, a former water expert at Profepa, told the Times that the limited rules in place to protect the river are “totally inadequate to protect aquatic life and human health.” In turn, the agencies tasked with enforcing them have “few resources and little political support,” the Times said, “making them no match for the country’s expanding industry and growing population.” In theory, municipal authorities also have power to crack down on polluters but with scant resources and technical expertise they are in fact the weakest link in enforcing regulations, the report said. The situation does not bode well for residents, one of whom described El Salto, a town on the outskirts of Guadalajara, as a “slow-motion Chernobyl.” “The government is walking hand in hand with the guilty,” said Enrique Enciso, whose family has been fighting to clean up the Santiago River for more than 10 years. Source: The New York Times (en) 227SHARES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmh Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 Typical of what goes on, the politiciansmakepromisesthey cannot keep, the peopledo notorganize themselves to fight for the riversothe industries destroying the river keep on gong as always, making their money paying off the politicians and mostpeopleareasleepat the wheel... nothingnew there.. Forget about the US I do not care what they do or not do ths s Mexicoand hs s where we live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.