Science does not make decisions
To the editor,
The agreement signed in 1955 by the government of the day and the pulp mill boggles the mind. Did government legal services sign off? Were opposition parties not privy to the agreement? Were successive auditors-general not aware? Is this type of negotiation by government typical or an isolated incident?
Both federal and provincial government representatives have now jumped on the bandwagon — let “science decide” the pulp effluent issue.
The courts of this land are full of cases where opposing parties use conflicting “science data” to support their case. Government libraries are full of contradicting scientific reports.
Science does not make decisions.
People make decisions, and good decisions are the result of due diligence (a thorough assessment of all possible factors) and good common sense.
Far too often we see that — he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I am not a scientist, but with due respect question “scientific conclusions” made by a UPEI professor pertaining to the impact of effluent being spilled directly to the bottom of the Strait.
From high school science we know:
Cold water is heavier than hot water.
Salt water is heavier than fresh water.
Salt water and fresh water are very slow to mix — if one observes a river estuary one will see fresh water travelling for miles before mixing completely.
Every 24 hours tens of millions of litres of effluent is proposed to enter the bottom of the Strait at 38 to 40 degrees, the water at the bottom of the Strait is 0 to 15 degrees. Most fish species live on or near the bottom.
The drastic change in temperature will quickly kill a huge number of fish and plant life.
The heavy, cold salt water will form a blanket over the warm toxic effluent, forcing it to spread out over the floor of the Strait, releasing toxins directly over the rich fishing grounds. Because salt and fresh water are slow to mix, the effluent will travel miles before it is dispersed — by that time the damage will be done.
The Federal Environmental Assessment test for acceptable levels of toxins involves putting 10 fish in a barrel of effluent for two or three days. If five survive, it’s OK to pour it into the ocean. To my knowledge there was no long-term assessments of the five fish that survived.
We can be glad we don’t have tests like this for our hospitals!
Consider the economic impact of losing even half of our current fisheries!
A recent article by Walter Thompson criticized Maritimers for saying no to Northern Pulp, no to clear cutting, no to fracking, not to ocean-based aquaculture, no to salt dome gas storage, etc. However, many believe that public opposition to these projects is wise, reflects good common sense and Maritimers innate connection to our very special part of the earth.
Elmer MacDonald,
New Glasgow