Coffee & tea. And I note that Chad's Records has moved next door to his old space!
Alright Quin! Now you should incorporate our need to get back below 350 ppm CO2 into your activism. See 350.org for ways to help do that.
While there is a difference between Velsicol & Bunge in regards to air pollution because the Velsicol plant has stopped operating, there are still significant ground water, direct contact and possibly vapor intrusion threats at the Velsicol site. The Bunge plant should also be investigated.
I wish the paper would note how misleading the claim about removing 24 million pounds of waste is. In cleanup work, it is common to express the tons and cubic yards of waste removed rather than pounds. So about 12,000 tons was removed which is NOT a large amount given the large site. To determine cubic yards we need to know if it was all solid waste. A public health assessment (PHA) is a good first step in a proper re-evaluation of the Velsicol site. However, a PHA is data dependent and there is probably limited exposure data, so the PHA may be inconclusive.
Another excellent & concise cartoon! The Strunk & White rule Brevity, Brevity, Brevity applied to editorial cartoons. Thanks!
Wow, I thought the cartoon's point was straightforward enough, but it seems to have turned into a psychological test.
Well said unscathed! Follow the money trail. You will usually find a large corporation at trail's end.
Abe's headline quibble aside, it is great to have Mr. Stetson at the Hunter Museum!
I posted some scientific comments in response to 3 Jan 2011 article announcing the public meeting. Don't want to repeat same comments, but I questioned if pesticide contamination in Banvel (SWMU 69A) area in SW part of site was cleaned up, if PCB use was investigated at Dowtherm reboiler unit, if deeper limestone ground water contamination was delineated, and if 18" soil cap would survive site reuse. Based on this new article, I have same concerns. I also want to point out that removing 24 million pounds of waste is not that much (only 1,200 tons) whereas large scale site cleanups often have removal of 100,000+ tons of waste.
In regards to ground water, the TDEC fact sheet indicates that Velsicol has been recovering Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) from ground water in the coal tar area for years with more than 4,000 gallons of DNAPL recovered so far. It also implies that Velsicol has achieved hydraulic control of the shallow plume of contaminated ground water. However, the situation in the deeper limestone aquifer seems unclear because of "conduits" in the limestone that can allow contaminated ground water to travel long distances without reaching a recovery well. The number of monitoring wells and recovery wells is relatively low for a site this large, but the TDEC and US EPA also have wells at the adjacent Superfund site.