tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4361990989642100421.post59580677785397384..comments2024-03-12T10:09:34.656-07:00Comments on KlamBlog: Klamath Dams Agreement in Principle: Is it a “step forward” or a step back?Felice Pacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15745833097325147423noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4361990989642100421.post-68921112344101386922008-12-05T12:46:00.000-08:002008-12-05T12:46:00.000-08:00We need to look at the bigger picture. It is abou...We need to look at the bigger picture. <BR/>It is about control. <BR/><BR/>If the government can control the water supply, who does the government control? The people.<BR/><BR/>Control is the name of the game. I.E. <BR/>Lets look at Electricity for example.<BR/><BR/>Electricity is generated from Hoover Dam. Who built Hoover Dam? Yes, J. Edgar Hoover. Did he not work for the government? When the people come crying to the FERC for regulations in electric, who are the people crying to? The very people who built the Dam. Now, do you think the FERC is going to regulate the governments electric generation site? or how much money they receive? I think not.<BR/><BR/>If the government can control the waterways, then the government can control the people.<BR/><BR/>If the government can control the food supply, then the government....<BR/><BR/>The point is the bigger picture. Who stands to gain from the dams on the river? Who stands to loose?<BR/><BR/>Do you see a pattern?<BR/><BR/>Anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4361990989642100421.post-84641304481197697832008-12-04T11:07:00.000-08:002008-12-04T11:07:00.000-08:00KlamBlog looked into the dioxin concern at the tim...KlamBlog looked into the dioxin concern at the time it was first raised by Siskiyou County. While dioxin in any amount is a concern worth looking further into, our investigation reached these conclusions:<BR/><BR/> 1. Because they were used so extensively at lumber mills as wood preservatives, dioxins are fairly common in river and lake sediments in forested portion of the American West.<BR/><BR/> 2. The consultant whom Siskiyou County brought in to examine this issue would not confirm a significant risk to either the environment or human health from either the sediments in general or from the dioxin that may be in those sediments. In fact, the consultant suggested that - because of the relatively small amount of sediment behind these dams - dam removal would probably not pose a significant risk to health or the environment. <BR/><BR/> 3. Siskiyou County has been unconcerned about toxic algae being released by the reservoir and has refused to post health warnings on the River or the Reservoirs. Siskiyou County has also been unconcerned about the public use of old mill sites in the county some of which contain dioxin in the soil at much higher concentrations than reported for the reservoir samples. <BR/> <BR/> 4. In light of their prior positions on dioxin and toxic algae, Siskiyou County's concern about dioxin in Klamath dam sediments appear to be more related to their opposition to dam removal than to concerns for the environment or human health. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, all risks associated with dam removal should be examined in a Supplement to the FERC EIS on the dams. If there are substantial risks to human health and the environment associated with dam removal these should be addressed or mitigated.Felice Pacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15745833097325147423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4361990989642100421.post-14906823667525209932008-12-03T16:37:00.000-08:002008-12-03T16:37:00.000-08:00As indicated in Siskiyou County's recent comment a...As indicated in Siskiyou County's recent comment at the water quality proceedings on the dams: "sediment quality in the reservoirs raises serious concerns with respect to heavier molecular-weight recalcitrant organic-chemicals. Six samples from the reservoir sediments showed evidence of creosote compounds (i.e. naphthalene and phenanthrene as examples of P AHs in creosote) at low concentrations. The most significant is that one sediment sample for each of three reservoirs was analyzed for dioxins. Dioxins were detected in all three samples in the range of 2.5 to 4.8 picograms per gram or parts per trillion (ppt) TEQ as 2,3,7,8- TCDD. The Canadian advisory for salmonid habitat is 1 ppt TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD.\ The Oregon residential soil screening level for human heath is 3.6 ppt 2,3,7,8- TCDD and the California residential soil screening level for human heath is 4.6 ppt. Dioxins are known human carcinogens and they are bioaccumulative within the food chain. Furthermore, dioxin is a known constituent in pentachlorophenol and there are known pentachlorophenol usage and spill sites on the Upper Klamath Lake so its presence is not arbitrary but coincident with a probable source. More data on the concentrations of dioxin in the reservoir sediments are needed and a great deal more analysis of the potential impacts from these dioxin affected sediments in the reservoirs is warranted. There is both the issue of what moves through the river system and redeposits if the dams are removed, and there is the issue of sediment residue left in the reservoir area if the dams are removed. On that latter point, while the Klamath River will quickly regain its original grade through some portion of the sediments behind the dams if<BR/>they are removed, much of this potentially toxic sediment will remain above the re-<BR/>established Klamath River along the shoreline for years if not decades. Removal of<BR/>the sediment by hydraulic management of the river or other means may be necessary<BR/>to restore good health to the watershed or the sediment left behind will have to be<BR/>properly managed or mitigated in place."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com