"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message
...


Now, one more time. The point that I was making was that when
someone crows about 400 "toxic spills" in Alaska, those spills could
include anything from a release of gasoline from an automobile
accident to a million gallons of benzene. Did you pay attention to
the incident report of a barrel of oil covering 375 sq ft reported to
the EPA as part of a super fund site? Does that sound like a big
environmental disaster to you? BTW, don't bother with your next post
falsely claiming that I said it shouldn't be cleaned up either.

Without even checking, I am positive that the 375 sq ft superfund site was
an exception, unless you focus on one very small geographic area.

He simply lied about the significance. That spill had
*no* connection to the area being designated a Superfund
site. The report merely indicated that the spill
happened at a site *already* designated as a Superfund
site.

One reason it has been so designed is the fact that
there have 400 such spills *every* year for 30 years in
the Prudhoe Bay complex. It is hardly insignificant,
and we do realize that when the oil industry leaves it
will take many decades to restore the areas they've
used.

But what is it that causes the vast majority of pollution
in places like Puget Sound (which has been suffering
greatly from pollution for decades)??? Small toxic
waste spills that are miniscule compared to anything
that spreads a barrel of oil over 375 square feet!

This stuff he claims is meaningless is *exactly* what we
want to prevent at critical areas on the North Slope.
We do *not* object to that at Kuparuk, at Prudhoe, or on
just about 95% of the North Slope! We don't want it
near the food supply. ANWR, Teshekpuk Lake, the
Colville River, and the Beaufort Sea Bowhead whale
migration routes are areas where it is simply not
acceptable.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)