Um, er, wait a minute, can the rest of the world jump in here and say

[Benbow]

something about the pumping out of the "vast toxic lake" from New Orleans? Anyone know what the long-term consequences of this are? Aral Sea, anyone? Lake Caspian? Black Sea? Sea of Asov, north of the Black Sea? Polluted sea = polluted land = no safe drinking water = DNA damage and mutations = cancers = potentially destabilising involuntary mass population movements ...

This could affect everyone on the planet, not just US citizens. Like re-route the Gulf Stream.

[RageFist]

1. I didn't think it should have been rebuilt anyway...

this idea would just help affirm that idea for me.

[Nihil]

2. Well, you can ask but on past performance ...

... do you really think that the US Administration will listen?

The decision makers don't have to worry about polluted drinking water,
poisoned seafood or long-term damage to health and so they don't care.

The dumping of the New Orleans cess-pit into the Gulf will not do
anything as drastic as "re-routing the Gulf Stream" (though there are
other environmental issues that can do that instead) so the toxins
will be *carried* by the Gulf Stream and further pollute the northeast
coast of the US.

Fortunately for Western Europe, the direct effects will be diluted
long before they get across the Atlantic but, for the sake of global
concern, we should indeed "jump in" ... not in the hope of achieving
anything - our dying breath will be "Told you so" ...

[Benbow]

3. Rich Floridians about to be polluted? Now we'll see some action n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. I don't think they have any option

unless you're asking them to abandon the entire city forever, and hope that the pollution doesn't leak anyway.

I'd like to see a true expert's take on this - it's all very well the phrase 'toxic soup' being thrown about, but that doesn't actually tell us the amounts of toxins in there, how quickly some of it will biodegrade, and so on. It's a one-off pollution, not a continuous process, so I don't think comparing it to the Aral Sea and so on is valid.

I'd expect the short-term local consequences might be bad. Long term global consequences are likely to be less.

And your equation "Polluted sea = polluted land = no safe drinking water = DNA damage and mutations = cancers = potentially destabilising involuntary mass population movements" is, frankly, balderdash. "polluted sea = polluted seashore", perhaps, but after that, it doesn't hold up.

[Benbow]

5. It ain't balderdash, Muriel - I did a bit of research first, on what has

happened around the other severely polluted lakes and seas.

Give me a bit of credit for knowing that I have to substantiate things. You go and look up Aral Sea, Lake Baikal, Caspian Sea etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. So which of those is connected to the ocean?

Which of those was caused by a one-off event rather than steady pollution or diversion of rivers?

I think the Exxon Valdez disaster is closer to what New Orleans will cause.

And I can't see how pollution of the oceans leads to pollution of drinking water.

[Lithos]

7. Locking

Inflammatory and non-productive