• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Winston Adams
    July 25, 2012 - 23:08

    John Smith, I agree with you. reduce ocean polution, but not at all cost. And our sewage, while natural , a fish may disagree. And as to electricity, Again I agree , I like electricity too, maybe more than you. I say this because I hate to see so much being wasted, Some 600MW on the island. If that was't being wasted( since it is very economic to save it) and we needed another 300 mw or so, then I would say bring on Muskrat falls. Even clean power from water turbines should be valued to get the most out of it. We're just behind on using efficient heating technology.

  • Winston Adams
    July 25, 2012 - 11:34

    John Smith, I doubt that the sewage in our local waters come all the way from China or India. But Harper's policy to abandon commitments on greenhouse gases use the same agrument: let China and India do their share. A convenient scapegoat. And you worry about the polution of Holyrood to promote Muskrat Falls! But our polution of our own shores in not a concern to you.

    • john Smith
      July 25, 2012 - 12:00

      Well Winston b'y...I care a lot more about the carcinogenic, black soot that we have to breath everyday, then I do about a naturally occurring substance like human waste going into the oceans. Of course, I would love if we didn't have to put anything into the oceans, but not at all cost. The thing about muskrat is that it will not pollute, at least it will not pour tons of carbon from burning dirty bunker fuel, and we will need the power, so it is the lesser of the evils. Every form of generating electricity has it's downside...to be sure. Burning coal, burning oil, burning gas, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, they all have their enviromental, and economical impact. But I like electricity, and I need it, so I am willing to put up a dam to spin a turbine to create it. As far as sewage treatment goes I was just trying to make a point that Canada as a whole pollutes so little compared to other more populous countries, while we should do what we can to lessen the impact, it should not be at all costs...in my opinion.

  • saelcove
    July 25, 2012 - 10:06

    Not to worry john boy always has the answer

  • Carl
    July 25, 2012 - 09:15

    I agree 100% with this article. It is past time for us to take responsibility for managing our own waste responsibly. If municipalities are facing a funding crunch because of the new regulations in spite of the long implementation period, it is only because they have been neglecting the problem for generations, kicking the can down the road instead of saving and investing in solutions to this serious problem. The current federal government has dramatically increased its funding for municipal infrastructure and has made the gas tax transfer to municipalities permanent. There is no excuse for not using those funds for something as sensible and fundamental as sewage treatment. The federal regulations should be applauded - It's just too bad they had to force us into doing the right thing.

  • Winston Adams
    July 25, 2012 - 07:48

    At Bishop's Cove where I spend much time, not even the solids are removed. Most sever lines go to the ocean, a lot 50 ft or more short of the ocean, some leading to beach areas. There was more concern about the ocean and beaches 50 years ago. My complaints to council and the health dept over the years has been ignored . Another 30 years to comply- sounds serious.

  • John Smith
    July 25, 2012 - 07:03

    When you look at it globally, we must not even register on the sewage scale. We have a population in Canada of about 35 million people, the city of Tokyo has over 30 million people, mexico city has over 25 million people...these are just cities...not countries. I would say a country the size of india puts more sewage into the ocean in a day, then we do here in a year. So It doesn't make the issue go away, but we do need some perspective.