It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did The EPA Intentionally Poison Animas River To Secure SuperFund Money?

page: 2
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Call me naive, but I doubt this was done intentionally.

It's my understanding that these old gold mines have been contaminating those rivers for years and the EPA was trying to come up with a solution to the problem.

It's now apparent that the solution they chose to employ was flawed and this geologist guy, Dave Taylor Farmington, was insightful enough to foretell the possibility that their plan would backfire and lead to a catastrophic spill.

That in itself does not prove the spill was deliberately orchestrated by the EPA.

At least they were trying to remedy the problem, as opposed to those who originally mined the gold, reaped the profits and then left their toxic mess behind for the rest of us to deal with.

I'm confident that in the future, we will be dealing with similar situations as we attempt to deal with the pollution and other negative environmental repercussions left behind by the oil & gas fracking boom currently underway in this country.

Once they've drained every last dollar they can from the earth, they'll take their money and runs for the hills, leaving the rest of us to clean up the mess and/or damage they leave in their wake.

Once they've extracted all the money out of their wells and left the scene, who's gonna fix the polluted water tables surrounding their drill and/or waste sites?

Who's gonna fix all the homes and businesses damaged by the earthquakes related to fracking?

Who even knows what repercussions we'll face in the future due their practice of injecting polluted waste frack fluids into abandoned wells?

Until such time that we develop the political will to demand that these companies clean up their own waste, we'll continue to face problems like this one facing us now.

IMO, the EPA is a much needed agency. If you really want to fix the problem, we're gonna need to concentrate more on the actual source of the problem and not those task with cleaning it up.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LeslieD

God forbid the EPA gets their hands on all the other ones.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

EPA, might as well be called the Environmental Pollution Agency

These scumbags aren't protecting anything, just ruining one ecosystem after another, leaving them desolate for centuries to come.

This is a complete travesty...



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
Hey, another strange "Coincidence" and an "I told you so".


www.zerohedge.com...



A week before The EPA disastrously leaked millions of gallons of toxic waste into The Animas River in Colorado, this letter to the editor was published in The Silverton Standard & The Miner local newspaper, authored by a retired geologist detailing verbatim, how EPA would foul the Animas River on purpose in order to secure superfund money...

"But make no mistake, within seven days, all of the 500gpm flow will return to Cememnt Creek. Contamination may actually increase... The "grand experiment" in my opinion will fail.
And guess what [EPA's] Mr. Hestmark will say then?
Gee, "Plan A" didn't work so I guess we will have to build a treat¬ment plant at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million to $500 million (who knows).
Reading between the lines, I believe that has been the EPA's plan all along"




Um. . . isn't it also possible that this is what you might call a "valid warning" about an impending disaster and that it was stupidly ignored, just like they have been ignored about this site FOR YEARS? And really, if they did. . . I DON'T CARE. This needs cleaned up. If this is what had to happen to get the money, I am fine with it.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: infolurker

It was the EPA's plan all along to make themselves look completely inept and possibly liable for the damage caused?

THIS article is saying costs may exceed $100 million.

More like, he suspected that their plan was going to fail from the beginning.

Did you know that these mine have been poisoning this river system for decades?


Between 2005 and 2010, three out of four of the fish species that lived in the Upper Animas beneath Silverton died. According to studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, the volume of insects and the number of bug species have plummeted. And since 2006, USGS scientists have found that the water flowing under Bakers Bridge – then downstream, into Durango – carries concentrations of zinc that are toxic to animal life.


www.durangoherald.com...

Yes the EPA messed up on a monumental scale... But they've been pushing for this area to be a superfund site since the 90's. The fish and insect die offs could only be ignored by the local pen pushers for so long..






EXACTLY!!! For crying out loud how can you look past the complete CLUSTER that mining company left behind and blame the EPA for this?! Sometimes there just isn't enough facepalm in the World. . .



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: WalkInSilence
It is odd that the media hasn't picked up this connection. And there has not been a response here either.
This is controversial and very disturbing.
I don't understand, is it actually profitable to create such a catastrophe?
Thank You


You find it odd.

I guess you believe the media is free to do as they please, and actually report on things with impunity.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

I absolutely agree with you here flatfish. The gold mining/oil industry is destroying the planet, they are the real culprit. But in the end they don't just 'run for the hills'.

You're forgetting these corporations lobby the EPA, and basically call the shots, so that they can keep conducting their business. Thats when I start to get scared of something much bigger!



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
If a week before 911 some one told you the CIA NSA
would get terrorist to crash plains into the twin towers.
would you have said oh the terrorist would have done it any way?

that is what you are doing now.
how much do you think they get out of the money?
that’s in there own bank.
Thats You Tax Money!



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Who could have guessed that taking a bulldozer to the wall of a containment pond would cause a breach and subsequently a flood? I guess we need people with a bit more education about hydrology aiming bulldozers, eh?

Seriously, people, anyone who actually believes this was a "mistake" is seriously ignorant about how containment ponds and bulldozers work.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Same people that are suppose to be in charge of all the "global warming" stuff and make sure people do right huh


And people wonder why were skeptical of anything the gov says in that regard



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Flatfish

Who could have guessed that taking a bulldozer to the wall of a containment pond would cause a breach and subsequently a flood? I guess we need people with a bit more education about hydrology aiming bulldozers, eh?

Seriously, people, anyone who actually believes this was a "mistake" is seriously ignorant about how containment ponds and bulldozers work.


Not that it matters and I could be wrong, but I doubt that the equipment operator was an actual employee of the EPA. I would just imagine he probably worked for a private contractor who was hired by the EPA to perform the work.

Either way, I'm still inclined to believe it was an accident and not a deliberate act as per the question posed in the OP.

Furthermore, I doubt that most dozer operators have any training in hydrology or any other ologies, they're equipment operators and they're used to pushing dirt wherever they're told to.

IMO, a deliberate act would be more akin to willfully ignoring the fact you had ripped the guts out of your blow-out preventer when chunks of rubber showed up in your drilling fluids and choosing to continue drilling operations. You know, like BP did in the Gulf of Mexico.

Accidents happen everyday and in hindsight, most could have been prevented.

All I'm saying is that at least these people were attempting to fix a problem as opposed to those who, during their quest for wealth, actually created the toxic mess and then left it behind with total disregard.

edit on 13-8-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Actually the wastewater was coming from two other mines that fed back into Gold King after the EPA started plugging them.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

It's really disturbing, but i find this to be totally plausible. Our Govt. is not working in OUR own best interests, but in their own. These sick bastards are killing our beautiful planet for money, greed, and who knows what else... I wish someone would tell them that they can't take all their money with them down to hell..



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Private contractor that does the majority of the EPA's work in that region according to the news.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The "Contractor" has been exposed.

And I bet they knew what they were doing and had special training for the employees.

EPA contractor behind Colorado mine spill got $381 million from taxpayers




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Attentionwandered
a reply to: Flatfish

I absolutely agree with you here flatfish. The gold mining/oil industry is destroying the planet, they are the real culprit. But in the end they don't just 'run for the hills'.

You're forgetting these corporations lobby the EPA, and basically call the shots, so that they can keep conducting their business. Thats when I start to get scared of something much bigger!


You're absolutely correct and if we're every going to make our government beholden to the "people" again, the first steps have to include outlawing paid lobbyist of any kind and removal of corporate personhood by reversing the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision.

Doing those two things would have a huge impact.

Hell, most congressional representatives view the profession of paid lobbying as their "go-to" retirement pkg. anyway.

But make no mistake about it, corruption is in no way limited to government. That's just where it seems to have the biggest impact on the most people.


edit on 13-8-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wouldn't the Govt. contractor need to be bonded and insured? Can't they go to the insurance company to pay for this over the taxpayers?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: xuenchen

Wouldn't the Govt. contractor need to be bonded and insured? Can't they go to the insurance company to pay for this over the taxpayers?


Hmmm.

Good point.

Might be possible.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: GovWatch79
a reply to: Flatfish

Private contractor that does the majority of the EPA's work in that region according to the news.


And what difference does it make whether the pollutants came from more than one abandoned mine or that this contractor does a lot of work for the EPA?

Does that mean that it's okay if profiteers leave toxic messes in their wakes so long as more than one of them did it?

Does acquiring repeated business from the EPA somehow mean you're supposed to be immune from having accidents?

At this time, there is absolutely no proof that this spill was intentional.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: xuenchen

Wouldn't the Govt. contractor need to be bonded and insured? Can't they go to the insurance company to pay for this over the taxpayers?


Unless they were granted some kind of immunity by the EPA or some other branch of govt. for even agreeing to mess with this stuff, I would just imagine they were and are.

Now, whether or not their coverage is substantial enough to cover the actual damages in this particular case, that's a whole nuther question.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join