Subject: Re: Cuyahoga fire
From: jfpco@infi.net (Jack Painter)
Date: Jul 03 1995
Newsgroups: sci.environment

In article <3t6sn7$anq@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9241389@cc.wwu.edu says...
>-I'm doing some research on significant events in environmental history 
>and am having some trouble locating heavy-duty information on the 
>Cuyahoga River fire that occurred June 22, 1969 (?).  Does anyone know 
>of any good available sources (non-periodical) that might be of use to 
>me?  Thanks in advance...

Jason, Having lived there in '69, I hope you will widely publish your
independent findings of this early example of environmental hogwash.
Try TIME magazine of that week for the lies and exagerrations.  Then
read the Cleveland Plain Dealer in the same week for a clearer picture.
You may find several sources, especially living fire-chiefs, who know
that 1.) the RIVER never caught fire---only flotsam under a RR bridge,
and that kind of accident could happen today on a calm eddy of any river.
2.) the fire (and their were others, earlier) was NOT by "spontaneous
combustion", as idiots in every call of environmental clubs still sound
off today---it was welding sparks from repairs to the RR bridge.

Jack Painter

Subject: Re: Cuyahoga fire
From: jfpco@infi.net (Jack Painter)
Date: Jul 06 1995
Newsgroups: sci.environment

In article <Dan_Ferber-0307951623460001@koniskyj3.life.uiuc.edu>, 
Dan_Ferber@qms1.life.uiuc.edu says...
>In article <3t950a$7cv@lucy.infi.net>, jfpco@infi.net (Jack Painter) 
>wrote:
>> In article <3t6sn7$anq@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9241389@cc.wwu.edu says...
>> >Cuyahoga River fire that occurred June 22, 1969 (?).  
>> Jason, Having lived there in '69, I hope you will widely publish your
>> independent findings of this early example of environmental hogwash.
Del.///
>> You may find several sources, especially living fire-chiefs, who know
>> that 1.) the RIVER never caught fire---only flotsam under a RR bridge,
>> and that kind of accident could happen today on a calm eddy of any 
>> river.
>> 2.) the fire (and their were others, earlier) was NOT by "spontaneous
>> combustion", as idiots in every call of environmental clubs still 
>> sound off today---it was welding sparks from repairs to the RR bridge.

>So the river was clean and unpolluted, then?  As I recall Lake Erie was
>declared dead in the early 1970's, and fish are still not safe to eat 
>from there.  

No, the river wasn't "clean & unpolluted" by today's standards.  Lake
Erie, however was never declared "dead" (except by idiots), the fish
were never unsafe to eat, the beaches were never closed, and the source
of every lake-city's drinking water was never in question - and that
includes by today's standards.  So everything you read or heard was
totally false, and there were never any scientific facts or truths to
the media stories on Lake Erie.  I know, I lived there, swam there,
boated on the lakes, and went to college there.  Our family business
installed many of the industry pollution control systems on electric
generating stations, steel mills and paper mills along the lake.  The
lake was and is extremely resilient, and the report of its death wasn't
jokingly "premature", it was unadulterated bullshit.

>I also remember growing up in the lower Hudson valley in NY where the 
>beaches were closed for 15 years due to PCB contamination in the
>Hudson.  Are you saying there wasn't a big water pollution problem back
>then, or there isn't now?  The facts say otherwise.     Dan

Dan, what you cite from your own home town memories is fine with me,
but don't presume to know the same from anything you read about Erie.
The facts say otherwise. Jack

Subject: Re: Cuyahoga fire
From: jfpco@infi.net (Jack Painter)
Date: Jul 10 1995
Newsgroups: sci.environment

In article <1995Jul7.162414.3111@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com says...

>The Great Lakes Commission lists numerous epidemiological studies
>demonstrating correlations between high consumption of fish and 
>increased disease in the Great Lakes.  Such correlations are not 
>positive proof but they contradict your "never unsafe" statement.  

Right, and not so right. There has never been a study that concluded
or even drew inference that normal consumption (lifetime) of Lake
fish was casual to disease or otherwise harmful.  Of course pregnant
women have always been advised to not exceed "normal" intakes due to
higher mercury levels in most bodies of water in the world.

>Offhand, I do not know if these studies applied to Lake Erie or not.  
>Do you consider Erie to be an exception within the Great Lakes?  The 
>GLC also lists numerous manmade pollutants and impacts on wildlife 
>believed to be caused by them, along with some related human impacts.
> -- Dean Myerson        

Lake Erie was the test tube for these accusations for longer than the 
other four lakes, and as the smallest and shallowest, was thought to
be the least resilient...at first.  The high transfer (cleansing) rate
has maintained a quality of water at least equal to most areas of the
other lakes, which all have some low-transfer sectors.  Again, it
was never unsafe to drink the public water systems product, swim, or
eat the fish of Lake Erie.  It just got "safer" in the last 20 years.

Jack Painter