Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indiana seems to have the smallest lake frontage of any of the Great Lake states. Yet it seems to have a couple of the most polluted beaches.
So my question is to the locals around Lake Michigan, do you feel that Indiana does not care about its lake waters as much because it does not have that much at stake? Or is Indiana a victim of pollution drifting down to the southern end of the lake?
They don't seem to give a flying rats azz about the lake. The Northern portions of Lake Michigan are mostly very rural, very little pollution that COLD drift down if given the chance.
The industrial areas and its related issues are the reason for it in most of the cases. (though migratory birds can be significant in other places) Part of it is that the factories are likely older so many of the pollution control devices and methods aren't all up-to date. I also wouldn't be suprised if there is less pressure on them to do so fearing the factories would just leave instead. (Why many Midwestern politicans on both sides are wary of various environmental regulations due to what might happen with manufacturing jobs)
I am also interested if how the lakes currrents are set up which might make areas suseptible to such pollution.
Wouldn't the ocean itself clean oceanfront beaches more than a lake would? I don't know much about the mechanics of a beach and its relationship with the body of water it touches, but growing up near the Atlantic and having lived on the Great Lakes, I noticed that the waves and tides you see on an ocean at the very least tidied the beach, smoothing and grooming the beach itself. Strong currents could then pull offending substances out to sea where they are dissolved... or at least scattered. The lakes aren't quite so active in that way.
I don't know that that explains all of it, but it certainly could contribute.
You might try looking at Gary, Indiana and Chicago area. Most of Michigan is very rural and the lakes are crystal clear, and clean.
The Great Lakes have 9402 miles of shoreline, Michigan has over 3200 miles by itself. Indiana has 45 miles of shoreline, Illinois has 63 miles. MI has 3 beaches on that list while Indiana has 2 on the list and IL has 1. You should be able to do the math to see where the majority of the pollution is coming from.
You are welcome from the State of Michigan that we are leading the push (along with MN and WI) to protect our waterways and the Great Lakes resources and dragging the likes of IN and IL into evaluating their lack of control over the years.
Wouldn't the ocean itself clean oceanfront beaches more than a lake would? I don't know much about the mechanics of a beach and its relationship with the body of water it touches, but growing up near the Atlantic and having lived on the Great Lakes, I noticed that the waves and tides you see on an ocean at the very least tidied the beach, smoothing and grooming the beach itself. Strong currents could then pull offending substances out to sea where they are dissolved... or at least scattered. The lakes aren't quite so active in that way.
I don't know that that explains all of it, but it certainly could contribute.
That is generally what I am thinking is a cause of it. The waters of the Great Lakes tend to not move as much pooling contaminants. The oceans tend to have a constant current along the shorelines pushing contaminants which disperse them causing neutralization faster due to mechanical and natural processes.
One thought is that if the Gulf Oil Spill occured in one of the Great Lakes the contamination would be much more severe due to physical factors of the great lakes preventing dispersal. Also water temperature is lower causing the rate of breakdown of the oil naturally to be slower.
That is generally what I am thinking is a cause of it. The waters of the Great Lakes tend to not move as much pooling contaminants. The oceans tend to have a constant current along the shorelines pushing contaminants which disperse them causing neutralization faster due to mechanical and natural processes.
One thought is that if the Gulf Oil Spill occured in one of the Great Lakes the contamination would be much more severe due to physical factors of the great lakes preventing dispersal. Also water temperature is lower causing the rate of breakdown of the oil naturally to be slower.
Yes, the retention rates for the lakes are quite high. Lake Superior has a retention rate of almost 200 years while Lake Michigan has a retention rate of 99 years. The lowest is Lake Erie with a retention rate of 2.6 years
Rochester is the only place on the southern shore of Lake Ontario that is built up - hence, it has some water quality issues (one beach does, I think).
But there are a whole string of Lake Ontario beaches in New York which never seem to have any water quality issues (Fair Haven, Selkirk, Southwick, Westcott etc) - all are east/northeast of Rochester. I was referring to those.
Also, I don't believe Canadian pollution affects the southern shore because keep in mind the Great Lakes are a chain with an outlet to the sea (St Lawrence) - I would imagine all the Canadian stuff gets flushed out of Lake Ontario pretty quick.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
