Dam Susquehanna, dammit (Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre: vacation home, neighborhoods, living)

[weluvpa]

Frank how is the fishing? Water still look like Yoo-Hoo? Ignore these guys......I doubt either one of them have seen the river like you and I have, if they have they wouldn't be so quick to dam it.

Be safe, keep it right side up.

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

Originally Posted by olbluesguy

I think you are both nuts!.One person from Ga., and another from Fla. telling us what we should do with our beutifull river.
Where do you get such pipe dreams?
Why do you waste your time with all of that mindless research that nobody reads past the first sentance or two?
I Am the river, I live on the river, I am now as I type.... ON THE RIVER! on a 100 mile sojourn kayaking from Vosburg to Sunbury......Keep yoiu hands Off my river ! Your ideas are as stupid as trying to build a whole new river from scratch. CHEEEEEEZ!

I grew up in Pittston....and I did not advocate damming the river...read more carefully....

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

I agree that FUSION power would be far superior. My problem is that the current theorists who said "it's just over the horizon" still don't have anything that closely resembles a workable reactor.
Embarking on a "Manhattan style" money-is-no-object program would be premature, if not fool hardy.

FISSION reactors are a bit of a problem. It's not the ionizing radiation, but the accumulation of neutrons destabilizing nuclei. Half lives of some of the toxic isotopes run into the hundreds of thousands of years. It does seem unrealistic that we can safely contain the wastes for what amounts to "eternity".

Since water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, I am not persuaded that trace gases in the atmosphere have a significant effect on the global climate. I am of the opinion that variations in the climate have more to do with our variable star, the sun, and perturbations of our planet's orbit, than humanity. However, I support the transition to non-fossil fuel technology, simply because totally consuming a resource that took 65 millions years or more to produce is patently insane. The widespread and continued use of petroleum as fuel, means that humanity will have destroyed an irreplaceable resource in under 200 years. That's not a proud achievement.

I agree that Fusion power has been right around the corner, since the late 70's; however they thought they would reach fuel ignition and net power gain very quickly...which has not happened...until recently. Researchers in Britain have now repeatedly achieved ignition with a net power gain over 100 megawatts; however to scale up to commercial reactors at the current pace will take approximately 50 more years. An Apollo or Manhattan style project would get us towards our goal much sooner....it worked back in the 1940's and the 1960's and it will work now. Fusion power will be almost limitless until supplanted by some form of anti-matter power extraction technology....Penn State has already created miniscule amounts of it, but that's a start also. I am not advocating current nuclear storage technology but PUREX processing which is relative safer and already in use by other developed nations. I am talking about Full RECYCLING..."Where recycled fuel prepared by pyrometallurgical processing would be burned in advanced fast-neutron reactors of a prototype technology. This design "reburns" depleted radioactive elements, 99% of the thermal energy is extracted and only one percent is wasted; greatly reducing the amount and radioactivity of any "unspent" fuel. This method will ,in a short time, not need any new uranium mining but can burn most of the waste currently stored on site at nuclear power plants. This method also does not require new uranium enrichment; further limiting any terroristic minded individuals.....and the remaining Plutonium is too impure to divert to weapons. The tailored waste products must still be encased and buried; BUT the amount of time required is only 500 years and the waste would than be safe to release into the environment. No matter what we do future generations will be cleaning up our environmental mess.....but this route will at least do less damage and leave less poisonous waste.

[olbluesguy]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

Frank how is the fishing? Water still look like Yoo-Hoo? Ignore these guys......I doubt either one of them have seen the river like you and I have, if they have they wouldn't be so quick to dam it.

Be safe, keep it right side up.

No fishing, just paddling. We got a good soaking yesterday.
{I'm glad I have a spray skirt for the yak].
Most of the 200 of us looked like wet rats. The sun did come out when we got to W-B for the River Fest.
We had folks from all walks of life on the Sojourn. Scientists, environmentalists, jounalists, and profesionals. and to a man and then some they all agreed NO DAM!
The river was running fast and we made this section in a little over half the normal time it normaly takes.
It was also neat to see the mine cars sticking out of the river near the site of the knox mine disaster.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by olbluesguy

I think you are both nuts!.One person from Ga., and another from Fla. telling us what we should do with our beutifull river.
Where do you get such pipe dreams?
Why do you waste your time with all of that mindless research that nobody reads past the first sentance or two?
I Am the river, I live on the river, I am now as I type.... ON THE RIVER! on a 100 mile sojourn kayaking from Vosburg to Sunbury......Keep yoiu hands Off my river ! Your ideas are as stupid as trying to build a whole new river from scratch. CHEEEEEEZ!

I may sojourn in Georgia, but I was born and raised in Wyoming Valley, with friends and kinfolk still alive and kicking 'round the Susquehanna.

And if you think that "natural preservation" trumps engineering, please feel free to stop driving cars on paved roads, and living in houses with plumbing, and central heating. Don't use any electrical appliance or device.
Go back to 17th century "high tech", walk, ride a horse or paddle everywhere, live in dirt and squalor, and then tell us how stupid we are.

I think it is proper to engineer a river to serve more functions than a sewer, flood machine, and a barrier to prosperity. Throughout history, men have augmented natural waterways to enhance them. Coincidentally, navigable waterways have contributed to prosperity in all civilizations.

What's so wrong with research that you deem it mindless? Does the data make you uncomfortable? Why not make the river valley safe from floods? Why not make eastern Pennsylvania into a valuable and desirable location? What's wrong with having hundreds of miles of waterfront property on a navigable waterway? Why not expand the options for economic growth in the valley? Why not have the equivalent of the intracoastal waterway running through Pennsylvania? And while we're at it, let's stop using the Susquehanna as a cesspool, and put in comprehensive waste treatment facilities.

It may be crazy to you, but I can imagine houseboats, sailboats, cruisers, barges, and riverboats floating about; docks, boat houses, parks, houses and business enterprises lining the shore. I can visualize the twinkling lights reflected on the water at night, and the murmur of people, enjoying evenings by the river.

I think the area would greatly benefit from cheap bulk transportation, tourism, and waterfront development for decades to come.

"Natural beauty" is a human concept, easily manufactured. For example, Central Park in NYC, was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and architect Calvert Vaux. While much of the park looks natural, it is in fact almost entirely landscaped. Likewise, the restored shoreline of the Susquehanna would be designed to be "natural". And it could be portioned so that parts are kept natural and others developed. From Nanticoke, to Wilkes-Barre, Kingston, and to Pittston, could have extensive commercial and recreational development, intermixed with parks and gardens. (I hope that developers are not allowed to put up high rises at the water's edge. That would be unfortunate. Blocking the view for everyone else would be an injustice.)

I like the idea of boat trips to Elmira or Binghamton or to the Chesapeake Bay... or to Williamsport... or to the many towns that line the river.

And, lastly, you can't exclusively own a river. Claiming that it's yours and you can exclude others from using it is quite arrogant.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

.....I doubt either one of them have seen the river like you and I have, if they have they wouldn't be so quick to dam it.

Ahem... I paddled the Susquehanna in my wee Folbot, back in the 1970-1980s. And I also paddled in the Chesapeake Bay and many parts of Virginia Beach's little bays and inlets (Lynnhaven Bay). I also paddled on the Finger Lakes, and other waterways. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with making the Susquehanna into a chain of lakes, with the ugly levees gone, and shoreline development intermixed with wild areas.

[weluvpa]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

I see nothing wrong with making the Susquehanna into a chain of lakes.

The fish and the eco-system rely on the ever changing water temps and levels for the habitat, structure and forage that they eat and use. Creating a series of lakes absolutely changes the environment of the river and the habitat and eco-system that the river thrives in and on.

Man needs to stay the hell out of mother natures business. I have lived on the shore and worked and run boats as a captain for over a decade of my life and will tell you that the absolute best inlets are natural inlets and the worst are the inlets that the Army Corps has to CONSTANTLY maintain in order for them to be a navigable waterway for vessels.

If this is what you want then maybe you should move to Europe....Better yet dust off the old canvas Folbot and paddle there....

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

I actually used to swim and fish in the Susquehanna on the West Pittston side of the river and inner tube the northern portions probably many moons before some folks were even born.

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

Frank how is the fishing? Water still look like Yoo-Hoo? Ignore these guys......I doubt either one of them have seen the river like you and I have, if they have they wouldn't be so quick to dam it.

Be safe, keep it right side up.

You too...LOL....show me where I advocated a dam??????? I swam etc. in the "Susq", probably before you were conceived! Being poor and it being the sixties we constantly went down to the river; my father would have to hunt me down to get me home. Do NOT assume you know people and READ more carefully!

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

The fish and the eco-system rely on the ever changing water temps and levels for the habitat, structure and forage that they eat and use. Creating a series of lakes absolutely changes the environment of the river and the habitat and eco-system that the river thrives in and on.

Do you have any data that a similar change came upon the Tennessee River? Don't all impounded bodies of water change height and temperature with the seasons and weather?
With a series of locks, migratory fish would not be impeded. And one can add fish ladders if that's not enough.

Originally Posted by weluvpa

Man needs to stay the hell out of mother natures business. I have lived on the shore and worked and run boats as a captain for over a decade of my life and will tell you that the absolute best inlets are natural inlets and the worst are the inlets that the Army Corps has to CONSTANTLY maintain in order for them to be a navigable waterway for vessels.

If this is what you want then maybe you should move to Europe....Better yet dust off the old canvas Folbot and paddle there....

In reverse order, Folbots are not canvas, but vinyl and rubber. (The folding models have an aluminum and wood skeleton)

And why would someone have to leave one's country because they disagree with you?

Would you leave the country if the Susquehanna River was dammed and developed?

Do you any data that supports your opinion that engineered rivers are ecological catastrophes ? Or are unpopular? Or unconstitutional (not under the authority of government)?

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Defenders note that the TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike...

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled the TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable.

From what I gathered, folks really like the benefits of the TVA.

Tennessee Valley Authority home page

If you don't want the Federal government funding or USACE involved, that's fine, too.

But imagine the possibilities of cruising all of the Susquehanna, and its branches.

Cruising The Great Loop » Tennessee River Blog

Tennessee River Cruise

And please tell us what Mother Nature's business is? Because if man did nothing, he'd be killed off by Mother Nature's business.

If you feel offended that I do not subscribe to the "Environmental Preservation" creed, I apologize. But mankind has to do more than maintain the status quo. We have to amplify the life bearing capacity of the land and the sea. That's what agriculture and aquaculture are all about.

In the long view, mankind is doubling every 40 to 50 years. So it's fit that we consider that we will have to make room for another 6.7 billion people by 2050. And we will have to grow the food, etc, for them, too.

With a tamed and clean Susquehanna, would it not be reasonable to expect that fish farming might become a valuable activity?

Aquaculture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Center for Profitable Agriculture - Level2

I suspect that there would many opportunities for fish and mollusk culture.

Ah, don't be "shellfish" - come out of your shell and dream a little.