Ohio River getting bad press about pollution. Not good for Pittsburgh's reputation. (Monongahela: house, calculated)

[Caladium]

I would love to see this river cleaned up. FWIW, I don't think it affects Pittsburgh's reputation. Look at the number of people moving there now--not one of them mention the cleanliness of the river as affecting their decision or their opinion of the city.

[escilade18]

At least our rivers don't catch fire

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by escilade18

At least our rivers don't catch fire

Rural PA faucets do instead.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Sorry if that was misleading. It was in the Post Gazette and the Ohio River, so it drags us in. What a sickening shame states allow such things. What is Indiana and Kentucky thinking? It sure is shocking. Hope we set a great example for those other places to follow. Pittsburgh is growing and doing better and I feel part of it is because of it being cleaned up. We have a ways to go, but it is better than it was.

The problem wasn't with the way you presented it for sure. The issue was the lady in the article wanting something done about clean water in Pennsylvania, and using problems in Indiana as evidence to get her point across. There are plenty of things going on out there without the need to fabricate more. I wonder if the disconnect was more in how the article was written.

[gg]

One thing for sure, water in our rivers can never be too clean. I mean most of us drink it. Kind of scary sometimes, but bottled might be worse.

[SammyKhalifa]

Beyond the possible health issues, bottled water is also just such a waste.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Although I feel bad about drinking bottled water, it's much better than drinking the disgusting water that comes from my tap.

[WestLibertyAve]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Although I feel bad about drinking bottled water, it's much better than drinking the disgusting water that comes from my tap.

Generally, the water coming out of your tap is more heavily regulated than the bottled stuff, which often times is nothing but tap water itself.

I must give the bottled water industry credit though, all they have to do is put a picture of a pretty mountain stream on the bottle and not disclose any information about the source or purity of what's inside, and people like ATC will buy it up, convinced it's somehow superior. What a marvelous business model.

[barneyg]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

One thing for sure, water in our rivers can never be too clean. I mean most of us drink it. Kind of scary sometimes, but bottled might be worse.

I believe it's the main reason why the press release (and overall report focus) were phrased that way. The point is to raise awareness by saying the whole river is polluted, that way everybody with any kind of responsibility regarding the river can be pressured into making anti-pollution changes.

If that AK Steel plant had been singled out (or Clairton Coke Works, responsible for about 95% of Monongahela water pollution according to the report*) then that would have turned into a local issue, and environmentalists can never win a fight against "we need to keep our jobs".

* Their pollution measure is total number of lbs. of chemicals dumped into the river. That "kitchen sink" methodology has the advantage of making this look like a BIG number -- 32 MILLION POUNDS of chemicals were dumped into the Ohio last year. I hope this doesn't sound too naive to assume that some chemicals are probably worse than others and if AK Steel was allowed to dump 23.5 million pounds of nitrate compounds in the Ohio River, the side effects may not be as horrible as they sound.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by barneyg

I believe it's the main reason why the press release (and overall report focus) were phrased that way. The point is to raise awareness by saying the whole river is polluted, that way everybody with any kind of responsibility regarding the river can be pressured into making anti-pollution changes.

If that AK Steel plant had been singled out (or Clairton Coke Works, responsible for about 95% of Monongahela water pollution according to the report*) then that would have turned into a local issue, and environmentalists can never win a fight against "we need to keep our jobs".

* Their pollution measure is total number of lbs. of chemicals dumped into the river. That "kitchen sink" methodology has the advantage of making this look like a BIG number -- 32 MILLION POUNDS of chemicals were dumped into the Ohio last year. I hope this doesn't sound too naive to assume that some chemicals are probably worse than others and if AK Steel was allowed to dump 23.5 million pounds of nitrate compounds in the Ohio River, the side effects may not be as horrible as they sound.

In my opinion the article only hurt their own cause by framing their argument the way they did. A polluted Ohio River in Cincy or Illinois (or whereever they measured) does NOT prove that Pennsylvania is "a polluters paradise."

And I still don't understand how The Ohio and its tributaries can have more waste than the Mississippi and its tributaries.

It's dishonest, and IMHO only provides fodder for the opposition who want to attack the "extremists." Which is a shame really, because there are plenty of real examples to give without bending facts. Hopefully it just seems bad because of clumsy writing in the article.