Visualizations : Chicago politicians pollution vs BP
Can't see the visualization? Download the latest Java plugin here. On Macs: best viewed in Safari.
|
Data source:
EPA
|
This data set
has not yet been rated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please wait...
This visualization
has not yet been rated.
has not yet been rated.
Part of these topic hubs:
Want to keep track of this
visualization?
Add it to your watchlist!
Learn more:
About the Bar Chart
Comments (1)
|
cgreen
says:
For example, in ranting about the relatively small amount of ammonia allowed into the lake, the critics ignore the fact that ammonia is not a bioaccumulative chemical. It breaks down in the water. If it didn't, all the fish in the Great Lakes might have disappeared eons ago from swimming in their own urine.
Also conveniently missing from the debate is the context that could be provided by comparing BP with other industrial and city "dischargers." According to the EPA, BP's 4,925 pounds of suspended solids allowed a day compares with 16,630 at International Steel Group's East Chicago plant and 121,861 at its Burns Harbor facility. Ispat Industries' East Chicago plant is allowed 130,453 pounds, about 27 times BP's limit. Chicago, of course, is on another planet, permitted 243,000 pounds, almost 50 times BP's. Maybe Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who is threatening to sue BP, ought to sue himself. Except, I suppose that Chicago's discharges don't count because they aren't into the lake; they're just gifted to the Illinois river system. Note also might be taken of the fact that no ammonia limits are imposed on a bunch of papermakers and cities such as Milwaukee and Green Bay. Chicago's allowable ammonia discharge (from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District) is 61,000 pounds, compared with BP's 1,584. Filtering the facts from the fallacies of BP controversy http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0820byrneaug20,0,3340204.story |