|
previous topic :: next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kataku2k3
Since 14 Aug 2005
3753 Posts
Los Angeles, CA
Videographer
|
 Wed Jul 26, 06 8:41 pm Columbia vs. Willamette... which has better water? |
 |
|
Okay, this is off topic, but I got in a little debate with a couple friends down here at school because they think the Willamette is less "polluted" than the Columbia. What do you all think?
And this is why... Though it was from 1990-1994 and is measured in "total pounds of direct toxic discharges into water" which doesn't really make sense (or mean anything) to me if water mass isn't taken into consideration...
http://www.ewg.org/reports/dishonorable/ddrivers.html
Thank you!  |
|
|
Slidingby
Since 29 Mar 2006
125 Posts
Portland, OR
Stoked
|
| Wed Jul 26, 06 9:11 pm |
|
|
My 2 cents on that adam are only what I know from living and working downtown and that is since that construction and sewage system changover started taking place... once in a while, from what I understand there have been some "waste overflows" - aka floating snicker bars  ... the columbia however runs along that part of washington where they store the nuclear stuff which scares me more, although I have always thought of the willamette being a lot more polluted than the columbia. That sand at PDX is F*&king disgusting though  . |
|
|
pkh
Since 27 Feb 2005
6548 Posts
Couve / Hood
Site Lackey
|
| Wed Jul 26, 06 9:20 pm |
|
|
| Ride Sauvies! Worst of both worlds... |
|
|
Kraemer
Since 24 Apr 2006
1735 Posts
Sky Pilot
Unicorn Captain
|
| Wed Jul 26, 06 10:26 pm |
|
|
The willamette sure tastes better! Smells better too. Plus you don't have any ski or wake boats around. Under the sellwood bridge and on the other side of the ross island is just great on a saturday when theres no wind. I've luckily jumped over some floating appliances and christmas trees though. One day the boat I was on hit a log or something and got a great ding in its bow. But other than that..... You are good to go. After a rainfall, all that fresh water seems to clear it out... NOT.  |
|
|
Kataku2k3
Since 14 Aug 2005
3753 Posts
Los Angeles, CA
Videographer
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 12:10 am |
|
|
| haha, thanks for the input guys! But I guess the better question is, would you rather eat a fish from the Columbia, or Willamette? This isn't so much just for kiting. |
|
|
pkh
Since 27 Feb 2005
6548 Posts
Couve / Hood
Site Lackey
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 6:17 am |
|
|
| Kataku2k3 wrote: | | haha, thanks for the input guys! But I guess the better question is, would you rather eat a fish from the Columbia, or Willamette? This isn't so much just for kiting. |
Neither sounds too appetizing...
I am not an expert, but I'd think one thing you have to take into consideration in that toxic discharge chart you posted is that the Columbia is way bigger than the Willamette, so things are bound to be dilluted a lot more. Also I wonder if CSO falls into the toxic discharge category...
Hanford (nuclear waste storage near upper Columbia) is some scary shit, but likely if it really was leaking into the river there would be some signs of it already. I heard that stuff is so toxic that a cup full could kill a room full of people in just a few minutes.
My own personal test: When I am underwater in the Gorge the water seems cleaner than what it looks like at Sauvies. |
|
|
Kraemer
Since 24 Apr 2006
1735 Posts
Sky Pilot
Unicorn Captain
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 9:33 am |
|
|
| The water is definately cleaner above PDX. There are some companies like Wah Chang Teledyne down nr. Salem and Albany that regularly dump "processed chemicals" into the Willamette. They are constantly fined because their waste that they dump EVERYDAY into the willamette doesn't meet epa standards. I think the fines are less expensive than a retrofit for it's "chem-processors". |
|
|
Gman
Since 11 Feb 2006
4907 Posts
Portland
Unstrapped
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 10:06 am |
|
|
| Willamette seems nastier. I used to ski around Ross Island with my friend Greg French and he got a cut on his chest that got so infected that he grew a third nipple - Willamette Scaramanga. I take my dog down to Oaks Park and the sand is black goo - makes the airport beach seem like Cancun. Sauvies water didn't taste so bad last night - tasted like strippers. |
|
|
pdxmonkeyboy
Since 16 May 2006
6081 Posts
forever labled as the
retired kiter & motorhead Unicorn Master
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 10:35 am |
|
|
| pkh wrote: |
Hanford (nuclear waste storage near upper Columbia) is some scary shit, but likely if it really was leaking into the river there would be some signs of it already. I heard that stuff is so toxic that a cup full could kill a room full of people in just a few minutes.
My |
Just as an FYI, the columbia river was the most radioactive river in north america in the 1980's. It's not "if" it is leaking, it IS leaking. They are working on it but it takes time.
In terms of water quality and kite boarding, I would place my bets on the columbia any day. Not only do you have much larger volume and discharge, their is less industry and population centers on the columbia.
I would eat anadromous fish from the Columbia..the willamette.. probably not.
The willamette is pretty hammered. All the bad things start to happen when you get to Salem. The death blow is really portland though. Toxic chemicals, hormones, heavy metals, NASTY sludge, fecal choliform, dioxin, you name it. I would not step foot in the wilamette north of salem and south of the columbia confluence.
Lets not forget that the entire stretch of the willamette that the EPA tested (fremont bridge to umm, I can't remember) was designated a super fund site- which does not just happen on a whim. Next time you drive to Sauvie and you see that grey concrete building in the railyards, the one with nothing around it, you are looking at one the most contaminated brown fields in portland. I'm surprised it doesn't glow at night.
The other great family picnic area is by the union pacific railyard (that pinnacle looking thing). They used to produce concentrated DDT there. Like, REALLY concentrated. And in a display of corporate wisdom they used to store effluent in open ponds that would flood into the river...oops.
Corporations USED to be made accountable for the clean up of this shit but you can thank George dumb-b ya for gutting the clean water act in 2003 and essentially transfering that financial resposibility to you and I.
Geez, the future is so bright I can hardly see. Good times and keep your mouth closed while in the river  |
|
|
ptavv
Since 29 May 2006
30 Posts
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 10:56 am |
|
|
| pdxmonkeyboy wrote: | | Lets not forget that the entire stretch of the willamette that the EPA tested (fremont bridge to umm, I can't remember) was designated a super fund site- which does not just happen on a whim. Next time you drive to Sauvie and you see that grey concrete building in the railyards, the one with nothing around it, you are looking at one the most contaminated brown fields in portland. I'm surprised it doesn't glow at night. |
That site is the old McCormick and Baxter (the company is now bankrupt, in large part because of this) facility.
It was used to creosote logs in order to weather proof them for use as telephone poles, rail road ties, and whatever else you need cresoted logs for.
Considering the chemical makeup of creosote consists almost entirely of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols, and assorted other hydrocarbons, it's not particularly fun stuff. Since the McCormick and Baxter facility used to do the creosoting near the river and then (IIRC) float the logs down river, or store them in the river, a significant amount of creosote built up on the riverbed around the place.
The hydrocarbons also ended up in the soil and whatnot down there as well. The land has since been "sealed" to prevent further leeching of creosote into the Willamette. While it's not 100% effective, the amount of PAHs and other aromatic hydrocarbons in the Willamette near that site is < 1 ppb.
The area has tentatively been sold to the University of Portland (which is right up on the bluff above the site) for use in their development. The only thing holding up final approval of the deal is hammering out a legal agreement so that the University does not assume enviromental liability if the site begins to pollute the river at a later date, and the McCormick and Baxter rescue trust fund will maintain its liability.
That said, the chemicals used for creosoting logs are all heavier than water and tend to remain on the bottom of the river, thus posing a much smaller risk to humans than people generally assume. They're also rather immiscible with water, so they don't get absorbed very much into the river.
In any case, that's why it doesn't glow  |
|
|
jack
Since 12 Mar 2006
211 Posts
Stoked
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 11:30 am |
|
|
| nice bond reference gman |
|
|
Ryan
Since 14 Jul 2005
536 Posts
Oregon
Addicted
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 1:43 pm poo poo water |
|
|
Adam,
I would have to agree with the guys the willamette is nasty. however, nearly all chemicals that are of harm to us do not reside in water...pure h20. the chemicals are on particles of clay, silt etc and in the tissue of animals that live in or around the water.
you are not going to die by drinking the water...i wouldnt recoment it but you would be alot worse off by eating fish that live in the area.
if you are really interested in this get in touch with Dr. Fish (yes that is his real last name) at Portland state. he is an expert on fate and transport of chamicals in the environemt and has worked on the superfund site.
cheers,
ryan |
|
|
pdxmonkeyboy
Since 16 May 2006
6081 Posts
forever labled as the
retired kiter & motorhead Unicorn Master
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 1:48 pm |
|
|
Super info guys. Ryan makes a good point though, most of the polllution is in the sediment. Most but not all. What about the birth control hormones that are causing reproductive problems in fish. Hows is that stuff being passed around?
I remember reading that the amount of "transexual" fish was on the rise due to hormone laden urine that isn't treated at public sewage facilities. |
|
|
Ryan
Since 14 Jul 2005
536 Posts
Oregon
Addicted
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 2:33 pm poo poo water |
|
|
Adam,
I would have to agree with the guys the willamette is nasty. however, nearly all chemicals that are of harm to us do not reside in water...pure h20. the chemicals are on particles of clay, silt etc and in the tissue of animals that live in or around the water.
you are not going to die by drinking the water...i wouldnt recoment it but you would be alot worse off by eating fish that live in the area.
if you are really interested in this get in touch with Dr. Fish (yes that is his real last name) at Portland state. he is an expert on fate and transport of chamicals in the environemt and has worked on the superfund site.
cheers,
ryan |
|
|
pdxmonkeyboy
Since 16 May 2006
6081 Posts
forever labled as the
retired kiter & motorhead Unicorn Master
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 2:36 pm |
|
|
| I think there is an echo in this thread? |
|
|
ptavv
Since 29 May 2006
30 Posts
|
| Thu Jul 27, 06 2:50 pm |
|
|
I don't know anything about hormone laden waste causing lots of problems for fish, but as a biochemist I'd have my doubts about it.
Most anything that's biologically active in urine gets ripped to shreds by the high ammonia concentration of urine (which is why, barring infection or STDs urine is sterile).
Plus I have a hard time believing that the number of women on birth control whose urine reaches the river is substantial enough that it could cause a high enough concentration of hormones to massively affect fish populations in such an overwhelming way.
There's definately a lot of nasty stuff in the Willamette that could be causing fish to have some mutations, but I think hormones from the urine of women on birth control is pretty far down the list of possible candidates. |
|
|
pdxmonkeyboy
Since 16 May 2006
6081 Posts
forever labled as the
retired kiter & motorhead Unicorn Master
|
|
|
|
