Talk:James Bay Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
[edit] Assessment
I have assessed this as B class given its level of detail and organization, although it desperately needs in-line citations, and of low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Biased POV
This article is clearly written mostry from the francophone Quebecois point of view, and from a position of support for the James Bay Project. It needs to be balanced with environmental concerns and the point of view of the Cree whose hunting grounds were adversely affected by this development. Please resolve this, Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I do recall the terrible pictures on TV of 10,000 drowned caribou, but that is in the article already, albeit toned down from how I remember the article from 3 years ago. Was there something else? Jok2000 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has filled the environmental impact and social impact sections with pro-hydo-quebec greenwash. It downplays the environmental impacts the project has had on northern quebec- of which numerous studies have been taken-as well as the serious social effects it had on the cree. Furthermore it is frought with statements that are completely inaccurate and false such as "Decomposing organic material in the reservoirs further added to the high levels of organic mercury in local lakes and rivers, which stems from geology and atmospheric pollution from the coal-fired electric generation plants of the United States and Ontario, Canada, but this impact has been shown to dissipate after 20 to 30 years. " methyl-mercury levels do not dissipate over 20-30 years, nor do any other heavy metal based compounds. That is complete nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The source for the phrase "but this impact has been shown to dissipate after 20 to 30 years", which was cut by 206.192.68.117, is the following:
- Hayeur, G. 2001. Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern Environments from 1970 to 2000. Montreal: Hydro-Québec, p. 46.
- The original source is:
- SCHETAGNE, R., and R.VERDON. 1999a. Post-impoundment evolution of fish mercury levels at the La Grande complex. Québec, Canada (from 1978 to 1996). In Mercury in the Biogeochemical Cycle: Natural Environments and Hydroelectric Reservoirs of Northern Québec (Canada), (edited by M. Lucotte. and others). Berlin/New York: Springer. pp. 235–238 ISBN-10: 354065755X
- The sentence criticized by 206.192.68.117 was:
- Decomposing organic material in the reservoirs further added to the high levels of organic mercury in local lakes and rivers, which stems from geology and atmospheric pollution from the coal-fired electric generation plants of the United States and Ontario, Canada, but this impact has been shown to dissipate after 20 to 30 years.
- 206.192.68.117 stated that "methyl-mercury levels do not dissipate over 20-30 years, nor do any other heavy metal based compounds." In fact, the organic methyl-mercury either flows out into the ocean in suspended organic material (total discharge over 25 years is about 2500 cubic kilometers of water) or is deposited as sediment on the bottom of the reservoirs. The original sentence is reinstated in with a footnote.
- As for the mercury emissions from the thermal coal-fired power plants of the American Midwest and Ontario, as well as from various mining operations, these emissions are relatively well known. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment stated on October 11th, 2006, that Canadian coal-fired electric power generation sector emitted an estimated 2.7 metric tonnes of mercury in 2003. Normal air currents push it all in a north-easterly direction.
- This explains why the NESCAUM, an association of the state air quality divisions of the departments of environmental protection of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, favors further regulations on emissions. Total US emissions from coal-fired plants was about 49 US tons in 1999.
- Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 1999 National Emissions Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants. quoted in NESCAUM, MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS. The Case for Regulatory Action, 2003, pages 2-1. and 2-2.
- (Source: http://www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt031104mercury.pdf/).
- Cheers Joseph B (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
