Wednesday, August 31, 2016
In the Washington Post article, Jeff Tittel made interesting points about the EPA's intended clean up of the eight mile stretch of the Passaic River. Despite the validity of his statements, I do not believe the EPA should postpone cleaning the area. Just because the EPA's proposed plan does not completely eliminate the problems caused by years of contamination does not mean the residents of Newark should be forced to live in an area with carcinogenic waterways. In my opinion, the only way for the entire problem to be taken care of is to work towards the goal in small steps which is exactly what the EPA is beginning to do. For more information on what the EPA is intending to do on a larger scale, click here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This a good post but it fails to summarize the article it's referring to. Rather, it comments and then expects the reader to read the article on their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your overall opinion in this post because the only way this river is going to be cleaned up is through small stepps that over a long period of time will restore the river.
ReplyDeletePerhaps add a small summery of the article so that viewers do not need to read more than your post
ReplyDeleteGood comments and images. I wasn't able to open the Google Drive link - if you change the permissions to public - I should be able to access it. I agree that the EPA should take action - I'm not sure I agree that the proposal is a small step. I can't imagine the logistics nightmare of closing the bridges one at a time while dredging the area. This will be a cleanup project in all the text books - as one of the largest. Also, the traffic troubles ahead will keep the Passaic in the news!
ReplyDelete