Thames pollution

I

Iceman

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Can't believe the fish that have supposed to have been lost. Has anyone seen any of this up close?
Is it safe to say this is contained to the tidal reaches because another report said it happened as the tide was incoming and pushing towards Richmond would the lock at Teddington have stopped it reaching higher up?
 
M

MaNick

Guest
I just heard about it on the wireless!...

The local water authority have been ordered by the EA to re-oxygenate the water, and the fish kill is thought to be pretty severe!...
 
S

Shrek

Guest
Radio Report I heard said that literally millions of adult roach and bream had been killed.

Here's hoping the punishment is severe and fish levels are stocked properly. Interesting to see what happens on this one.
 
D

Dave Cammiss

New member
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Re the 'Zander Report'
As a retired bailiff from the EA I can empathise with the views of the many predatory anglers. Whilst the EA appear to have taken the soft option in giving a formal caution to this elderly misguided ex-angler, for his misdemeanours, it would have been a far more expensive exercise had he been taken to court. Believe me the sympathy of the magistrates would not have been with the EA and the costs involved would all have come out of our licence money. A good reputation has gone out of the window and he will probably be treated like a pariah in angling circles for the rest of his life. Finally I would like to point out that monies paid by offenders in fines goes to the court NOT the EA, only the costs awarded goes back to the EA and that is usually capped by the court.
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
There's not enough information on the BBC news site to give a full opinion on what went wrong. My guess is that the sewage entered the river above Teddington since the tide would only affect fish above there on a large spring tide.

My other guess is that everyone will be keeping quite about it. As for Nick's suggestion that the EA should have brought their equipment in to re-oxygenate the water, a) they wouldn't have had that much time and b) they haven't got anything that large to my knowledge.

There seemed to be a two fold effect going on here. First the sewage, but secondly and just as devastating the lightening storm which for some strange reason deoxygenates water. Clearly though, it's Thames Water's repsonsibility and they should now pay for replenishment of stocks, but where do you get so many quality fish from?
 
A

alan strickland

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
On the lightning storm and o2

I read somewhere that when you get a lightning flash it burns the air around it,that then releases the nitrogen in the air into the raindrops.
Think about 2/3 of the world`s fertilizer comes from lightning.

Maybe its this that pulls down the o2 levels
 
F

Frothey

Guest
the thing to bear in mind is if they hadn't flushed it into the thames, it would've flushed into peoples houses and the streets....and i know what would've caused a bigger outcry!

its also probably cheaper to replace the fish than pay out the settlements to house owners....

cant see the point fining them as they didnt really have a choice, just make them re-stock the river.
 
J

jason fisher

Guest
on the up side it's only london it happened to, it could have been much worse and started further up stream, if the problem had started in oxford or swindon and wiped out everything down stream it really would have been horrible.
atleast there will be a lot of breeding fish still in the river upstream, which will aid in the repopulation process.
 
N

Nigel Moors 2

Guest
Think the lightning creates higher level of ozone (O3). The extra oxygen molecules required for this have to come from somewhere so get stripped from the present atmosphere, hence the stifling conditions in and around a big storm.










I think...
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
They were still talking about the flooding and the sewage today on London news and the fact that the water increases have now been fixed for 5 years and won't pay for new sewerage systems.

What I'd like to know though, is why is this rain water directed into sewerage systems at all and why doesn't it have it's own route directly into the Thames? It's clean-ish water after all and surely doesn't need any treatment. Flood channels are popular in the US, so why not here? They would surely be far cheaper.
 
L

Laurie Harper

Guest
Good point, CM. I know that there are such emergency storm drain overflows which empty directly into the river. I have photgraphs of them in a book about the London sewer system. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I question Thames Water's assertion that they did it in a public-spirited attempt to "save London". The papers (depending on which you read) talk of between 600,00 and 1,000,000 tones of raw sewage being emptied into the river. Given that the storms, although very violent, were short-lived, I find it hard to credit that those quantities needed to be got rid of. I think TW should face a public enquiry into its actions and, hopefully, a stiff fine.
 
F

Frothey

Guest
you'll just pay for teh fine and work in 5 years time!

you all get away lightly anyway.....we have to pay extortionate rates just so you bloody townies have clean beaches. bah humbug!
 
S

Stuart Bullard 3

Guest
Going back to the event. I have seen pictures and it is tragic. My brother lives next to the river at Richmond and I have often thought that I must fish there. Now that I have seen the size and quantity of fish I wished I had!

Clearly it was an area of water largely untapped as I have never seen anyone on the bank.

By the way, I am not convinced that a lightening storm has any impact on oxygen levels........
 
F

Frothey

Guest
crazily, when they were reporting from the river, did you see all the anglers in the background fishing?
 
B

Bill Eborn

Guest
According to this account from today's Guardian the government has pulled out of plans to make the necessary investment to stop this from happening as they are worried about how voters will react if asked to pay an extra forty quid a year to pay for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1276270,00.html

It stinks, in more ways than the obvious ones to me. I learnt to fish on this bit of river too and was thinking if I had to relocate back to town for a bit, to move so I could be in easy reach of it. Its very sad.
 
J

John Hepworth

Guest
Where did all the EXTRA investment go that privatisation was to bring? It was supposed to a brave new world, released from the shackles of state ownership.
Never mind Maggie T's rich fat friends got even richer, and fatter.
Don't suppose anyone will pay, it willed be classed as an act of God.
 
P

Phil Hackett 2

Guest
Well here's a golden opportunity for the EA to show they have some balls left and throw the book at SW.
I doubt it will happen due to cost benefit analysis and they?ll smack them on the wrists because they?re a doddery old private water company. Being able to claim it was not in the public interest that they did anything else.
 
P

Phil Hackett 2

Guest
Further more will our national angling bodies be pushing for the most severest penalties possible I wonder?
 
J

jason fisher

Guest
as keeps being pointed out by the people from there londodn generates 80% of the countries wealth, so why can't they pay an extra 40 quid per year for a couple of years to solve the problem.
 
L

Laurie Harper

Guest
A little light relief on an otherwise depressing topic. Evening Standard printed a chart of species of fish affected, including "weight when fully grown", which read as follows: roach - 1kg., bream - 1 kg., dace 200 gms., perch - 200 gms., chub - 300 gms., pike - 1 kg. Yeah, right. Glad to see ES does its research...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top