BP: Are the accusations true?
Word Count: 390The Chicago Tribune recently wrote an article about the environmental hazards that the BP company was causing. Because the article requires registration to read, I will not link to it here. However, I will point out Chicago Tribune’s key accusations, and follow them up by a summary of the true facts and how the Chicago Tribune arrived at their misunderstandings. The facts I am receiving are as presented by BP themselves, listed Here, and also verified by another well known news source, the “news-sentinel”. The goal here is to make sure that you have the Real facts before you form your opinion. So, without further ado, let us begin.
Accusation: BP is dumping sludge into Lake Michigan
Fact: Although BP is dumping something into Lake Michigan, it is far from sludge. It is treated and filtered water, that is 99.9% clear of contaminates.
Accusation: BP is dumping twice as much Ammonia into the lake.
Fact: It is 99.9% water, the percentages come out the same or less. And, just because they have been granted permission to do so does not mean that they are achieving the maximum.
Accusation: BP is being allowed to bend the law.
Fact: BP is not bending the law, in fact, they come in under Half of the legal limits!
Accusation: There is mass protest at BP’s move.
Fact: Even an official behind the protection of the Great Lakes says that he is not against the project, as long as it continues to function in a way that does not pollute the lake. Only around 40 people or so have spoken against BP, and some of them may have more political aims with these accusations, not environmental.
Accusation: They are risking our health just to lower gas prices!
Fact: Yes, BP is lowering gas prices. NO, they are aren’t known to be risking anyone’s health. The water “dumping” output from their plant is mainly pure water, not pollution into the water.
BP states that they are working to help the environment and the economy at the same time. I think now would be the time to remember a Wal-Mart saying that could easily apply: “We live here too.” BP is not going to knowingly risk the lives or health of themselves or their families.
Look at the facts and make your own choice, but be sure and look at both sides of the story before deciding!
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 am
That News-Sentinal article is just as biased as the piece in the Tribune. Come on! It ends with “But the tradeoff this time seems justified.” How is that objective? And plenty of “we live here too” companies have put the lives of their neighbors and employees at risk. GM did it in New York, Beatrice Foods did in Massachusetts, and countless others nationwide I’m sure. Just doesn’t sound right to me.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
I just realized that the News-Sential piece is an editorial, which explains the bias.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
So would it have been possible for someone who is for the tradeoff to submit those facts to the news-sentinel to make the facts seem verifiable by more than just the BP website? I think that BP is biased towards one way, of course, but Chicago Tribune was leaning in the complete opposite direction, being what seems biased against them, bending certain facts. I would think that the numbers and percentages given on the BP site were accurate, but I’m not 100% sure that I understood them completely, although 99.9% pure water and .1% pollution doesn’t sound like much to me, I have no idea what a .1% could do to a water source.
For me, my opinion rests on whether or not the .1% could have an effect (which I am not sure about at the moment), assuming that the 99.9% figure is accurate.