Robert Woods
Senior Member
Sad news...I've done only thing I can do...joined Angling Trust.
Anglers’ Dismay over Cyanide Fish Kill on River Trent
- Thread starter Graham Marsden
- Start date
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
I received this today from a David Wales who is Secretary of the Thame Valley Fisheries Consultative. This covers the river Thame from it's source above Aylesbury to it junction with the Thames (and gives its name to the Thames, i.e.: Thame + Isis = Thames.)
Anyway, these are his words to the Thames Fisheries Consultative Council -
Gentlemen,
A couple of weeks ago I had occasion to seek the results of self monitoring on the Aylesbury and Thame STWs after concerns expressed about poor fishing and an "odd colour" to the River Thame. Although the results were OK I was horrified to discover that the EA now only requests the monitoring data to be taken once a month - to a schedule that the Utilities decide (could be two weeks or six weeks from the last sample) on a works that has achieved compliance. Aylesbury discharge >80000cu metres of treated sewage every day into a river that runs six parts treated effluent to one of river water.
For those old enough to remember pre privatisation the works were monitored FOUR times a month at that stage.
When privatisation came in this dropped to TWICE a month and now we have ONCE a month - plus they are allowed to report up to three months in arrears - what chance of tracing a failure in this case?. The EA also does not take ANY samples when it audits the works - it monitors processes, infrastructure and procedures. This in my opinion provides no regulation on the water industry - and brings into question what the Environment Agency is actually there for - to quote a previous slogan The guardians of our Environment - or something similar.
I have fought this issue for years and will continue to fight it as it is totally unacceptable. It is tantamount to allowing unregulated discharges into our rivers not to mention our seas.
The Trent incident could happen anywhere. It really is a case of the lunatics taking over the asylum.
Join the ANGLING TRUST now!
Oh and well done Robert! That's at least four from Fishingmagic TODAY!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, these are his words to the Thames Fisheries Consultative Council -
Gentlemen,
A couple of weeks ago I had occasion to seek the results of self monitoring on the Aylesbury and Thame STWs after concerns expressed about poor fishing and an "odd colour" to the River Thame. Although the results were OK I was horrified to discover that the EA now only requests the monitoring data to be taken once a month - to a schedule that the Utilities decide (could be two weeks or six weeks from the last sample) on a works that has achieved compliance. Aylesbury discharge >80000cu metres of treated sewage every day into a river that runs six parts treated effluent to one of river water.
For those old enough to remember pre privatisation the works were monitored FOUR times a month at that stage.
When privatisation came in this dropped to TWICE a month and now we have ONCE a month - plus they are allowed to report up to three months in arrears - what chance of tracing a failure in this case?. The EA also does not take ANY samples when it audits the works - it monitors processes, infrastructure and procedures. This in my opinion provides no regulation on the water industry - and brings into question what the Environment Agency is actually there for - to quote a previous slogan The guardians of our Environment - or something similar.
I have fought this issue for years and will continue to fight it as it is totally unacceptable. It is tantamount to allowing unregulated discharges into our rivers not to mention our seas.
The Trent incident could happen anywhere. It really is a case of the lunatics taking over the asylum.
Join the ANGLING TRUST now!
Oh and well done Robert! That's at least four from Fishingmagic TODAY!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grumpy Git @
Well-known member
So as I read that Jeff, the utilities set their own timetable for testing.
Quite a good little number that. Conduct the tests just before you let a ton of s**t enter the waterways and record a good result. Report those good results and never have to worry because nobody is going to check the results anyway. I know, just make them up and don't bother to conduct them in the first place, that'll save a few bob for the shareholders.
I was amazed at the number and extent of the 'foambergs' coming down the Trent at Collingham the other weekend. The utility companies must have some responsibility for those and it must have at least some effect on water quality. Bloody poor show.
Quite a good little number that. Conduct the tests just before you let a ton of s**t enter the waterways and record a good result. Report those good results and never have to worry because nobody is going to check the results anyway. I know, just make them up and don't bother to conduct them in the first place, that'll save a few bob for the shareholders.
I was amazed at the number and extent of the 'foambergs' coming down the Trent at Collingham the other weekend. The utility companies must have some responsibility for those and it must have at least some effect on water quality. Bloody poor show.
Robert Woods
Senior Member
With modern monitoring methods & computers it should be no problem to give readings every hour open to all...!!!
The bad one
Well-known member
Anybody got a few hours to spare and wants to know how the EA has given back to the water utilities the self-regulation of putting ***** back in the OUR rivers, can have a read of this technical document.
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO1105BJXY-e-e.pdf?lang=_e
Makes interesting reading. The phrase QMSs is a classic!
PS it answers your sensible comments Bob.
---------- Post added at 01:44 ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 ----------
After quickly skimming through it, the likelihood of them ever catching some organisation ever polluting a river, is at best not likely, other than when there's a fish kill!
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO1105BJXY-e-e.pdf?lang=_e
Makes interesting reading. The phrase QMSs is a classic!
PS it answers your sensible comments Bob.
---------- Post added at 01:44 ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 ----------
After quickly skimming through it, the likelihood of them ever catching some organisation ever polluting a river, is at best not likely, other than when there's a fish kill!
Last edited:
Graham Marsden
Editor Emeritus
In other words, when it's too bloody late!
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
It's a case of Fire Fighting problems, React instead of Prevent ............. Shameless.
Graham Whatmore
Senior Member
Some of us on here have voiced the shortcomings of the EA for a long time now whilst others think they are the bees knees, maybe, just maybe, the doubters will now realise just how inefficient they are as a guardian of our waterways.
Have you picked up on the many statements that "there is no danger to the public because the Trent water is'nt used as drinking water" could the reason be that it is so polluted they can't purify it?
The E.A. is like most government departments, totally lacking in knowledge or drive instead they are content to do and spend as little as possible at the behest of the government. How they have the brassneck to state they are the guardians of our water systems is beyond me.
Have you picked up on the many statements that "there is no danger to the public because the Trent water is'nt used as drinking water" could the reason be that it is so polluted they can't purify it?
The E.A. is like most government departments, totally lacking in knowledge or drive instead they are content to do and spend as little as possible at the behest of the government. How they have the brassneck to state they are the guardians of our water systems is beyond me.
richiekelly
Well-known member
perhaps the EA would take notice and start to do the job that they are supposed to do if every angler in the country refused to buy a rod licence, yes i know that it is an extreme measure but i for one am fed up with paying out money to a government department that clearly cannot or will not do what they are paid to do,perhaps instead of buying a licence everyone could join the AT with the money and then we would have a real voice.
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
Bear in mind, (everyone) please, tha the EA is split into so many different sections/groups and as far as I am concerned, the fisheries department in Thames region are brilliant lads. In fact, I'm sad that one of ours is leaving to go to Newcastle to serve in the North East (good luck with him, John H!).
I just asked our Thames Region Fisheries Manager last night that if he hears anything on thegrapevine about the Trent would he let us know, but sadly he ( and fisheries for that area) will be in the dark until Pollutions Dept. have fulfilled their investigations. That's when Fisheries take over again and try to rebuild all that has been destroyed. A thankless and onerous task.
So, I have said before, the EA can be our friends at Fisheries level, but the rest of the mob need a damned good shaking up.
Neil Maidment
Moderator
The theory is, Cyanide is a licenced chemical and can only be used/processed by authorised licenced companies. Not sure how many of those are in the area but it shouldn't take too long to track the wrongdoer down - if there's a will to do that!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/07/water-metalworks-suspected-cyanide-leak
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/07/water-metalworks-suspected-cyanide-leak
Poshpaul (Angling Trust and PaSC)
Moderator
Thanks for the link Neil,
I had noticed the odd comment on the forum re the absence of the Angling Trust on/in the media re this disaster. I'm sure a number of us have dealt with press either local/national and realise (particularly on national platforms) that, despite your very best efforts, you cannot control what is put in whatever your organisation's size or profile! So it's good to see that the ATrust was represented in the nationals.
And welcome red110kev - a great first post.
I had noticed the odd comment on the forum re the absence of the Angling Trust on/in the media re this disaster. I'm sure a number of us have dealt with press either local/national and realise (particularly on national platforms) that, despite your very best efforts, you cannot control what is put in whatever your organisation's size or profile! So it's good to see that the ATrust was represented in the nationals.
And welcome red110kev - a great first post.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
I doubt it will be that easy Neil. A thousand and one tiny metal plating operations take place all over that area, many of them from one-man-bands. Few of those little guys will be listed.
---------- Post added at 12:01 ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 ----------
PS - I think you ought to substitute fmcarp with Fishingmagic in that blog link or nobody can find it :
http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/blog.php?b=13
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
Well done! - You won't regret it. (Jeez, didn't know I had it in me!!!)
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)
Senior Member
You'll all be doin' it tomorra!
RIGHT!
WHO'S GONNA JOIN NEXT?
Right Clarky, join up now. Don't wait till they f*** up the River Lea.
RIGHT!
WHO'S GONNA JOIN NEXT?
Right Clarky, join up now. Don't wait till they f*** up the River Lea.
The bad one
Well-known member
Geoff It's my understanding that they have traced the source of the cyanide. This is taken from elsewhere, written by someone who really knows about the regulations and has in the past tracked down the source of such a pollution.
"Industrial based Sodium cyanide is a Part 1 poison within the meaning of the Poisons Act and both agricultural and industrial chemists must by law have a record of users who have purchased such controlled substances as would the licensing records dept of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society."
The little guys as you put it, would be know to the authorities under the controlled substances act.
It looks like, yet to be confirmed, that there was a sewage plant failing, hence sewage and cyanide getting into the river. I think the wider questions that need to be asked is, "why in this day and age is any form of cyanide being presented to a sewage water treatment plant?"
Why is it not being dealt with in a closed loop system on its site of origin and the residues being sent back to the providers of the substance for recycling and reprocessing.
It's not as if this is a new substance where the potential effects are unknown, is it?
And the final question is re question 1 Why are the public not being told that cyanide is being presented to SWTP?
Graham Whatmore
Senior Member
And the reply to those questions will be "It was an unforeseen problem that has now been fixed and this shouldn't happen again" and that will be that. Court proceedings? I doubt it.
The bad one
Well-known member
Graham I fear your sceptical view will prove to be right!
Reading the write up in the Guardian, it looks like it was illegally dumped down a drain. Given what I wrote above "controlled Substance Poison act, etc." Has the EA sent Pollution Control Officers to ever registered users premises and taken samples from their drains?
If is that they know who done it by now? Company's defence will be, human error by a new employee who has gone through intensive retraining! EAs prosecution, if it ever gets that far, will be through the Magistrates Court and a 10 k fine. Max in MC is only 20k.
Not where it really should be, the Crown Court where imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine can be imposed.
It will probably turn out that the Trent will suffer two criminal acts, one by the criminal polluters, and one by the EA not having the balls to put those criminal polluters through the right court for a real sentence.