When human cost of 'going green' can be far too high



One of the biggest problems I have with climate change alarmists is they like to pretend that there are no costs to “going green”.


I am not familiar with the circumstances but it seems that algae is to blame for people dying correct? Are you saying the algae could not be removed? Sorry i am on my phone and its a little tough to follow


He failed to mention which chemicals were banned. We have no way of looking it up to see if they are dangerous or not. Also, this is the only article I found that blamed the lack of chemicals.


It seems that without the use of chemicals, far more effort is needed to remove the algae.



Can’t it be scrubbed off? That’s what I do in my aquarium.


According to the Irish Times: "Use by local authorities of a mixture of lime and copper sulphate or nitrogen peroxide-based substances proved to be very effective in clearing slippery algae in the past.

However, greater awareness of the damage posed by chemicals to the marine environment means that power-washing is now the common practice."


From what I gather, he was on a boat launch and tried to turn around, but lost traction. Multiple factors seem to be at blame: the state of the tide, the depth of the water off of the boat launch (which had been built to accommodate the draft of a ferry), inadequate warning signs, the lack of a safety gate, and of course, the thick algae.


Yes, due to cost, the authorities only powerwash the slipway once per year. This happens just before summer, and since the accident occurred in March, 10 months or so had gone by.

The question was raised whether a gate should have been in place to keep drivers from using the slipway, which is intended for a seasonal ferry.


You beat me to it. I was looking it up as well. I came across this. I think the guy that wrote the article is stretching here. His career is anti-environmental activism:

Copper Sulfate

Effects on Aquatic Organisms
Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish. Its toxicity to fish varies with the species and the physical and chemical characteristics of the water (12). Even at recommended rates of application, this material may be poisonous to trout and other fish, especially in soft or acid waters. Its toxicity to fish generally decreases as water hardness increases. Fish eggs are more resistant than young fish fry to the toxic effects of copper sulfate (3). Very small amounts of this material can have damaging effects on fish. Permits are being required in some situations for application of copper sulfate to water bodies. Further field studies have been required by the EPA (16). Direct application of copper sulfate to water may cause a significant decrease in populations of aquatic invertebrates, plants and fish (17).



One of the biggest problems I have with climate change deniers is that the cost of not going green eventually results in the end of humanity.



Deciding to power-wash Buncrana pier instead of using more effective chemicals directly contributed to the dangerous conditions and was a major factor in this tragedy.

So whoever quit using chemicals also skimped on the budget for power washing. If this happened there would be a big lawsuit.


Back in the 80’s, ships hulls below the waterline were coated with copper sulfate compounds, they were banned when they were linked to being harmful to the environment…

I know its probably just terminology, but alge grows underwater, moss grows on damp, shadowed surfaces (I fell down my steps last friday after it rained due to moss-gonna pressure wash tomorrow) . Sounds more like a case of poor pier maintenance and maybe poor driving skills rather than an environmental issue.

I wasn’t there, so it’s just my opinion…


No, this does not seem to be a stretch. I am a biochemist by profession and know quite some biology as well, and I would be greatly surprised if what he says were not true.


So what do they do now about the ships?

Certainly the greenies haven’t made the fleets sail with green-fuzz coating the underbodies; too much money is involved.



They have used other anti-foulants, I retired 20 years ago, so don’t know what its called, but I remember being in drydock and they stripped the hull to bare metal and applied several coats of really smelly paint! As I recall, it was a case on less toxic, not non-toxic.

Thinking about a slippery dock, maybe painting it with a paint-sand mix would help (they used to call it nonskid) or making sure the sides/edges came up high enough vehicled couldn’t jump the edge and fall in the water, or simply marke the pier “no vehicular traffic”?

I’m sure there is something in this problem I’m just not seeing…


The third isn’t an option, if the pier is intended for a vehicular ferry.

I don’t know why they can’t use a version of the stuff now used in ship antifouling. I mean, motor traffic and ship docks are hardly nature friendly a priori.


closed #16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.