I appreciate the article, but it would be good to get one that was not so obviously biased. It is a tragedy, but I would like the unemotional plain truth about what it looks like now, and actual data on the effects to the animals. Propaganda from either side of the issue is akin to lying.

Here is the most unbiased article I found so far, just the plain facts, but it is a bit old. http://www.wltribune.com/news/270679801.html

Another story.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/data-ce...2302/story.html

I added that article to the mix because it was biased...just as the press releases from the Canadian government and from the mining company are when they keep telling us that there's "no problem"...the fact that it is biased doesn't mean it's wrong.

I'm biased in favor of the river and the fish, too, especially when compared to the mining company and their enablers in the government.

One side saying there is a problem (when there clearly is) and the other saying there's no problem (when there clearly is) does not a "debate" make...

Fish on...

Todd

i just read an article about it a couple days ago, and now they are saying it was 70 percent larger than they orignially estimated... thats not good... but, just like with the Horizon spill, its to be expected these days...



http://commonsensecanadian.ca/mount-polley-spill-may-far-bigger-initially-revealed/

The Vancouver Sun article detailed the breach as being 70%.

I'm not doubting that it is a horrible situation for the flora and fauna. I would just like to read an article with data in it, rather than presumptions.

70% of what? The reservoir drained completely. It's no longer there.

Given the size of the tailings pond, it's amazing nobody was hurt, or worse.....