South Bruce Peninsular - Ecology - Comments

Why Thompson System

mxyzptlk — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:31:54 -0400

i looked for the documents mentioned by dodge. i was able to find the reports for 2005 and 2007. not able to locate 2006 report. in 2005 there were no reported incidents. in 2007 there was one incident that occurred, coincidentally, around the same time of year. the really nagging question is 'why is it that (appearantly) only the thompson system is tested for radium-226'?
kltpzyxm

Town Publishes Reports

Dodge — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:24:25 -0400

Yearly summaries are published on the town website for each water system. One can get some idea of the history of the system from these reports. By 2009 all of the surrounding small systems will be connected to the school wells. Most of the small wells will be decommissioned.

Ah, ok. Never mind.

garym — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:52:23 -0400

Bottom line is I don't see much difference between the test that shut the system down and the limit under which it can continue operation

Ah, ok, everything is peachy then. So this must have happened many times before, right? I probably wasn't paying much attention during those shutdowns, but as you say, there were already natural sources just under the acceptable levels, so a dip over the line now and then can't be all that worrisome.

Tho I'm still curious where it would come from. It is natural, of course, but it is natural from the decay of Uranium, and the closest Uranium of any concentration that I knew about was the Bancroft mines. Stands to reason this being Great Canadian Shield ground granite that we're standing on, there'd be at least some of it laced with heavy metals.

garym: ict evangelist - musician - whatever

Drinking Water Standards Set Max Level

Dodge — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:48:00 -0400

There is an Ontario Regulation that sets drinking water standards. Normally these standards list a maximum limit.

Found here: http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/regu/2003r.169/20080716/whole.html

As you see the maximum for Radium 226 is .6 becquerels per litre. As it was reported the reading was .65 and this triggered an advisory. They expect to get the water within standard soon from what I gather. That is the way the system is supposed to work.

If this reported reading is correct then the level of radium is not much different than that which would challenge the body each day if the water supply content was just under statute limits.

There are a number of radiation sources that are dosing all living organisms every day and by and large most living things have evolved to tolerate a lifetime exposure from natural sources. It gets more complicated if you ingest the source and it is internalized in the body where an isotope can radiate nearby cells causing changes. Again we have evolved a small tolerance. These limits are factored in when water quality standards are created.

It gets much more complicated in the case of a smoker where a second larger daily source of isotopes is internalized. Here the literature says that the cancer risk of water bourne isotopes is greater than that which was predicted when the water quality standard was created based on water consumption alone. By this example I mean to show that water standards by themselves may be taken as absolute but are in reality highly influenced in impact by environmental variables. Medical xrays and plane travel add to cellular events from external radiation sources that we add to the total.

With water as with other things in life there is no such thing as zero risk. We may have some control over risk levels. Because of the mandated chemical analysis of bottled waters they may suggest a lower risk profile then your local groundwater source and as mxyzptlk has stated reverse osmosis can also purify your supplied water beyond the provincial standards. Water softeners should be ruled out because they add sodium.

Bottom line is I don't see much difference between the test that shut the system down and the limit under which it can continue operation.

Thompson Water System

mxyzptlk — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:54:20 -0400

just a bit of info for those concerned. the thompson water system (shown in green) services a small number of lots just north of sixth street between the beach and the parkway.

radium occurs naturally and readily dissolves in groundwater where acid conditions (low pH levels) are found. you can read more here: radium in drinking water fact sheet
water softeners and reverse osmosis filters can remove most of it
studies show a relationship between radium-226 in drinking water and increased risk of bone cancer (1)

i wonder if nearby residents, not on the thompson water system, are aware of the problem. they must be getting their water from the same general area as the thompson water system well. can they get 'free' water from the town?
kltpzyxm

petition

mxyzptlk — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:10:31 -0400

Just saw this article in the July 16, 2008 Sun Times:
Petition calls for cut in Sauble Beach parking rate
Personally I hope they keep the rate at $10.00. For crying out loud, it costs more for a hot dog and fries, or going to see a movie at the cineplex. Where can you park all day at the beach in Toronto (or anywhere in Toronto for that matter for $10/day) These tourists should get a grip or stay home. Why do we encourage them to come here and put additional strain on our aquifer for the benefit of a few business owners anyway?
kltpzyxm

parking fees

mxyzptlk — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:54:47 -0400

I don't understand people who complain about $10 for a whole day of parking but don't mind paying $10 or more for a hot dog and fries which lasts maybe 10 or 15 minutes. Did you know the municipality has a pass, good for the entire season, for $50.00? Where can you park all day in Toronto for $10.00? I know where I would tell the complainers to go...
kltpzyxm

The NEW Super Bio-Fuel

garym — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:21:32 -0400

Forget cow-power, the new superfuel for the bio-conscious future is a genetically modified super-bug that chews up wood scraps and scrub, and poops out gasoline:

Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls "renewable petroleum". After that, he grins, "it's a brave new world".
[ Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol - Times Online ]

garym: ict evangelist - musician - whatever

Thanks for the pics!

garym — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:14:05 -0400

Good to see them returning to the beach and I'll bet the sight brought a big sigh of relief from all those who volunteered to guard their nest last summer.

as for all you bird-paparazzi out there, we got the scoop on the plovers, all we need now is a grainy telephoto shot of the elusive SBP Roadrunner and we'll complete the set!

garym: ict evangelist - musician - whatever

Location

mxyzptlk — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:54:46 -0400

Yes they are in the same location as last year. I updated the blog post to indicate that. Also added some smaller cropped images in case you don't have high speed internet service (the original images are quite large).
kltpzyxm

Excellent news! Are the in

theboyk — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:52:25 -0400

Excellent news!
Are the in the same place as last year?
k.

Bad Water, Good Politics

garym — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:19:10 -0400

Some further update news on this saga, Mayor Gilbert is pushing the feds for answers, and let this be a lesson in karmic law for those planning sneaky moves: You just never know WHO is going to someday end up in a position of power.

garym: ict evangelist - musician - whatever

Density=Mass/Volume Cost=Demand/Supply

garym — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:15:00 -0500

As per the rule in our young son's science-fair project, we have to remember that the Density of people per nature spot is not only dependent on the number of people out to partake of it, but also increases as the available space shrinks, and as you say, there used to be a lot more campgrounds, parklands and nature reserves.

We're probably not a good litmus test up here in the Bruce; we could be seeing the results of the paucity of natural spaces elsewhere inducing those fewer and fewer real-nature people to drive farther and farther so as to get something more than they can get from the now already-developed once-upon-a-time spaces down south.

The study in question started their inquiry after noticing the drop in attendence at the US National Parks, and what I can say about our National Parks is that the price keeps going up and up, and that suggests the per-camper costs of maintenance are piled thicker and thicker -- if it were the converse, if there were more and more people braving Algonquin or even the Upper Bruce, wouldn't the per-user share in it go down?

garym: ict evangelist - musician - whatever

the great outdoors...

theboyk — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:55:29 -0500

Well, not that this is "solid research" by any means, but I've been an active camper (backwoods & car, summer & winter) my entire life. I'm now 33 (as of Monday — happy birthday to me!) and I've been camping since before I was a year old (with my parents, back then, obviously ). I've also been going to the same park (Grundy Lake Provincial Park) at least once a summer for these 33 years — so, I'll focus on my experience with that park.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, from what I recall, the parks were very busy with people. Then, as the 80s went on, the amount of people dropped drastically. I remember this because out of the 7-9 camping areas in the park, only 3-4 were now open with the rest being closed as there just weren't enough people to justify the cost of keeping them open. This went on a for a long time. But, then, recently, I'd say within the last 5 years or so, the park has fully opened again and there's been more people than I ever remember. I mean, sometimes your hard pressed to even get a reservation during holidays and such. And it's great to see 'cause that means a lot of money is going back into the park to improve it etc.

Now again, this is a single park and just my experience over the last 30+ years, but I can also say that I'm seeing this in a lot of other places that had died off in the 80s and 90s as well. Every summer my wife and I drive up HWY 69 to Sudbury then across to Manitoulin, then down taking the ferry to Tobermory and eventually to Sauble. We camp along the way and the parks are packed, remote or close to cities/towns.

And if you've ever gone into any of the backwoods spots or car camping spots that are open in Algonquin in the winter, I think you'd be surprised how many people are out there camping, braving the cold! And the same with MacGregor Point Provincial Park (near Port Elgin) — that place is packed (yurts and tents) all winter long (never been there in the summer).

So, in my opinion, I'd say people are starting to enjoy the outdoors again!

One Bag of Garbage

Ruftic — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:39:21 -0500

Looks like council has changed their minds on this one!
E. AMEND GARBAGE BY-LAW

Discussion took place with respect to amending the garbage by-law to reduce the number of bags
collected from two to one. On a show of hands there was not support for the by-law proceeding.

Recommendation: THAT the by-law not proceed and the number of bags collected remain
at two.

Maybe they do listen?