Brad wrote:


> FYI.... Below, is a letter concerning the location of the fertilizer in
the
> Gulf of Mexico, as was claimed by the website who's link I sent to the
list
> last night. Last night when I looked at the website, the site said the
plume
> of water containing the fertilizer was on the left side of the map. The
> site's information was apparently incorrect, and tonight when I looked,
the
> site eliminated all the misinformation. The following letter disputes the
> website's claim that the plume of water containing high amounts of
> chlorophyl is the result of dumping the fertilizer.

Right.  It's just an unhappy coincidence.

> And I'd keep thinking, why don't they dump this stuff (if they HAVE TO
DUMP IT) in the
> Atlantic, far from the any sensitive areas like the Keys.

Purely based on conjecture, the answer to this seems obvious.  That, of
course, means it may be wrong, but what the heck.  Presumably, the company
originally disposed of their damaging chemicals some other way, perhaps even
by selling them.  The only valid reason i can come up with why the chemicals
were dumped at all is that it is too expensive, or too inconvenient, to
dispose of them some other way.  Shipping them to the Pacific would almost
certainly increase the cost several times and, in my opinion, would cause
even more of a stir than has happened this way.  Let's keep in mind that the
dumping was long done before we became aware of it.  Those on the west coast
are not likely to be a soundly asleep as those on the Gulf coast appear to
have been.  That's not a criticism of those on the Gulf coast, at least it's
not intended to be.  It's just that the powers that be could have their way
where they are and would have to get permission from others to have dumped
the chemicals somewhere else.

This, of course, is not to mention the potential impact on another
environmentally sensitive area.  The Pacific coast has its share of
creatures that might have been damaged even more profoundly.

Lee