UK Nature and Environment

387 readers

72 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our autumn banner is a shot of maple leaves by Hossenfeffer.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Cyanide levels in Walsall canal improve following toxic spill (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The levels of cyanide in a Walsall canal impacted by a major chemical spill have "improved", according to the organisation leading the clean-up operation.

About 4,000 litres (879 gallons) of sodium cyanide and other chemicals leaked into the canal on 12 August, closing a 12-mile stretch of the waterway and killing thousands of fish.

A clean-up operation by the Canal and River Trust (CRT) is underway, after it raised more than £20,000 to fund the work.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Why is the canal and river trust needing to fundraise to clean up a company's mess?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Surely you can't be advocating for for-profit private companies to pay for their own mess? What would the shareholders think?

How are we supposed to continue to create wealth for those who don't need any more wealth if we demand they use their own ill gotten gains to clean up their mess?

That doesn't make any sense at all!

(/s)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As the article about the donations, linked to within this article, says:

"Of course, the company responsible should pay, but the timing and outcome of the investigation by the Environment Agency (EA) is uncertain, and we must act now to protect nature as best we can."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

The companies should be paying for the cleanup, they can then appeal against the cleanup cost if they can prove it was not them. Had enough of this bullshit. Guilty until proven innocent for environmental damage