• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

worst river.

Not a very scientific poll by the looks of it; almost pointless. You only have to look at the number of large towns and cities that the thames either runs through, near or feeds and drains, compared with the Wye. You cant compare the two from a scientific point of view. From a popularity point of view the wye runs through some of the most beautiful unspoilt and un-populated countryside in the country, whereas the thames also runs through some beautiful countryside, but also through the best and worst of highly populated town and city environments.

Paul
 
Paul, I'm inclined to agree with you but after watching an article on the breakfast news, interestingly WWF and various others all seem to shun the EA spiel of 'how healthy' our rivers are.
Which in my opinion has to be a positive.

I hope that its the same article as the link wouldn't work for me.:confused:




It was the same article, only a shorter one than I viewed this morning..... Good to see everyone interested in true bio-diversity, pah, RSPB interested in birds and bird habitat only!:rolleyes:

But still acknowledgement that all is not well.
 
Last edited:
Colin,

I'm no supporter of the EA, i just considered the news report unscientific and unbalanced.

The EA departments are so out of tune with each other, i often wonder how they can be called an agency.

Paul
 
I think it is fair comment. The Thames obviously does service the capital city and many other high population density areas...but all the more reason why it should have efficient sewerage treatment plants and other measures protecting it against the devestating pollutions it is subjected to on a weekly, if not daily basis. If many European countries can now boast of capital rivers far cleaner than our own, despite being subjected to similar problems in the past...why is our own still so bad?

And why have there been various reports hinting that the new proposed 'super sewer' (that is supposed to be the answer to these problems) is going to have to be financed by the long suffering public? The privatised water companies are making record profits, paying huge amounts to shareholders and senior management alike, and yet it is admitted that it is years of under investment in their systems, and the subsequent need to dump millions of gallons of untreated sewerage each week, that is the root cause of the problem. When the choice was loadsa money now for executives and shareholders...or invest in seriously overdue maintenance work and system renewal, there was only ever going to be one winner, wasn't there :rolleyes:

As ever, something smells bad...and it aint just the sewerage :rolleyes

Mind you, that IS what makes the Thames stink, and why naming it our 'worst' river is, in my opinion, a reasonable response :eek:

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
Paul Hiom said:
Not a very scientific poll by the looks of it; almost pointless. You only have to look at the number of large towns and cities that the thames either runs through, near or feeds and drains, compared with the Wye. You cant compare the two from a scientific point of view. From a popularity point of view the wye runs through some of the most beautiful unspoilt and un-populated countryside in the country, whereas the thames also runs through some beautiful countryside, but also through the best and worst of highly populated town and city environments.

Paul
Click to expand...
that part of the country also has some nice produce.
http://www.douglaswillis.co.uk/CW_ProductDetails.aspx?PID=801
 
Joe,

Outrageous, and the EA are powerless to intervene. Lets hope Fish Legal can raise the profile of this and get some regulation sorted out.

Paul
 
I would have thought that the two regulations I have highlighted in red (which I have taken from Joe's link) would have given the EA or any other interested body a club to beat the water companies round the head with in court?


Condition 2
Restrictions on Discharges from Combined Sewer Overflow or Storm Tank
2.1
The discharge from a Combined Sewer Overflow (‘CSO’) or a sewage works storm tank shall not:

(i) cause significant visual or aesthetic impact due to solids or fungus;
(ii) cause or make a significant contribution to a deterioration in river chemical or biological class or cause other adverse environmental impact;
(iii) cause or make a significant contribution to a failure to comply with Bathing Water Quality Standards for identified bathing waters;
(iv) operate in dry weather conditions; or
(v) cause a breach of water quality standards (EQS) and/or other EC Directives’ requirements.

Or am I missing something :confused:

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top