Han-Kog
I agree with the view that this is pretty disgusting, yet I don't know of any other alternative.

If the city is facing the risk of a systemic failure in which sewage will wind up in the St. Lawrence at a random time, then isn't it best to arrange for this to happen at the least risky time?

For any of us to complain about the current approach, what exactly are the alternatives?

jessica murray
the truck idea was contemplated. it would have required something like 9000 trucks.

it could have been diverted into temporary storage for a price of approximately a billion dollars.

the crux of the decision is that the effects of the leak will not be large enough to justify the costs. and, i can't help but see the logic in this analysis.

they're looking at a flow rate of 13 L/s. the st. lawerence runs at around 7000 L/s in that area. if you scale that down, it's miniscule: rushing downstream, you're looking at 0.00186 L of sewage per L of water. and, that will break up even further as it continues flowing.

8 billion tonnes seems like a huge number, but it really pales in comparison to the amount of water running through the area.

that doesn't mean this should happen all the time. and it's nice to see the outrage, even if it's poorly placed. but, when the experts say "this isn't a big deal", they aren't just saying that. it's the consequence of studying it and coming to an informed conclusion on it.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/st-lawrence-montreal-sewage-dump-underway-1.3313623