7/12/2003: Bridge over foam

This is the Tiete River in Pirapora do Bom Jesus, Brazil. Yes, that's a bridge - at first I thought it was an irrigation arm or something.

But no, they attach nozzles to the bridge itself to spray on that foam to keep it down. The foam itself is generated by a mixture of chemical detergents and organic pollutants.

Yummy!

So chemical Z is fighting chemicals A through Y. Wonderful.

That's unreal. Is that the best cleanup solution they can come up with?

Just to keep the foam down in the area directly under the bridge? It seems like a narrow swatch. I wonder how tall the rest of the foam gets.

All that foam must clean the fish, real more gooder.

Here's the story .
Here's the story with pictures.

Reminds me of my youth. We'd be out running wild on a Saturday night and toss a laundry detergent soap pellet into a local city fountain.

Next morning on the way to Mass with my folks we'd all be amazed at the mountain of bubbles engulfing the fountainl.

"Wonder how that happened?" my mom would say.

If Count Zero is still reading he surely knows more about this -- it's just south of where he lives. CZ, got some better facts?

Yes. The foam was caused by the Bush administration.

It's a WMD which we will use as justification for going to war against Brazil.

Wow! Now that would be a sight to see. It looks post modern, apocalyptical. The dark and gloomy image that UT posted creates such a better mood than the ones from Bruce's link.

--
Chris, our city fountain no longer fonts because of doings like that.

Oh sure, you always liked UT best.

Hah! I'm better at stealing stuff than you!

Too bad there's no money in it.

You ARE Dumbledore.
I am not worthy.:p

Well, you would have to modify the business plan a little bit. Mostly, he would have to stop stealing free stuff -- of course there wouldn't be any money in that!

Hi there just noticed your reference to the Thames River (which is clean now by the way) and thought I'd post This Link for your information ... my I'm feeling helpful today



Chris_MC

Excellent link, Chris.

"Julie said to jim why don't we jump in
While the water is cool and we are still friends"

-Lloyd Cole & the Commotions "Speedboat"

That's a great link, but I've been there, and there is NO way you could get me into that water.

At least it hasn't caught fire yet.

<img src="http://www.epa.gov/region2/epa30/images/cuyah.jpg">

/embarrassed Ohioan

On the upside, there's no mosquitos.

OK, this may have been discussed before, but I've always wondered:

If a river is so polluted it burns, why not let it burn, and in the process, burn the impurites out?

(I know I could probably have asked that better, but I'm getting ready for work, so I'm in a hurry.)

Isn't fire one of the better natural cleansers? When the fuel is gone, the fire will go out, yes? I say let it burn, and in the meantime, the shame of whole situation is on the communities and surrounding areas that allowed the water to get so polluted in the first place.

I think it's ludicrous to put out a river fire with WATER, when that infusion of fresh water may have prevented such horrible conditions, and I won't go into the whole "shouldn't have let it get so dirty in the first damn place" argument.

The problem with any unchecked fire is collateral damage. That river fire only burned for 20 minutes and still managed to damage two railroad bridges.

I understand that, but I don't feel any pity for that "collateral damage". If the railroad had interest in the river, maybe they should have been part of a solution to ensure things like that didn't happen.

The problem is that it's never that simple. That railroad could be delivering essential grain and other foodstuffs to people that need it. Or it may be the most affordable way for a poor woman to make it across the country to visit her dying son.

Another good reason why everyone should be involved in keeping our planet in good condition and for ALL of us to be concerned about these types of problems.