EIFA split

by More spin! Sat Feb 09, 2008 09:06

It looked more like he fears that whether their contaminated or safe, the public wil refuse to eat them because they will have been convinced the fish are unsafe to eat by all the predictions of pollution.

by no Fri Feb 08, 2008 21:40

So what Mr walker is saying is whether they would be polluted or not the reputation of the fish quality is more important then the actual fish quality.

by a beginning Fri Feb 08, 2008 18:46

I think if shell are willing to move the discharge to open sea then the fishermen should seize the chance, maybe the fishermen could win this time.
now lets get the refinery out to sea!

by Fish dinner, no thanks Thu Feb 07, 2008 09:00

I assume the Mr. Walker referred to in the above article, is the same person who commissioned the "expert" who spoke at the EPAs oral hearing in Belmullet last year.
He (expert) succeeded in convincing the EPA that Shells monitoring proposals were inadequate, but stated that the discharge would not effect the quality of the seafood in the area (if Shell were treating the discharge to the level they are supposed to).
He is correct, when he says that if the public loses faith in the quality of Erris fish, then it will be virtually impossible to regain that confidence.
I agree with JM when he says that if Shell wasn't here then this issue wouldn't exist, but they are here and it is almost certain that the refinery will be operational late next year.
Even if the discharge doesn't cause any damage, it would be very simple for a saboteur to contaminate a sample of fish and claim they were caught in the area.
That combined with the expectation of pollution would finish commercial fishing along the mayo coast.

by JM Thu Feb 07, 2008 00:42 Rossport

The often-overlooked problem for the fishermen of Erris is the damage to the BRAND of the area, which has been touched on in the above article.

What some commentators don't acknowledge is that the damage to the area has already begun, and not by those trying to make the corrib project safer and cleaner, but by the mere presence of Shell, Statoil & Marathon in Erris.

The brand damage was well highlighted at the EPA oral hearing in Belmullet last April by a number of contributors, but is constantly ignored by those promoting the corrib refinery.

Below is the opening paragraph of a book review of "Achill Voices" in the Western People of October 16 2007, showing how the Erris area is already being percieved...

"NOW that the Barony of Erris has been pierced by the tentacles of Shell E&P, Achill Island remains one of the last bastions of unspoilt beauty on the Mayo coastline."

If people were given the choice of a sack of spuds from either Ireland or Chernobyl, regardless of the "scientific proof" that both are fine, most people would choose the obvious.

Perhaps Mr Walker and others should look to the root cause of the problem before allowing Shell to try and divde & conquer the people of Erris.

by annon Thu Feb 07, 2008 00:30

I came across this link to rte prime times coverage of water issues in mayo,

Looks like the planners are hoping to pump even more crap into the water !

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0117/primetime.html