Talk:James Bay Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment[edit]

I have assessed this as B class given its level of detail and organization, although it desperately needs in-line citations, and of low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased POV (Point Of View)[edit]

This article is clearly written mostry from the francophone Quebecois point of view, and from a position of support for the James Bay Project. It needs to be balanced with environmental concerns and the point of view of the Cree whose hunting grounds were adversely affected by this development. Please resolve this, Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do recall the terrible pictures on TV of 10,000 drowned caribou, but that is in the article already, albeit toned down from how I remember the article from 3 years ago. Was there something else? Jok2000 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has filled the environmental impact and social impact sections with pro-hydo-quebec greenwash. It downplays the environmental impacts the project has had on northern quebec- of which numerous studies have been taken-as well as the serious social effects it had on the cree. Furthermore it is frought with statements that are completely inaccurate and false such as "Decomposing organic material in the reservoirs further added to the high levels of organic mercury in local lakes and rivers, which stems from geology and atmospheric pollution from the coal-fired electric generation plants of the United States and Ontario, Canada, but this impact has been shown to dissipate after 20 to 30 years. " methyl-mercury levels do not dissipate over 20-30 years, nor do any other heavy metal based compounds. That is complete nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the phrase "but this impact has been shown to dissipate after 20 to 30 years", which was cut by 206.192.68.117, is the following:
  • Hayeur, G. 2001. Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern Environments from 1970 to 2000. Montreal: Hydro-Québec, p. 46.
The original source is:
  • SCHETAGNE, R., and R.VERDON. 1999a. Post-impoundment evolution of fish mercury levels at the La Grande complex. Québec, Canada (from 1978 to 1996). In Mercury in the Biogeochemical Cycle: Natural Environments and Hydroelectric Reservoirs of Northern Québec (Canada), (edited by M. Lucotte. and others). Berlin/New York: Springer. pp. 235–238 ISBN-10: 354065755X
The sentence criticized by 206.192.68.117 was:
Decomposing organic material in the reservoirs further added to the high levels of organic mercury in local lakes and rivers, which stems from geology and atmospheric pollution from the coal-fired electric generation plants of the United States and Ontario, Canada, but this impact has been shown to dissipate after 20 to 30 years.
206.192.68.117 stated that "methyl-mercury levels do not dissipate over 20-30 years, nor do any other heavy metal based compounds." In fact, the organic methyl-mercury either flows out into the ocean in suspended organic material (total discharge over 25 years is about 2500 cubic kilometers of water) or is deposited as sediment on the bottom of the reservoirs. The original sentence is reinstated in with a footnote.
As for the mercury emissions from the thermal coal-fired power plants of the American Midwest and Ontario, as well as from various mining operations, these emissions are relatively well known. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment stated on October 11th, 2006, that Canadian coal-fired electric power generation sector emitted an estimated 2.7 metric tonnes of mercury in 2003. Normal air currents push it all in a north-easterly direction.
(Source: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/hg_epg_cws_w_annex.pdf)
This explains why the NESCAUM, an association of the state air quality divisions of the departments of environmental protection of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, favors further regulations on emissions. Total US emissions from coal-fired plants was about 49 US tons in 1999.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 1999 National Emissions Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants. quoted in NESCAUM, MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS. The Case for Regulatory Action, 2003, pages 2-1. and 2-2.
(Source: http://www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt031104mercury.pdf/).
Cheers Joseph B (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough[edit]

As it currently stands, this article is crap. Start-class, tops. And whover rated this article B-class/low importance doesn't know a thing. Sixteen thousand megawatts, that's 13-14% of Canada's total electric generating capacity, more than the entire generating capacity of Alberta and Saskatchewan, yes, combined. Took 20 years to build, it's a $20-billion project. Low importance? That's the modern pyramids! As for the B-class, that's a friggin' joke. No less than 8 unsourced statements in the first two paragraphs. I'm gonna re-rate this to start-class/high importance and get cracking on the double. Bouchecl (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow! I guess somebody appointed you King of this article! Getting a little emotional... It shouldn't be surprising that there are crappy articles, afterall WP is a continuous work in progress. Just edit. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Bay Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Bay Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Bay Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Bay_Project&oldid=1207586826"