Monday, February 05, 2007

The Bad Guys brag of Environmental Sainthood on The Charles River - Response

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The February 1, 2007 issue of the Cambridge Chronicle printed a letter from a representative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He bragged about the efforts of MIT and its friends, including the Charles River Conservancy to clean up the Charles River and to otherwise "improve" the Charles River.

I have offered the following letter in response.


I appreciated the letter from MIT emphasizing the need for cooperation in returning the Charles to a healthy environment.

MIT lauded the swim-in media event at Magazine Beach in July 2005 as an example of going in the right direction.

Only a brief look at Magazine Beach will show that the animal habitat and wetlands is now gone as a result of the effort praised by that swim-in. During the construction, animals, of course were heartlessly starved by having access from the Charles totally blocked. The wetlands have been replaced with a wall of designer bushes which have no place on the Charles River. They, in fact, repeatedly died since their introduction at Magazine Beach.

These introduced bushes create a wall blocking most animal access from the Charles and PREVENTING swimming from most of Magazine Beach.

The next phase of construction will dig up and remove the dirt in the playing fields at Magazine Beach. The dirt will be replaced with dirt, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers will replace the wetlands. The poisons will protect the new dirt from insects which are not a problem with Magazine Beach before "improvement."

There, of course, is no concern about starving local animals during this project either.

Similar "improvements" were made at Ebersol Field near Mass. General Hospital last year. The new poisons were not enough to protect against insects, so the DCR / MDC introduced even more powerful poisons. The more powerful poisons were labelled with a prohibition against use near water.

The next day, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, swamped with algae. A first annual "swim in" was cancelled because of the algae.

Before the ongoing "improvements" to the Charles River, the DCR / DCR took a poll. Most people said we do not need "improvements."

Some of the people swimming with MIT have been poisoning every goose egg they can get away with on the Charles for the last four years. These same people brag about running around destroying as much native vegetation as they can get away with.

The DCR / MDC is fighting for "water related uses" while attacking local aquatic animals and vegetation, and fighting for swimming while walling off the Charles River. Naturally, playing fields seem to be water related uses but water animals and water vegetation do not seem to be.

MIT's idea of cooperation is interesting. It seems to be cooperation in exactly the opposite direction of what most people want on the Charles River.