|
The other day, I watched 60 Minutes, the TV
commentary that dares to tell the truth. They reported on hundreds
of millions having been spent to 'save' salmon, which have all
but disappeared, due to a number of hydroelectric dams having
been built along rivers discharging into the Pacific.
Apparently, salmon get trapped in the turbines,
on their way to spawning pools up the rivers, and, more than
likely, on their way back to the ocean. The authorities went
to great length to save the dams. Their feeble attempts to save
the salmon are among the most inane I'd ever heard of in my life.
It is frightening that the USA authorities can employ that many
people whose stupidity borders on willful negligence.
Surely, an addition of 2 to 3 feet to the
dam's height, to compensate for 2 or 3 new openings in (or around)
the dam, would solve the problem permanently, for a tiny fraction
of the cost.
The new stepped openings, resembling cataracts,
would allow free flow of water for the salmon, while access to
the turbines would be protected with wire mesh on both sides
of the dam. After a short period of adjustment, the present water
level would be maintained, the salmon would have unrestricted
access to spawning grounds, and millions and millions of dollars
would be saved. Is there something wrong with my reasoning?
PS. Perhaps I should mention that, though
now retired, for some 40 years I'd been gainfully employed as
an architect in England and in Canada. (RIBA,MRAIC,OAQ)
|
