In a headline that screams to be weblogged, the EPA says toxic sludge is good for fish (though a later article indicates that it was the Army Corps who said it, not the EPA – incidentally, the same group dumping the sludge). In studying the effects of toxic sludge in the Potomac, the report said that since the sludge forces fish out of the now toxic water, the fish go to more remote areas where they are less likely to be caught. The statement that it “protects” the fish is a real misuse of that word. It’s sort of a “if you’re going to make a hostile environment, make it hostile enough the wildlife just leaves” argument. Furthermore, the statement does not actually show evidence that the fish are successfully relocating – it just posits that this could be the case and suggests this be looked into before dumping is stopped. While I agree that current environmental legislation makes this a relevant fact to consider, to suggest that toxic dumping can be good just because nature may find a way to accomodate the poisons is morally repulsive. [via Sigma Xi: In the News]