Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Lough Conn report defended

  • 27-09-2002 12:54am
    #1
    jd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭


    Lough Conn report defended
    By Pat O'Keeffe

    Senior EPA scientist Martin McGarrigle has robustly defended the Lough Conn report against the criticisms levelled by NUI Galway's John Mulqueen, criticisms which were detailed in last week's Journal. Martin McGarrigle was lead author of the 1993 pollution report.

    more here..
    http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2002/0928/news/currentedition/newsfeature.htm


Comments

  • #2
    Typedef
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭Typedef


    So, to believe the EPA when it blames slurry tanks for the excess run off of phosphorus or to believe the NUI when it says the the tests for calculating the run off of phosphorus from ground soil are flawed based on the levels of phosphorus found in the Lough?

    Somehow I think the EPA has a vested interest in not looking stupid. Call me suspicious, but unless the EPA can 'prove' the excess phosphorus has come from slurry, the only other logical alternative is that said phosphorus has come from fertilizer run off.


Advertisement