EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Lessons of Hungary’s Sludge Disaster
Some 20 years ago, in the heady days between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, aid officials from the U.S. got their first, long look at a region-wide environmental mess behind the Iron Curtain.
Throughout Central and Eastern Europe, visiting aid delegations found groundwater poisoned by diesel fuel and pesticides, air fouled by sooty smokestacks and agricultural soils doubling as dumps for industrial and military wastes.
The recent disastrous spill of millions of gallons of toxic red sludge from an alumina plant in western Hungary harks back to this earlier era of totalitarian unconcern. As a current member of the European Union, Hungary now is subject to the same environmental directives and regulations as the other 26 E.U. nations. However, like many of its former Eastern-bloc neighbors, Hungary has been slow to clean up Communist-era pollution, and particularly in rural areas, environmental measures at some state-owned and private enterprises have not changed much.
Farms, mines and brownfields in Europe’s eastern tier are pocked by ponds filled with toxic wastes. Tailings from refineries lie adjacent to tributaries of major rivers, such as the Danube, Vistula and Tisza, which endured a catastrophic cyanide spill in 2000. Accidents such as the alumina sludge spill in Hungary can affect the health and livelihoods of thousands of people, including citizens well downstream of the accident site.
The toxic mess in Hungary should serve as a warning to communities — not just in Europe — but throughout the U.S.
From the Deep South to the Upper Midwest, there are thousands of open-air lagoons containing sewage from farms, feedlots, and factory outfalls. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are more than 600 ponds and dams containing toxic coal ash.
A coal-ash dam that collapsed near Knoxville, Tenn., in 2008 discharged more than one billion gallons of heavy metal-laced ash — in volumetric terms, a bigger accident than the BP Deepwater Horizon spill earlier this year — covering hundreds of acres of farmland, damaging homes and generating a major health scare in three states.
Going forward, we can expect more such incidents for two major reasons:
• First, securing frail, poorly regulated retaining ponds is a relatively low priority on a tall list of to-dos for EPA and other agencies with environmental responsibilities.
• Second, global climate change compounds the risk of catastrophic spills. The Tennessee coal-ash spill was preceded by several days of heavy rain, which caused the earthen embankment around the dam to erode.
Climate-change experts predict more frequent, major rainstorm events in regions like the Upper Mississippi and Ohio River Basins — so-called “gully washers” that are sudden, intense and destructive.
The prospect of a combination of more frequent floods and the failure of flimsy retaining ponds is unsettling. Moreover, the damage is likely to occur in rural areas lacking the financial, technological and organizational wherewithal to easily recover from such catastrophes.
The toxic sludge that buried villages and waterways in Hungary is thousands of miles from American shores, but it is easy to imagine citizens of Roane County, Tenn., feeling empathy for the sludge victims. Many Tennesseans are still digging out from the 2008 coal-ash spill.
Much as Hungary needs foreign assistance to recover from its sludge mess, American citizens, particularly in rural areas, need federal assistance to prevent comparable accidents.
Stronger regulations, new waste-reduction methods and technologies and more durable waste-containment facilities are desperately needed now. Their costs represent a fraction of the costs to clean up disasters like the recent spills in Hungary and Tennessee.
The EPA and Congress should heed the timely lessons of Hungary and Tennessee and jump-start a rational process of sorely needed protections.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

10 Comments so far
Show AllUltimately, looking forward seven generations, their lack of accountability and sound decision-making will come back to bite them in the ass, along with the rest of the living world. In other words, the decision-makers in corporate boardrooms, along with their families and stockholders, are NOT insulated from the results of their decisions, except in the most short-sighted and superficial way.
"Both will naturally tend towards risky policy, since in neither case do bad outcomes really affect the decision-makers."
____________________
Just to note a corollary to this point: not only is the "stick" of personal risk negligible to Stalinist apparatchiks and capitalist executives alike, there is also the "carrot" of being rewarded with either financial gain or enhanced security and status within the organization.
Occasionally this approach backfires so badly in both capitalist and totalitarian socialist institutions that upper-echelon heads will roll to counteract destabilizing public outrage, but these are exceptions that test the rule.
I don't think environmental disasters are necessarily related to communism or capitalism. However, it is true communism does lead to a higher incidence of environmental disasters for a given economic gain.
Communism has a very serious built in flaw, it concentrates power at the top. The government becomes both the owner, the employer, the regulator, and the profiteer. And this creates a huge conflict which not one of the communist nations has been able to resolve.
Environmental disasters in communist nations are covered up, and once they change to a free market system, where there is more freedom, a freer media, and NGO's can operate more openly, then these problems are noticed, reported, and become a lot more visible.
The key is not to compare Stalinist bureaucrat with corporate bureaucrats - there is a huge difference, and it's self evident communism is a much worse system in both the environmental, personal freedom, and economic areas. The key is not to compare them at all, because such comparisons are irrelevant.
The issue here is about proper regulation of industry, something we know very well can be done, is not done (the Bush administration in particular was terrible at it), and should be done.
The practice of "fracking" for gas leaves its waste products in similar holding ponds. They are vulnerable with the volatile components evaporating and causing damage to nearby crops and livestock and the solid parts to be hauled to dumps where they may well diffuse their poisons into aquifers or more simply as happened in Tennesse or Hungary these ponds will be flooded and spill all components into streams and drinking water. All this has already happened but the industry simply goes to the EPA hearings and maintains the practices are safe. The government officials at these hearings simply take the industry at their word. How is this different than totalitarianism? Dictators have show trials, we have show hearings.
I doubt the two products are similar. Fracking liquids are more benign than the monstrous soup spilled in Hungary. The oil industry maintains these practices are safe and the EPA has accepted it thus far because they can't find proof these liquids are indeed harmful. The EPA has requested a full report from the companies which formulate the liquids regarding their ingredients and this will be used to judge whether the liquids are indeed safe or not. I do want to point out the use of these liquids in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and similar areas has been common for over 40 years, and there has been no observed ill effects. It was only when the shale gas industry moved to drill and use this technology in the North East when suddently the fracking fluid issue became a concern.
Therefore I conclude either people in Texas are a lot more tolerant of pollution (which may be true since they're more tolerant of Mr Bush's follies), or this problem has been blown out of proportion. Since the natural gas being produced via this technology is a lot less polluting than the coal and oil it replaces, then we need to factor in the CO2 load as part of the consideration regarding the shale gas industry in the NE, and whether we're going to allow it or not.
One characteristic about the American mind-set and media - Americans are quick to see the problems in other nations, but fail to see the domestic situations on the same scale.
There will be no lessons learned from this disaster or any other, as long as greed is the dominate force that puts money and the economy above the planet. You can make all of the legislation you want, to protect the environment, which i totally agree with, but until there is a massive shift in how people relate to their benefactor earth, the disasters will continue. Even the very intellectual and bright people on this site, display their attachment to the $ as the primary aspect of life that gives them internal calm and external safety. There is no argument about the necessity of having enough money.This is fine, but it is the mental and emotional position of importance that we have ascribed to it that creates and nourishes greed. Lessons about protecting our fragile planet must ultimately come from the realization that we are not separate from it.
I completely agree with sirios333. Thank you for that. There needs to be a Shift in the human consciousness on several levels. Once there has been a realization that we are all connected no matter what we do, then there can be change. However at this point that does not look too promising.
I spend my summers in Hungary. It is a country that is mostly untouched by industrialization. There are pockets of industry, of course, but the vast majority of the land is agricultural or national park or private but open land or forest. There are several villages taken over by Western Europeans, mainly Dutch, in search for inexpensive living and a state of nature that does not exist in heavily populated regions of Europe. I agree with the first comment that the writer of this article is out of touch with the facts on the ground. The last 20 years were more damaging for the environment - than the 20 years prior to that. I am certain the spill will boost renewed environmental consciousness in Hungary and in the region.