h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Cuyahoga River - A771158
Author: Andrew Wyld - U196900

I'm kind of working on this idea: basically I think the Cuyahoga river is a beautifully vivid image of pollution and yet not a particularly extreme example of man's idiocy with the environment, and I think DNA would have approved.

It needs work which is why I've put it here. Any ideas?

Cheers

Andrew

Looks fairly okay to me! (Perhaps except for the link to <./>RandomEditedEntry</.> which is a matter of individual taste)


Perhaps add a few more details about what it all was that contributed to pollution and what was done to limit it, if you ask me


Oh, have you been to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/ ? It's an offspring of h2g2, as you'll see quite immediately

Hey, the link is pretty sweet!

I'll put that in instead of randomeditedentry. I do like the idea of sending someone somewhere uncertain, but perhaps that is better suited to my article on quantum mechanics! : )

Thinking about what was done to limit it ... there was a very interesting article, whose URI I cannot remember, stating that in fact the new legislation (there was some) was worse than the original legislation, which if properly enforced could have solved the problem. It came down to the intrinsic responsibility of river users to care for the river.

I'll see if I can dredge it up ... there was a really interesting legal angle to it.

The only thing is I don't want to lose the punch of the fact that it caught on fire, which is very funny and very sad (like life).

I would mention the name "Danube" in the sentence with the link in it, as it looks to the first glance to say that the Cuyahoga is in Europe.

There was a movie with Eric Roberts and Cheech Marin that made reference to the Cuyahoga fire in '69. Cheech's character is talking to a smoking fish!

It was my understanding that in the last instance of fire, an employee of a local chemical company was actually prosecuted for turning the wrong valve and dumping a particular chemical in quantity into the river.

Of course, the fact that the world regards any open water to be a toilet is still the overarching point.

I think the Thames even caught fire once.

I didn't know about the film, the prosecuted employee, or the Thames.

I quite like leaving the word "Danube" out although I suppose if you're speed-reading it could be confusing, but I slightly like the double-take value on "beautiful phtalocyanine Danube".

I'll get back on this quite shortly.

http://www.jough.com/film/ebert/rude_awakening.htm

here's da movie...or a review of same...
actually, it is worse than Roger tells it...
a real waste of unborn guitar picks...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_587000/587071.stm

and here's a Thames fire, though not the one I had in mind.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/5161/water1.htm

and this site says the Niagara River once caught fire.

Strewth!

I can feel this article growing!

OK, thinking back on this:

1. Perhaps an article on pollution would be more informative although since the whole "Burning River" thing started with the Cuyahoga I'd rather keep it separated
2. Is this more appropriate to the 360 forum?

By the way, DNA originally wanted this place to be self-organizing: would it be a nice idea to have an ongoing set of category articles which contain reference to new articles on that subject, e.g. pollution would reference this, and articles about other serious instances of pollution as well as any new stuff on control, and could in turn be referenced by parent topics (the environment) and sister topics (conservation)?

Should there be some kind of concerted effort going on to make this work, I wonder?

You might want to ask Bossel or check over at the University of Life.

re: 360 - it depends. 360 is still in the early stages, and they've not quite figured out what they want to do yet - which may be an advantage or disadvantage...

I think you're right to stick to Cuyahoga River, rather than trying to cover the huge topic of pollution. Only problem I see with the entry, from the perspective of the Edited Guide, is that you include a little too much first person perspective and opinion, which'll keep it from being picked as is. You either need to replace/rewrite that stuff, and go for the Edited Guide, or submit this to Writing-Alternative - up to you.

-Martin

Hmm ... perhaps you're right. It seems a pity, though, as a lot of scientific writing is needlessly dry partly through the consistent use of passives, although I do agree with the need to maintain objectivity. I tried to avoid first-person narrative.

I'll work on it.

I *hate* using the passive tense that way: 'the test tube was carefully smelled' - ugh!

A better option, perhaps, would be to put your personal story (IE, being asked to name the worst two states) in italic blockquotes as an introduction, and then go on to talk about the river in a more objective fashion?

Ah, clever!

Yes, that sounds good -- although it is a little artificial to be quoting oneself -- but anyway.

I'll see how that looks. Classy.

for added bonus points quote yourself as 'a particularly clever and good-looking h2g2 Researcher' or something...

Quoting didn't work because the quote led right into the article ... I made it a little less "I would choose", which of course risks offending the inhabitants of the various states so I also added a disclaimer.

I think block quotes could be handy somewhere, though. It's a good suggestion.