Not really, because this article doesn’t document those numbers. I’m not a marine biologist, so I don’t know how far silt travels. I’ll just have to assume you know what you’re talking about, but the article undermined its entire premise in the last paragraph. As a result, it doesn’t sound like it’s making a strong case - it sounds like scaremongering.
I hate it when industry distorts facts to imply that pollution is good and healthy - but I also hate it when environmentalists distort facts to imply that the sky is falling. I suppose exaggeration is good for fundraising, but I’m the type that thinks facts make better policy.
