Letter: Leaving polluting hunk in waters off Lymington not a satisfactory conclusion
Re the remains of the burnt out powerboat dumped by Lymington slipway on Sunday 22nd October. I read in the A&T (27th Oct) at the weekend that the agencies involved thought the rescue “went well with a satisfactory conclusion”.
How was leaving a polluting hulk on the shore of a part of the river that is home to many bird species and a rich variety of marine life a satisfactory conclusion?
It was a disgrace to leave it there for almost two days. The antipollution measures were totally inadequate, and as the remains were left above the low water mark the toxic fluids could just drain into the river and the shore at low tide.
It appeared that by Tuesday morning detergents had been used to break up the visible oil pollution along the shore by the sea water baths. Why wasn't the wreck taken somewhere it could be taken out of the water and the pollution risk properly contained?
Name and address supplied