> roger wrote:
>> I see nothing in that article that would convince me to swim in that
>> effluent.
Marc Chrusch wrote on 7/24/08 12:29 PM:
> What he said. Probably the most telling are the 4th and 5th sentences
> in the entire article:
> "When the water is good it is surprisingly good, but when it is bad,
> it's not safe to splash on skin. And the quality varies day by day,
> block by block. "
> Makes the odds at a Vegas Blackjack table look pretty good in comparison.

Both of you may be making a judgment about Birdland based on a description
of Paradise, and an over-hyped description at that. The article was not
always clear about the distinction between East River/Brooklyn and the

I'm sorry. Calling the Hudson "not safe to splash on skin" is laughable. And
even when they were talking about the Hudson, they were pretty negative.

There are a few eddies you might not want to linger in, and, as one kayaker
noted, you want to stay out for a couple days after a big rain. By the same
token, there are trails and conditions you'd probably want to avoid at any
ski area. To therefore avoid the whole mountain at all times is ridiculous.

I stand by my original assessment: the Hudson, away from the shore, not
after a rain, is cleaner than many rivers I've seen many, many kayakers
happy to be in.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit