It's amazing what people will eat out of toxic water no matter how many fish consumption warnings are posted. I suppose the fishing is better at the impaired locations but to actually eat the fish out of there is something else.
To: blam; Carry_Okie; ClearCase_guy; cogitator; CollegeRepublican; conservativeconservationist; dead; ..
ECO-PINGFReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
2 posted on
10/24/2005 8:57:33 AM PDT by
GreenFreeper
(Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress)
To: GreenFreeper
I still fish in the Mississippi here in St. Paul, but I don't eat any fish out of the river. If I want eating fish, I head for a local lake, some distance from industrial areas.
I caught a 20 lb. channel catfish right in downtown St. Paul the other day. Nice fish. It's back swimming in the river. Maybe I'll catch it again later, once it gets big. [grin]
3 posted on
10/24/2005 9:16:11 AM PDT by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: GreenFreeper
---yawn---with the proliferation of chem labs since the growth of the EPA, you can, of course, literally find everything in anything and anything in everything---
--the "estrogen in the drinking water" B.S. was the hot rumour in Leadville, Colorado thirty-some years ago---
8 posted on
10/24/2005 9:26:10 AM PDT by
rellimpank
(urbanites don' t understand the cultural deprivation of not being raised on a farm:NRABenefactor)
To: GreenFreeper
Hey Cosmo Kramer! There's hope for your invention - the Bro - yet!
15 posted on
10/24/2005 10:14:40 AM PDT by
Mister Da
(Nuke 'em til they glow!)
To: GreenFreeper; Carry_Okie
I just got back from the Marina with two twenty five pound Albacore Tuna. Just a few days ago they were swimming freely in the Eastern Pacific when they were yanked on the boat, their gills ripped out, left to bleed on the deck and then thrown into a 20 below zero freezer.
We will cook and can them this week...
18 posted on
10/24/2005 4:03:56 PM PDT by
tubebender
(There you go, stealing my Tag Line again...)
To: GreenFreeper; 1Old Pro; aardvark1; a_federalist; abner; alaskanfan; alloysteel; alfons; ...
I don't fish in Pennsylvania, but I suspect that most of the major rivers in the other states are in the same shape on their lower reaches. The problem is urbanization requires sewage collection and treatment, rather than the environmentally ideal septic tanks. Treated sewage still has all the toxics that were in it before it entered the plant. Biological treatment cannot remove those chemicals that are toxic to the bacteria that do the treatment, and the cost of chemically treating the massive flow that most urban plants handle is beyond reason. For this reason, and likely no other, our rivers are toxic sewers by the time they reach sea level.
This is the price of living in cities. We could do far better if we were spread out on the land, and there many pre-filtration systems that can be applied to septic systems to assure that the cleaning products, and industrial chemicals do no harm to the bacteria in the tank.
19 posted on
10/24/2005 4:19:56 PM PDT by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: GreenFreeper
Volz has his suspicions. "One substance we'll be looking for is pthalates, which are found in soaps, paints and glues used in the construction industry," he said. "They're like estrogen in their effect on living systems. An excess amount is like taking birth control pills, and could potentially cause an increase in breast cancer. They are also indicated in neuro-developmental problems."Makes you wonder if this stuff does this if inhaled....
22 posted on
10/25/2005 3:09:07 AM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson