https://apple.news/AjVb5r2TPSQKTzO2a9zurZg

I am all for it.

KY issued a do not eat fish advisory for all waterways in KY over these chemicals.

I don’t know.

If they are truly forever chemicals, you are not able to reduce them.

The EPA statement on danger looks full of “may” and “might” which is a bit much to add yet another unfunded mandate over.

I’m not against figuring out if these chemicals are harmful and at what level, but conversely as forever chemicals, we are not going to be the only source of them.

Toxicology is fundamentally a science of risk/benefit. If you declare zero tolerance, you are generally advocating moving into space.

Given the current folks in charge of the government, my suspicion is that they will be unreasonable and have political carve outs for their friends.

Look at it this way, by most assertions, the fish and waterways are cleaner than they were in 1960… yet there were no recommendations against eating river fish back then… so the contention that things are horrible because they have all these new warnings is disingenuous.

The fish from commercial fishing in the 1700’s were likely more contaminated than now… just different contaminants.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I don’t know.

If they are truly forever chemicals, you are not able to reduce them.

The EPA statement on danger looks full of “may” and “might” which is a bit much to add yet another unfunded mandate over.

I’m not against figuring out if these chemicals are harmful and at what level, but conversely as forever chemicals, we are not going to be the only source of them.

Toxicology is fundamentally a science of risk/benefit. If you declare zero tolerance, you are generally advocating moving into space.

Given the current folks in charge of the government, my suspicion is that they will be unreasonable and have political carve outs for their friends.

Look at it this way, by most assertions, the fish and waterways are cleaner than they were in 1960… yet there were no recommendations against eating river fish back then… so the contention that things are horrible because they have all these new warnings is disingenuous.

The fish from commercial fishing in the 1700’s were likely more contaminated than now… just different contaminants.

That doesn't mean that they can't remove them. It means that they persist forever unless or until they're removed from the water which they are contaminating.
I recall reading years ago about perfluoro chemicals possibly being used to develop synthetic blood or blood substitutes. I don't know if anything like that ever came to fruition.
I believe that most of the mercury contaminating our oceans and hence their marine life. came from old Spanish galleons that sank due to storms or some sort of nefarious activity.

Mercury naturally occurs.

It’s normally found in saltwater.

It’s also variously present in the soil.

It’s a metallic element, and found in nature. That’s not saying it’s not toxic, especially at higher concentrations. The toxic form is not the metallic elemental form, but rather organic compounds (which were principally from human uses such as dyes).

The galleons had metallic mercury which was used in gold mining. In any case, the amounts lost there were insignificant when thought of on a ocean wide basis. The mercury after its use in mining operations would be more problematic than that lost in wrecks.

The form in freshwater fish is deposited in their fat (thus an organic form) and is problematic. I’m not sure if the amounts in ocean fish are all organic, but some is, possibly from them eating invertebrates, possibly from pollution.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Mercury naturally occurs.

It’s normally found in saltwater.

It’s also variously present in the soil.

It’s a metallic element, and found in nature. That’s not saying it’s not toxic, especially at higher concentrations. The toxic form is not the metallic elemental form, but rather organic compounds (which were principally from human uses such as dyes).

The galleons had metallic mercury which was used in gold mining. In any case, the amounts lost there were insignificant when thought of on a ocean wide basis. The mercury after its use in mining operations would be more problematic than that lost in wrecks.

The form in freshwater fish is deposited in their fat (thus an organic form) and is problematic. I’m not sure if the amounts in ocean fish are all organic, but some is, possibly from them eating invertebrates, possibly from pollution.

I noticed just recently that WalMart is now offering a low mercury content canned tuna.

Ask people who were smoking cigarettes with mercury in them if elemental mercury is toxic.

I heard once that a politician's brain is made from teflon because nothing sticks to it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Mercury naturally occurs.

It’s normally found in saltwater.

It’s also variously present in the soil.

It’s a metallic element, and found in nature. That’s not saying it’s not toxic, especially at higher concentrations. The toxic form is not the metallic elemental form, but rather organic compounds (which were principally from human uses such as dyes).

The galleons had metallic mercury which was used in gold mining. In any case, the amounts lost there were insignificant when thought of on a ocean wide basis. The mercury after its use in mining operations would be more problematic than that lost in wrecks.

The form in freshwater fish is deposited in their fat (thus an organic form) and is problematic. I’m not sure if the amounts in ocean fish are all organic, but some is, possibly from them eating invertebrates, possibly from pollution.

It means we can stop adding to the problem.

Perhaps, but that’s not what the EPA standard states, is it?

Are you saying we should let people on a plane burn to death because PFAS derived firefighting chemicals are bad?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Mercury naturally occurs.

It’s normally found in saltwater.

It’s also variously present in the soil.

It’s a metallic element, and found in nature. That’s not saying it’s not toxic, especially at higher concentrations. The toxic form is not the metallic elemental form, but rather organic compounds (which were principally from human uses such as dyes).

The galleons had metallic mercury which was used in gold mining. In any case, the amounts lost there were insignificant when thought of on a ocean wide basis. The mercury after its use in mining operations would be more problematic than that lost in wrecks.

The form in freshwater fish is deposited in their fat (thus an organic form) and is problematic. I’m not sure if the amounts in ocean fish are all organic, but some is, possibly from them eating invertebrates, possibly from pollution.

It means we can stop adding to the problem.

I am saying the EPA has administrative authority to limit these chemicals from our water ways. In addition, that is a good thing.

https://neurosciencenews.com/c...ce-parkinsons-22788/

Hidden Danger in Your Groundwater? Widely Used Chemical Linked to 500% Increased Risk of Parkinson’s

https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal...68dbb6243a13f7&ei=15

Study Detects Forever Chemicals in Toilet Paper

https://www.thecooldown.com/gr...-energy-western-u-s/

New poll shows surprising point of consensus for voters from across the political spectrum — ‘broad majorities’ agree
A new poll from Colorado College has found that voters in some predominantly red western states are overwhelmingly in support of clean energy and conservation initiatives…

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b02540

Plastic Teabags Release Billions of Microparticles and Nanoparticles into Tea

https://happilyhomegrown.com/p...%20are%20compostable.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
https://apple.news/AjVb5r2TPSQKTzO2a9zurZg

I am all for it.

KY issued a do not eat fish advisory for all waterways in KY over these chemicals.

I'm a bit surprised at that because the legislature is controlled by conservatives in KY.

https://ballotpedia.org/Party_...cky_state_government

Here in GA there are wild caught fish consumption guidelines, but apparently not based on studies of forever chemicals.

I've notices some guidelines in other states, and western states, where they have issued do not eat warnings.

Anyway, here's an example of how the Clean Water Act (the one Trump tried to gut) gives a voice to citizens:

https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/...er-rein-in-polluters

New Georgia ‘Dirty Dozen’ update spotlights Clean Water Act’s power to rein in polluters
November 30, 2022 11:05 AM

In MN the limits on river fish have been principally (to my knowledge) PCB’s, Dioxin, and mercury.

Some pollutants are naturally occurring in places- lead, mercury, biologics.

Some are purely manmade like dioxin and PCB’s.

I don’t disagree that the EPA is the agency that is involved, but sometimes they get odd decisions and sometimes they overreach.

I’m not sure with the polyvinyl chemicals like that train wreck where to come in at.

Look at plastic food packaging… it’s cheap, and allows the consumer to inspect what they are buying… it greatly reduces food contamination… it’s a major source of pollution.

Personally I like the old white butcher paper and happily get my meat from a meat market that way… but the meat market is a premium price.

Also, vacuum packing (most do that with game) involves plastics.

I remember all the griping with McDonalds doing away with foam packaging for their burgers… and yes, the cardboard ones leak and the food cools off faster… but overall, a positive… yet they have gotten away from the paper cups and gone to plastic…

And straws… the plastic ones work way better, but again it’s a garbage situation and making plastics involves chemicals…

Ah yes, the EPA that Trump tried to gut...
The EPA that was a do nothing in the train crash in Ohio, and the EPA that had to have an Inspecter General look into them, because they did nothing when the Flint MI repeatedly told them of their water problems. Under Obo, I might add.
The EPA needs their own oversight, before they do more crap like that.

He tried to gut the Clean Water Act and the EPA.

Probably succeeded to some degree.

I hope Dems fixed that when they could.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
In MN the limits on river fish have been principally (to my knowledge) PCB’s, Dioxin, and mercury.

That's the focus here in GA. They haven't updated in a long time. I suspect lack of funding for research and testing, plus I think the real state of the matter is not disclosed intentionally.

Most if not all the major watersheds here are very polluted with stuff that's dumped. It's not naturally occurring, like mercury.

When I first retired I went on a catfish binge. I caught so many I just had to stop. I gave most of them away - cleaned and frozen.

Gradually, I got over my denial about the health of the rivers. Now I don't fish in them at all.

I've been searching and researching places to go where the water is clean or better clean. I found few possibilities in this region. I'm planning to try one place soon. It's a State park with an old mill pond (dam) and the drainage basin up stream is rather short with no ag or industry or towns upstream.

Another likely place is the GA coast, saltwater, south of Savanna and north of Brunswick. South of the Savanna River drainage, north of the Altamaha drainage near Darian. It's not pristine water, but as good as it gets in Georgia. Lots of tidal creeks and marsh there.

Bidens EPA said the water in Palistine creeks is safe now. would you eat fish from them?
If it was me. I would have D. team oversite of the epa when R's were in charge, and R teams when D's were in charge. I think the epa only cares about keeping their jobs.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Bidens EPA said the water in Palistine creeks is safe now. would you eat fish from them?
If it was me. I would have D. team oversite of the epa when R's were in charge, and R teams when D's were in charge. I think the epa only cares about keeping their jobs.

All of the people there have property they can never sell and who knows what health issues they will face in the future. No doubt many of them are paying on now worthless mortgages. Incomprehensible. NS should be made to not only buy them out but make massive reparations.

I would not eat the fish anymore then I would eat the fish in KY. That is to say neither.

I wouldn't eat the fish before the spill, so.....