Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:19 AM

GasBuddy News Article

31
votes
Deformed Oilsands Fish Appearing In Lake Athabasca, Says First Nation

Huffington Post -- FORT CHIPEWYAN, Alta. - Natives downstream from the oilsands in northern Alberta say they have caught more deformed fish in Lake Athabasca and will be sending them away for testing.

Pictures of two fish, a sucker and a northern pike, were distributed by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation on Friday. The band has long called for better protection of the region's water.

Chief Allan Adam said he is concerned that changes to the Federal Fisheries Act will favour industrial development over the protection of fish.

The pike, which Adam said was caught near the community on Wednesday, appears to have a red lesion running down its back and more lesions on its belly. The sucker, which Adam said was also caught Wednesday, was found floating near-death on the surface. It is missing a lot of its s


Read the Full Article

Submitted Jun 03, 2012 By: Cakes77
Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: Deformed Oilsands Fish Appearing In Lake Athabasca, Says First Nation Back to Topics
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2012 9:22:10 PM

The "deformed" fish have been sent to biologists for testing. I strongly suspect this is just another stunt by the Eco-imperialists to scare folks.

A recent study has concluded that mercury levels have NOT increased in Athabasca fish from oil sands production.

A newly published study has cast doubt on past findings that mercury levels are increasing in fish near Alberta's oilsands.

"There is no evidence to support the contention that mercury concentrations are increasing in fish as a result of expanding oilsands development," says the study, which was published in early June 2012 in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring.

Mercury levels in fish have not increased
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2012 10:36:18 AM

LOL, you got me rolling on the floor now!

You had better do some research on your statement, "NO other "scientist" ever took-up", you're falling for ideology that is responsible for the needless death of millions of people.

Or perhaps you really don't care about human life like this key guy who fought for the DDT ban:

When asked if people might die as a result of the DDT ban, Dr. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund said, "Probably...so what? People are the causes of all the problems; we have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any."

"PROBABLY...SO WHAT"? Sounds like something Hitler would say huh????

Sad, disgusting and pathetic, that is the only description for those that have been preyed on by the Eco-Imperialist agenda.
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2012 7:18:31 AM

Oh contrare.

The only thing *you* have shown, is your belief in a bunch of half-truths pasted together by a "scientist" that is not even qualified in the subject areas of discussion. He is neither an ornithologist, nor a toxicologist. And his "appeal" to the "scientific community" was published in neither an ornithological per reviewed journal, nor a toxicological per reviewed journal.

Why is it, that NO other "scientist" ever took-up his "empassioned plea" (as it is often referred to). Surely if there were any factual basis for his assertion, other scientists would have come-out in support of his single-handed efforts.

The "junk science" here, is in the pseudo-science you so desperately continue to hang onto.

[Edited by: Martinman at 6/14/2012 9:21:14 AM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2012 12:06:17 PM

No tactics here, I've already show the junk science behind DDT. You know by know I don't need the bait and switch tactics of the left. Simply getting back to the subject of the article and the attempts at blame without any science as to the cause of the 'problems' of the two fish.
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2012 6:11:31 AM

Typical tactic - deflecting the question/issue being discussed.

Such a fitting ending...

... as was expected.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 11, 2012 9:00:47 AM

Right, so where's the credible evidence on these two fish?
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 11, 2012 6:05:18 AM

One word for those blinded by the coolaid...

C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2012 5:52:16 PM

Sure, can't refute the science, so lets look at book sales! LOL
Profile Pic
teafortwo
Champion Author Washington

Posts:27,383
Points:2,028,935
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2012 4:00:39 PM


The TOBACCO industry also played games with peoples health for decades.

They got away with lying about the health problems for decades using:

'hired experts', lobbyists, political "contributions", shills and phoney 'research'.

Seems the PROFITS were too tempting for BIG GREED industry to resist.

The OIL & GAS & COAL industries are doing the same thing now. Follow the money :0\
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 10:05:25 PM

Dude - it's a hodge-podge piece of half-truths, written by an entomologist, edited and published by an M.D., in a Physicians journal.

You're relying on a manifesto, written by someone who studied Coleopteran beetles?

Where did you get your science degree?

Cabelas?

Btw, Edward's book ranks #10,656,636 in Books on Amazon's Top 100 Book list...

Yeap, still impressed...

[Edited by: Martinman at 6/8/2012 12:12:13 AM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 9:59:52 PM

Sorry martinman, the catcher dropped the ball on the third strike and drpepperTX advances to first.
DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud

Now, I won't rejoice in victory because it's truly sad that our government imposed eco-imperialism, for the sake of removing power from the people, continues to hide behind fraudulent science.

Back to the poor fish, any science in yet?
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 9:33:11 PM

Slide presentation by researchers at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Patuxent Maryland, titled:

"CONTAMINANTS AND WILDLIFE — THE RACHEL CARSON LEGACY LIVES ON"

From pp. 8-22 of the slide presentation on the documented effects of DDT/DDE on Brown Pelican reproductive success and population numbers:

(p. 8)
• Louisiana
–1920: 50-85,000 brown pelicans
–1963: 0 brown pelicans
–1990: 1330 successful nests

• Texas
–1920: 5,000 brown pelicans
–1963: 100 brown pelicans
–1994: 225 brown pelicans

(p. 9)
• Florida
–1970: 5,000 pairs
–1994: 9200 pairs
Recently: 8-12,000 pairs

• South Carolina
–1960: 5,000 pairs
–1970: 1,000 pairs
–1976: 2,500 pairs
–1980: 4,800 pairs
–1990: 6,345 pairs

(p. 10)
• North Carolina
–Early 70s less than 100 pairs
–1990: 2,912 pairs
• California
–1950s: ~ 5,000 pairs
–1969: a few hundred pairs
–1990: ~ 5,000 pairs

(p. 11)
EGG SHELL THINNING
• All populations in North America
• First noted in brown pelicans in 1960’s
• Greatest thinning--47% in CA and NW Baja, CA
• 10-17% in South Carolina
• 5-11% in Florida
• 11% in Texas and 7-14% in Louisiana

(p. 14)
SUMMARY, BROWN PELICAN STUDIES
• DDT, through its metabolite DDE, was significantly correlated with egg shell thinning in all populations of brown pelicans in North America
• In certain populations, DDE adversely affected reproductive success and population level

(p. 15)
SUMMARY (2)
• After the ban DDT in the early 1970’s in the U.S., brown pelican populations started to recover almost immediately in the southeast as residues and eggshell thinning declined and productivity increased. The recovery in CA took longer because of the much greater DDE levels.

(p. 18)
SUMMARY (5)
• The effect level of 3 parts per million DDE in eggs was associated with total reproductive failure
• In CA mean egg shell thinning was 34% in the few intact eggs and 53% in the numerous crushed eggs. Pelicans in parts of Mexico were also affected

(p.19)
DDT AND OTHER SPECIES
• DDE-induced eggshell thinning was noted in 18 families of birds. DDE was associated with population declines of the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, osprey, double-crested cormorant, merlin, great cormorant, Mexican free-tailed bat, and others.
• Populations of most of these species have recovered with the ban on DDT.

(p. 20)
DDT AND OTHER SPECIES (2)
• Although many birds are sensitive to DDE-induced eggshell thinning, certain groups, such as the gallinaceous birds, are not sensitive. Differences in species sensitivity are found throughout the realm of pesticides and other contaminants; this concept is most difficult for the general public to grasp.

(p. 22)
POLITICS
• There is now a movement for additional use of DDT; this is associated with the errant thinking that environmental problems from DDT are mythical.
• The advances in ecotoxicology are at some risk from the political climate in D.C. Some agencies, such as EPA, are doing a poor job of protecting the environment.

-----

STRIKE THREE !!!



[Edited by: Martinman at 6/7/2012 11:40:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 9:22:37 PM

Brown Pelican _Pelecanus occidentalis_:

"With the advent and widespread use of pesticides such as DDT in the 1940s, pelican populations plummeted due to lack of breeding success. When pelicans ate fish contaminated with DDT, the eggs that they laid had shells so thin that they broke during incubation.

By the 1960s, brown pelicans had nearly disappeared along the Gulf Coast and experienced almost complete reproductive failure in southern California. Studies proving the pelicans were not harming commercial fisheries helped to stop their wholesale slaughter. In 1970, under a law that preceded the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the brown pelican as endangered, a term that means the species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of DDT in the United States and restricted the use of other pesticides. Since then, there has been a decrease in the level of chemical contaminants in pelican eggs, and a corresponding increase in nesting success."

"In 1985, brown pelicans in the eastern United States, including Alabama, all of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and points northward along the Atlantic Coast, had recovered to the point that the populations were removed from the Endangered Species List. The U.S. Gulf Coast populations in Texas and Louisiana, although still listed as endangered, were recently estimated at nearly 12,000 breeding pairs. The brown pelican is also still listed as endangered in the Pacific Coast portion of its range and in Central and South America. The population of the subspecies found in
southern California, which includes nesting islands in Mexico, is estimated
at more than 11,000 breeding pairs.

As a result of the ban on the use of DDT in the United States, as well as complementary conservation efforts, the species has made a strong comeback and, in view of its improved status, has been removed from the list of threatened and endangered species throughout its range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now estimates the global population of brown pelicans at
650,000 individuals."

-----

STRIKE TWO !
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 9:11:24 PM

From the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's own website:

Bald Eagle Fact Sheet: Natural History, Ecology, and History of Recovery

"When America adopted the bald eagle as the national symbol in 1782, the country may have had as many as 100,000 nesting eagles. The first major decline of the species probably began in the mid to late 1800’s, coinciding with the decline of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other prey.

Although they primarily eat fish and carrion, bald eagles used to be considered marauders that preyed on chickens, lambs, and domestic livestock. Consequently, the large raptors were shot in an effort to eliminate a perceived threat. Coupled with the loss of nesting habitat, bald eagle populations declined.

In 1940, noting that the species was “threatened with extinction,” Congress passed the Bald Eagle Protection Act, which prohibited killing, selling, or possessing the species. A 1962 amendment added the golden eagle, and the law became the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

By 1963, with only 487 nesting pairs of bald eagles remaining, the species was in danger of extinction. Loss of habitat, shooting, and DDT poisoning contributed to the near demise of our national symbol...."

That is directly from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's website (linked above)

-----

Additionally, there is peer reviewed literature that dates back to 1947, immediately following the introduction of DDT, documenting the declining in Bald Eagle populations with documentation linking the decline to DDT, and its metabolite DDE:

(1958) Broley, C.E. 1958. The plight of the American bald eagle. Audubon Magazine 60:162-163;171.

(1967)
Ratcliffe, D. A. 1967. Decrease in eggshell weight in certain birds of prey. Nature 215:208-210.

(1968)
Hickey, J. J., and D. W. Anderson. 1968. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell changes in raptorial and fish-eating birds. Science 162:271-273.

(1972)
Anderson, D. W., and J. J. Hickey. 1972. Eggshell changes in certain North American birds. Proc. 15th Intern. Ornithol. Congress:514-540.

(1980)
Kiff, L.F. 1980. Historical changes in resident populations of California Islands raptors. Pages 651-673 in D.M. Power, ed. The California Islands: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary Symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara.

(1983)
Grier, J.W., J.B. Elder, F.J. Gramlich, N.F. Green, J.V. Kussman, J.E. Mathisen, and J.P. Mattsson. 1983. Northern states bald eagle recovery plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

(1984)
Wiemeyer, S.N., T.G. Lamont, C.M. Bunck, C.R. Sindelar, F.J. Gramlich, J.D. Fraser, and M.A. Byrd. 1984. Organochlorine pesticide, polychlorobiphenyl, and mercury residues in bald eagle eggs - 1969-79 - and their relationships to shell thinning and reproduction. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 13:529-549.

And the above are just a few of the numerous articles, on this topic.

[Edited by: Martinman at 6/7/2012 11:13:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 8:03:48 PM

........Now to the Brown Pelican.

The myth: DDT caused the Brown Pelican population to crash.

The facts show otherwise:

Fact: In 1918 the brown pelican population in Texas was 5,000 birds according to a National Geographic Society report. The Texas population dropped to 200 in 1941 also according to the NGS. DDT was first registered for use in 1946.

Fact: The noted decline in the pelicans prior to 1941 was attributed to poaching and fisherman by the USFAWS.

Fact: In 1969 the Audubon Society referenced notes of the Trans San Diego Society of Natural History that reported that pelicans had no reproductive difficulty during the height of DDT application years.

Fact: According to 1972 EPA hearings, brown pelican egg shells were examined and no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness was found.

Fact: brown pelicans did suffer nesting declines as a result of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. And in 1972 an outbreak of Newcastle disease resulted in the deaths of millions of birds of many coastal species. These accounts were reported by UPI and the Iowa State University press.

Profile Pic
teafortwo
Champion Author Washington

Posts:27,383
Points:2,028,935
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 6:58:35 PM


Thanks for the clarification Martinman ;0}

Frankly, I find that factual FACTS are friendlier for the functioning of the faculties :0]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 6:49:37 PM

@martinman, above all else, please understand the facts I posted are not "my assertions", they are the documented records of the sources I noted.

Now, you said "While it is true that many "birds-of-prey" were shot by farmers, this began well before the time you identified, starting in the 1800s - as many farmers and ranchers mistakenly believed that Bald Eagles and other birds of prey were taking (killing) livestock.

*************
I clearly stated "prior to 1940".

Next, you state " The Bald Eagle did not begin any increases in population numbers, until after the banning of DDT in the lower-48 where the pesticide was being routinely used. So your claim that the species began recovering with the passage of the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, and before the banning of DDT, is patently false."

*************
No martinman, The sources used in my post clearly show bald eagle populations were growing.... "In 1960 eagle counts were up by 25% from the pre Bald Eagle Protection Act 1940 counts, according to the Audubon Society. The Forest Service reported a doubling of bald eagle nesting success from 1964 to 1970. By the way, this was the period of PEAK DDT use." Clearly the Audubon Society and the USFS show your claims amd the egg-thinning theory as patently false.

As to the Brown Pelican, you brought up egg thinning of bald eagles and I addressed the science pertaining to them. How's that avoiding?

But now that you brought them up..........
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 6:42:20 PM

And let's look at our esteemed author - J. Gordon Edwards - who is claimed to know more about the affected species, than the numerous state, federal, university, and independent avian scientists that studied the numerous species documented as having been affected by DDT.

J. Gordon Edwards was an entomologist (studied insects), NOT an ornithologist (studies birds) or avian researcher.

Not only that, he wrote, but DID NOT publish the article for which he is credited below. It was published after his death, in a physician's journal, after being edited by another *Medical Doctor*, who also was not a biologist.

From Wiki:

"J. Gordon Edwards (1919–2004) was an entomologist, mountain climber, author, and park ranger. Edwards was professor, and later emeritus professor of Biology, San Jose State University.

Edwards was prominent as a supporter of the use of DDT and critic of Rachel Carson. He was active as a member of, or consultant for, a wide range of lobby groups opposed to environmental regulation, including the American Council on Science and Health. According to Edwards, he was also active as a member of several environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (which published one of his books,) and the Audubon Society.[1] Edwards was a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences. He has published his ideas in 21st Century Science and Technology, a publication of the Lyndon LaRouche Movement.[2] He was co-author, with Steven Milloy of 100 things you should know about DDT.[3] Edwards last work entitled, DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud[4] was published in 2004 after his death in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons,..."

-----

Yet another "impressive" contribution...

NOT !


[Edited by: Martinman at 6/7/2012 8:49:51 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 5:51:08 PM

While it is true that many "birds-of-prey" were shot by farmers, this began well before the time you identified, starting in the 1800s - as many farmers and ranchers mistakenly believed that Bald Eagles and other birds of prey were taking (killing) livestock.

And while the Bald Eagle was in decline before the introduction of DDT, popluation levels continued after its introduction and continued to crash into the 1960s, when less than 500 breeding pairs remained and the problem with eggshell thinning first began to be documented. The Bald Eagle did not begin any increases in population numbers, until after the banning of DDT in the lower-48 where the pesticide was being routinely used.

So your claim that the species began recovering with the passage of the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, and before the banning of DDT, is patently false.

And what about the Brown Pelican?

You've totally avoided that species, and others that more clearly show the crash/recovery pattern correlated with the introcduction and banning of DDT.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 10:07:29 AM

"*IF* DDT were not the cause, then WHY have all those species that were affected by the use of DDT, shown significant population recoveries AFTER the banning of DDT, when all other contaminents the pesticide industry attempted to deflect the blame to, were not banned? Coincidence?"

================================================
Funny the anger some will exemplify when faced with scientific facts. Oh well, I'll stick with documented facts. A little history is important to the question of "coincidence".

In 1921, it was reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction in the journal Ecology. This was 22 years before DDT production even began. In addition, by 1937, the bald eagle was no longer seen in New England. 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.

Now, the fact is that bald eagles, prior to 1940, were considered a nuisance and routinely shot by poachers, farmers, ranchers and fishermen. This activity prompted the 1940 federal law (Bald Eagle Protection Act) making the killing of bald eagles illegal. The press dismissed the the effects of the killing of bald eagles and loss of habitat and falsely pointed to DDT for the decline in eagle populations.

In 1960 eagle counts were up by 25% from the pre Bald Eagle Protection Act 1940 counts, according to the Audubon Society. The Forest Service reported a doubling of bald eagle nesting success from 1964 to 1970. By the way, this was the period of PEAK DDT use.

Now, in 1978, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that bald eagle population reductions were due to widespread habitat loss and continued illegal poaching.

So there we have it, an unemotional, fact based, logically reasoned summary of why DDT was not the cause of the bald eagles' decline.

And, on the subject of this news topic, proof positive of why we should all wait for the science to tell us what is going on with this fish story.


[Edited by: drpepperTX at 6/7/2012 12:12:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
the1roadhog
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:11,545
Points:2,662,810
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 6:43:37 AM

Not something you'd care to eat.
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2012 6:34:39 AM

"cage birds" [does not equal] "wild birds"

-----

112 days huh?

I'm sure the affects of lead-poisoning, smoking, and a host of other such problems that develop from long-term exposures to toxins and carcinogens are all fully clinical in only 112 days...

How about osteoporosis in women - fully clinical in only 112 days?

-----

And again.

Different species are affected differently by the same pesticide.

What part of that simple statement is really that difficult to comprehend...?????

Species within the same family of birds are affected differently. Even individuals within a same species show different suseptibilities to toxins and pollutants.

And again, it is well known that "cage birds" (domesticated poultry) have much different (higher) resistance levels to many pesticides, when compared to wild birds.

And finally one must ask the question.

*IF* DDT were not the cause, then WHY have all those species that were affected by the use of DDT, shown significant population recoveries AFTER the banning of DDT, when all other contaminents the pesticide industry attempted to deflect the blame to, were not banned?

Coincidence?

[Edited by: Martinman at 6/7/2012 8:40:20 AM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 6, 2012 8:31:07 AM

Sorry martinman, too many case studies have exposed the junk science surrounding DDT and Rachel Carson's emotional lovefest "Silent Spring".

DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud

DDT : Myths And Realities

The Scare

Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs

DDT was alleged to be a liver carcinogen in Silent Spring and a breast carcinogen in Our Stolen Future No correlation at the population level can be demonstrated between exposures to DDT and the incidence of cancer at any site. It is concluded that DDT has had no significant impact on human cancer patterns and is unlikely to be an important carcinogen for man at previous exposure levels, within the statistical limitations of the data.

Feel free to carry on with fear and paranoia...you are entitled to your opinions (no matter how disingenuous. :=)
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 6, 2012 5:54:34 AM

Really...?

I don't know what coolaid one individual has been drinking, but s/he couldn't be any further from the truth - but hey, like that's news...?

The effects of DDT on avian species (as in more than one) were very well documented, in multiple species of birds (as well as other non-avian species), and beyond just fish-eating avian species. A few examples include the American Robin, Bald Eagle, Brown Pelican, California Condor, Peregrine Falcon and Osprey - only three of which are piscivores (primary fish predator) - the others being an insectivore (robin), an avian predator (falcon) and a scavanger (condor).

And your assertion that the research was manipulated or staged isn't even laughable. It's an outright deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, as are multiple inferences from the select out-takes of this so-called book.

For example, the eggshell thinning the author references, is studies done on domestic poultry in captivity - NOT on the wild avian species he refers to. Furthermore, he fails to mention or include any of the studies on eggshell thinning in the actual affected species (Bald Eagle, Brown Pelican, California Condor, Osprey), taken from failed nests in the wild.

It is very well documented that domesticated poultry are not as suseptible to the effects of organochlorines - including some which are still in use today - hence why the pesticide industry tried to use poultry in presenting misleading information on the effects of DDT and other organochlorine pesticides.

Furthermore, if you actually follow the "author's" reference to population levels - he's referring to species of oscines (robins and blackbirds), NOT birds of prey (condors, eagles, falcons, pelicans, and osprey). The species that ARE referenced, are species who's popultion levels were benefitted by land-clearing - something that occurred on a grand-scale during the time post WWII period cited - versus population levels in species that were actually affected by eggshell thinning that the book attempts to implicate as having increased, based upon how it is deliberately misrepresented.

But then again, this is the same pattern this "author" uses throughout his "book" in repeated deliberate mis-representations that he presents.

Biomagnification is about the movement of persistent pesticides THROUGH the food chain even when species higher in the food chain are NOT directly exposed to the toxin, as a result of their persistence (i.e. very long-term half-life) - NOT that it is simply magnified in much greater concentrations as you have attempted to imply.

"Magnification" refers to the process whereby the toxin becomes stored within affected tissued at levels higher than would be expected from direct exposure alone, as a result of eating lower trophic level prey which have been contaminated.

Then there's the attempted distortion on the accumulation of persistent pesticides. It is well known that toxins are stored on only some organs, as a result of how/why the toxins are stored in the body - as a result of an organism's inability to deal with the toxins biologically (i.e. break them down or shed the toxins). Toxins are NOT stored throughout every tissue in the body.

Did anyone else notice, how the author "forgets" to cite *any* of those "honest studies [that] disproved the biomagnification claims...?"

And you totally brushed aside the issue of DDT in women's breast milk - which CONTINUES to be found in womens' breast milk, DESPITE having been banned 40 YEARS AGO.

Why is that?

And yes, PLEASE read the article...

... and THEN read the Wikipedia entry on DDT, and you'll see what *I* mean in my assertion of the distortions and half-truths as presented here by the "author" as well as the individual pushing this blatant misinformation....

-----

Oh, and you "earned" an entire science degree in a single fisheries class?

Funny how one person suddenly becomes an expert on birds... based upon one college course on fisheries management.

Impressive...


[Edited by: Martinman at 6/6/2012 8:02:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
teafortwo
Champion Author Washington

Posts:27,383
Points:2,028,935
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Jun 5, 2012 9:57:42 PM


Martinman? Cake? Is it true if we just ignore these problems they will go away?

That is what the TOBACCO industry told US for years when they swore up and down that smoking cigarettes was NOT bad for you :0\

BIG TOBACCO even marched out "experts" with "scientific studies" to "prove" their claims.

So all those folks dying of cancer just needed to ignore the lung disease to make it go away?

AND, trust the INDUSTRY paid "experts", of course ......

Just want to check the facts. Can't imagine why a billion dollar industry would lie to US.

Can you?

Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 5, 2012 1:07:27 PM

I'll let martinman and letemeatcake get back to their guffawing and patting each other on the back...but first a few of those dreaded FACTS that these two and a minority of other GasBuddies just don't want to acknowledge.

Let's use martinman's post ["That's why our National Symbol - the Bald Eagle - faced extinction at one point. Due to biomagnification of agricultural pesticides in the fish they ate, fed their young, and then in later generations resulted in egg-shell thinning."]
*************************************
Here we have this oft repeated MYTH tossed out over and over. Sadly another example of "eco-imperialism" and their habit of repeating a lie until folks believe it. I once believed it too! Then, while earning my science degree in a fisheries biology class, our professor showed us the real research into DDT.
[L=http://www.eco-imperialism.com/myths-and-facts-about-ddt/] Widespread publicity was given to claims in the 1960s that the survival of certain species of wild birds was threatened through the thinning of their eggshells. This was blamed on DDT. In reality, bird populations increased significantly after DDT was introduced.[5] It was later learned that studies that were done to prove eggshell thinning were fraudulent. The study birds were deliberately malnourished and calcium was withheld, conditions known to produce eggshell thinning.[/L]
-----------------------------------------

Next we have this little beauty from martinman ["That's why many women to this date, STILL have DDT in their breast milk, decades after DDT was banned in the 1970s, due to it's highly toxic-effect as a result of biomagnification."]
*************************************************
ROFLMAO! Oh, the gift that just keeps on giving! DDT, as well as chlordane, PCBs and PBBs, are all stored in the fatty tissues of fish and most animals including humans. The environmental zealots claimed that the higher up the food chain that these stores of chemicals were consumed, the greater would become the concentration stored in fat. They again turned to fraudulent studies to prove their claims, selecting only tissue samples that they knew would produce the desired result. In reality honest studies disproved their biomagnification claims.

-----------------------------------

Ok, letemeatcake and martinman back to your guffaws and patting each other on the back for a job well done!

Just remember one thing, your belief in these MYTHS has caused MILLIONS of people to suffer and die! Personally, I could not live with that. Read that article , if you dare, and you'll see what I mean when I say..........

The truth shall set you FREE!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 5, 2012 10:29:43 AM

And in a repeating cycle of missing the point both martinman and letemeatcake miss it again.

There has been no conclusive research, no research for that matter, done as to the causes of the 'deformed' fish.

It's really a very simple point, some folks just let ideology cloud rational thought. :=)

The truth shall set you free!!!

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 6/5/2012 12:38:10 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:17,476
Points:2,732,015
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 5, 2012 8:33:16 AM

I see it Mr "FACT" is playing the word-distortion game again.

LetemEatCake is correct in defining how biomagnification occurs.

It is FACT, not opinion - the concept of biomagnification - that persistent contaminents and toxins accumulate in each successive level of the food chain.

That's why there are restrictions on the amount of Tuna, Salmon, and other fish you can eat - due to the biomagnification of mercury and other contaminents in wild-caught fish, as a result of contaminents that accumulate in their tissues and organs - from the contaminated smaller fish they eat, that received those same contaminents from smaller prey and plankton.

That's why our National Symbol - the Bald Eagle - faced extinction at one point. Due to biomagnification of agricultural pesticides in the fish they ate, fed their young, and then in later generations resulted in egg-shell thinning.

That's why many women to this date, STILL have DDT in their breast milk, decades after DDT was banned in the 1970s, due to it's highly toxic-effect as a result of biomagnification.
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2012 7:33:19 PM


NO Pop...it is my opinion...which I am entitled to on GB. Because you don't agree...doesn't make it something to negate!

I notice you seem to be vibrating over the thread's issue based upon your number of posts....CHILL OUT.

We are not at WAR!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2012 8:46:47 AM

Good observation Ducky NS. Why would they want to cloud the issue with a good clear picture? Just another trick of the trade in flaming fear and paranoia.
Profile Pic
Ducky_NS
Veteran Author Halifax

Posts:352
Points:389,665
Joined:Feb 2007
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2012 8:32:53 AM

Hard to tell anything from the picture as it doesn't show the complete fish. A little suspicious if you ask me.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2012 8:19:43 AM

Now here we have a post that shows how to reach a conclusion before the scienc..."People eat the contaminated fish and we are part of the food chain, bio-magnification. Poisoning the river destroying the wildlife and fish is pretty grotesque."

=======================================
Now where did this conclusion come from? Based on any scientific study? Or just anther preconcieved notion?

As I and others have said in posts on this topic, wait until the science has studied this.

What is the harm of finding out the FACTS before jumping to a conclusion? This is no different than the Global Warming voodoo we keep hearing.
Profile Pic
listerone
Champion Author Boston

Posts:5,336
Points:1,450,110
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2012 6:06:23 AM

Huffington Post = Communist rag
Profile Pic
Cakes77
Champion Author Harrisburg

Posts:7,198
Points:2,228,560
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2012 5:42:45 AM


Thanks for your nice comments folks on this article. Keep them coming!
Profile Pic
Eugenian
Champion Author Oregon

Posts:2,785
Points:540,645
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2012 4:02:01 AM

The corrupt Harper government will let this travesty continue until the people of Canada wake up and vote the bums out.
Profile Pic
WalRus49
Champion Author Boston

Posts:6,952
Points:1,516,440
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2012 4:01:54 AM

More organized mayhem and pillage.............
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 10:23:22 PM


People eat the contaminated fish and we are part of the food chain, bio-magnification. Poisoning the river destroying the wildlife and fish is pretty grotesque. Do we really believe the Canadian government is going to do something about it?

They are myopically pursuing one major economic activity Tar Sands production and extraction because of big money and profit with little regard for the environment, other economic activities and people who live there.
Profile Pic
BlueberryFocus
All-Star Author Rochester

Posts:572
Points:179,505
Joined:Feb 2012
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 9:01:05 PM

Even though it could very well be of natural cause, I still think that the affected fish should be examined by an independent laboratory. It could very well be due to natural causes, but there is no harm in checking to be absolutely sure.
Profile Pic
Jeff1944
Champion Author South Dakota

Posts:4,845
Points:1,608,070
Joined:Jan 2010
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 8:55:20 PM

Even without testing, it is industries problem. Sick. But that is what againers, Greenies do for a living!
Profile Pic
MN1
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,011
Points:1,277,465
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 8:39:54 PM

Oops!
Profile Pic
Tacodan
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:4,845
Points:1,275,075
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 8:21:39 PM

stop the drilling save. The fish.................
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 8:16:51 PM

Evidently more fear and paranoia.

From the article "There have been fish tales from the region before.
In 2008, a goldeye was caught on Lake Athabasca that appeared in a photo as if it had two mouths. While it was initially suggested the fish was an example of how pollution can mutate wildlife, a University of Alberta biologist eventually determined that the second jaw was actually the fish's tongue that was pulled through its mouth by ligaments contracting during death."

I manage several lakes for fishing on my ranches. It is in no way unusual to find lesions on fish. There are many, many different causes ranging from parasites to to injuries to the protective slime from spawning or even catch and release. I have caught many fish that were "deformed", most of these deformities were caused by predators such as cormorants or even other predatory fish. The article mentions this as well.

It's funny the tendency of some posters here to just assume the worst (fear and paranoia) because it gives them another reason to jump on oil production and their preconceived, media hype driven bias. No where in this article is any real evidence given as to the cause, just the tribe chief quoted "It ain't natural, no," Adam said"

Seriously folks, let the science play out and let's just see what the real evidence turns up.
Profile Pic
PDQBlues
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:9,808
Points:2,093,075
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 7:29:20 PM

NHLiveFree: "The First Nations tribes downstream from all the toxic waste ponds created by the Big Oil group of Alberta tar sands operators are stuck with this mess for the rest of their lives and that of their children. The Alberta Provincial govt. has enacted few checks and no controls on the growing pollution of both air, land, and water. Unfortunately the First Nations of Canada seem to be treated as poorly as the Native Americans of the USA. For the whiners and diatribers who b & m over the Huffington Post/AOL, this article originated with the Canadian Press."

Thank you, NHLiveFree, for your intelligence and truth.
Profile Pic
lou30
Sophomore Author Miami

Posts:197
Points:843,165
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 7:15:26 PM

nhlivefree.... interesting
Profile Pic
lou30
Sophomore Author Miami

Posts:197
Points:843,165
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 7:13:49 PM

It's just like the simpsons movie predicted.
Profile Pic
200porter
Champion Author Toronto

Posts:4,762
Points:1,188,460
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 6:24:21 PM

Pretty scary
Profile Pic
Rappcommuter
All-Star Author Virginia

Posts:807
Points:1,000,955
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 5:55:28 PM

I am also concerned about the consequences of the chemicals they are pushing underground.
Profile Pic
NHLiveFree
Champion Author New Hampshire

Posts:14,286
Points:2,253,035
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 5:42:31 PM


The First Nations tribes downstream from all the toxic waste ponds created by the Big Oil group of Alberta tar sands operators are stuck with this mess for the rest of their lives and that of their children. The Alberta Provincial govt. has enacted few checks and no controls on the growing pollution of both air, land, and water. Unfortunately the First Nations of Canada seem to be treated as poorly as the Native Americans of the USA.

For the whiners and diatribers who b & m over the Huffington Post/AOL, this article originated with the Canadian Press. Here's the detail on the CP:
"The Canadian Press was created by newspaper publishers in 1917 to facilitate the exchange of news across a vast and sparsely populated country. During the First World War when publishers were desperate to bring news of Canadian troops in Europe to their readers, The Canadian Press began generating its own news copy and its war coverage transformed it from a distributor of information to Canada’s national news reporting agency.
Today, The Canadian Press is a dynamic, agile, bilingual news agency, driven by leading-edge technology and the ability to serve multimedia news to multiple platforms. It provides real-time text, photos, audio, graphics, video and online services to newspapers, broadcasters, publishers, websites, wireless carriers, cable companies, government and corporate clients.
Past generations of journalists who practised their craft to the beat of teletype machines would find the modern Canadian Press newsroom a strange beast indeed. But some things would still feel comfortably familiar. As a trusted independent news agency moving forward to be even more vital in this new digital era, The Canadian Press continues to be an organization driven by a quest for first-rate journalism. We will keep Canadians informed and help them understand and experience their world more fully for many years to come.
Profile Pic
fjkcpa
Champion Author Houston

Posts:8,741
Points:1,248,440
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 5:40:34 PM

Go figure...
Profile Pic
montmark
Sophomore Author California

Posts:133
Points:822,515
Joined:Apr 2012
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2012 4:54:28 PM

I wonder how the weird fish taste.
Post a reply Back to Topics