|08-08-2002 07:15 PM|
Closely related chemical story
I attended a meeting in Alaska regarding Dioxin I bring this up just to point out how small amounts can really hose an unintended critter! (not that Dioxin is intended for anything)
According to young women with PhDs Dioxins in amounts as small as .0063 parts per "Quadrillion" rendered Rainbow trout sterile.
Im pretty sure it is not good for trout to be subjected to many chemicals but how in the hell do you measure an amount that small?
|08-08-2002 06:04 PM|
mosquitoes vs fish
For my vote, I say what the hell, one or two less old fogies verses wiping out the fish, SAVE THE FISH . Of course, if any bureaucracy has anything to do with it, they will kill off all the fish first and then try and work back towards the mosquitoes! If I were really worried about it, I would just load up on vitamin B12 ( 1000mg/day), Mosquitoes don't like that stuff so they leave you alone and go after someone more to their liking. Kind of like garlic and vampires I guess. But hey, it works. Just don't tell everybody, we need some bait
|08-08-2002 03:27 PM|
Lobsters, huh? Yeah, THE BIG PICTURE; the "Circle of Life" sans singing lions and such.
More narrowly focused: the trout/freshwater gamefish food chain, believing the spray is an insecticide and, where is it that mosquitos are born/emerge but waterways such as those where we find these fisheries. Done incorrectly, the local eradication programs which are springing up across the nation may have devastating consequences to these fisheries. Since statistical data (as reported by the media) doesn't yet seem to support malaria epidemic proportions and high human mortality, should we interfere with the process at all? [Concentrate our efforts around retirement homes?]
Just something to think about...
|08-08-2002 03:16 PM|
WS, I havent heard much about it this year but 2 years ago there was a lot of spraying for this reason in the Boston area. Then last year the state decided to wait until people were infected and nothing much was said about the disease. Heres a link from the state of Mass website on there spraying program. In question #16, they say that the pesticides used do harm fish & bees and should not be used in wetlands
|08-08-2002 03:03 PM|
I'm not sure about the effects on trout fishing, but I seem to remember that in the past few years there have been concerns in Long Island Sound about the decline in lobster numbers. The main culprit was suspected to be runoff that included the toxic residue from mosquito spraying, and the spraying was in response to the WNV cases that were popping up in CT (avain, not human).
For a while I didn't buy into this, but then I read an article somewhere showing data that the toxins were VERY likely to blame with the lobster issues. Being a research scientist, I'm very skeptical of data, but I found this piece to be compelling. I just wish that I could remember where I read it.
Whether or not it's true, I'd say that it's a safe bet that this spraying is affecting the environment on many more levels than we realize. I could go on and on about viruses and their mutation rates and eventual resistance to toxins, but that's a whole other animal. Suffice it to say that nature has a way of taking care of things.
|08-08-2002 02:34 PM|
No doubt you have all heard some discussion of the mosquitos-borne Nile virus and efforts to limit its spread through spraying, etc. While acknowledging the saftey concerns, what , if any, may be the environmental issues (re: trout fisheries) from this spraying? In the rush to protect the old folks most susceptible (I guess that would include me) are we imperilling the fisheries? And if we are, is it worth it?