Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SunTracker on May 08, 2005, 05:30:06 AM
-
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/11504012.htm
Bay oysters contaminated, study says
Oysters harvested from reefs near the mouth of St. Louis Bay are polluted to the degree that eating just one a day would be too much to safely consume, according to a report published in a scientific journal.
The report concluded that the oysters are contaminated with chromium, which can cause kidney and liver damage, and nickel, which can cause allergic reactions in about 10 percent of the population. The research for the report was funded by a four-firm legal team through Baron & Budd, P.C., a Dallas law firm. The team alleges in lawsuits that the DuPont DeLisle plant has sickened people.
The study appeared in the Journal of Shellfish Research, a scientific publication that conducts peer reviews of articles before publishing them. It was written by oyster biologist Ralph Elston and four other researchers.
A spokesman for DuPont discounted the reliability of the article because the research was funded by the law firm suing the company on behalf of Glenn Strong, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. He and more than 2,000 people have alleged in separate lawsuits that chemicals from the plant have caused illnesses.
"To put this report in context, it is important to understand that Dr. Elston was retained by Glenn Strong's attorneys to perform this study," said Terry G. Gooding, a spokesman for DuPont. "DuPont believes that studies conducted by agencies such as the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry are far more reliable. These agencies provide independent, reliable analysis unassociated with the litigation."
Gooding noted that DuPont routinely monitors wastewater and sediments for metals, then forwards the reports to the DEQ.
One of the report's authors, Edwin W. Cake Jr., an oyster biologist from Ocean Springs, said he does not believe the shellfish are safe to eat.
"According to the Food and Drug Administration guidelines, we found that folks who eat oysters from that area should not eat more than eight-tenths of one oyster per day," Cake said. "The biggest point that I have about that is which two-tenths do you cut out or spit before you swallow?"
The researchers used a 1978 study, conducted before the DuPont plant began operations, as the baseline for their work. They found that the level of chromium was between 7,000 percent and 11,300 percent greater in oysters in reefs outside the bay collected in July 2004.
DuPont manufactures titanium dioxide at the plant near the north shore of the bay. The pigment is used to make products white, ranging from paint to the filling in Oreo cookies.
Cake challenged state and federal environmental protection agencies to do their own research.
"If they don't undertake their own study to confirm or refute these results, then the public will not be served and the public will be at risk from what we found in those oysters," he said.
In October, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued a statement that dioxinlike compounds posed no apparent public health hazard because the levels in locally caught fish and in the air were at or below the national average. But it is unclear whether oysters were examined as part of that study because federal officials responsible for the findings were unavailable for comment Tuesday.
DuPont said that a final report from the federal agency, which is a division of the Centers for Disease Control, will include studies on both fish and shellfish.
Phil Bass of DEQ, the state agency that works in parallel with the Environmental Protection Agency, said he had not read the report in the Journal of Shellfish Research. Over the past two years, DEQ has collected specimens of fish and crabs.
"I'm not sure that we have collected any oysters at this point," Bass said. "If we haven't, we will get back out there and collect some."
The article eliminated other possible sources for the oyster contamination, such as power plants and plastics manufacturers, using geographical and weather factors.
"It seems likely that the titanium refinery is the most significant source of the dioxins found in the St. Louis Bay," the article states. "Such compounds could enter the bay by several pathways, including fallout from airborne emissions as well as fugitive emissions from surface-water runoff or discharges."
Two of the highest concentrations of dioxins were found at two locations closest to a sewer discharge pipe, the article noted.
The Department of Marine Resources checks oysters for bacterial contaminants, such as fecal coliform, but not chemical pollutants. However, a DMR spokesman said its staff was reviewing the report. The St. Louis Bay is closed to oystering because of bacterial contaminants, but there are reefs in conditionally approved waters at Henderson Point and between the U.S. 90 and CSX Railroad bridges.
Those reefs were closed Tuesday afternoon due to rainfall amounts exceeding management criteria.
The numbers
The study compared the increase of trace metals in oysters collected in St. Louis Bay from July 2004 to 1978, the year before a titanium dioxide refinery was built near the northern shore of the bay.
Arsenic: 404 percent.
Chromium: At least 1,167 percent.
-
There's a large dead zone that extends from the mouth of the Mississippi River hundreds of miles out into the Gulf of Mexico. There are no living things in this area, no fish or other aquatic life that we would consider edible.
Water polution is a big problem, maybe the biggest problem we face as a planet.
I don't eat oysters anymore on the half shell, though I love em. Only fried, though that may not be as good for me as raw ones. Cooking kills the bad bacteria that may be present. Far as pollution goes, oysters thrive on it. That's what they eat, or so I'm told.
Les
-
Oh! Oh! I know this one!!
The answer is never. Conventional thinking says you cannot be pro-business and pro-environment at the same time. The Republicans are pro-business, period. Anything they do towards protecting the environment is a sham (like Bush's "clear skies" proposal, which allows polluting companies to continue to pollute even longer).
If you're really concerned about the environment, I'd say check out the Green Party. Or vote a Democratic ticket; they are at least better than the Republicans on the issue, whose insincerity could make the Devil himself blush with embarrassment.
I read an interesting opinion piece somewhere that said religious fundalmentalists in the right-wing movement are encouraging environmental destruction and war in the Middle East in an attempt to help bring about the end times described in the Book of Revelation in the Bible.
Sorry to hear about your chromium contaminated clams. If they are indeed acting as a biological pollution filter maybe its a blessing in disguise though.
-
how can you think abou tpolution, while there are terrorist outside ... baaad baaad american you are.
-
Same here Oboe. The rightwing parties wanna start drilling for oil up north in areas that really should be left alone. There are a few billion barrels of oil and gas up there but I don't really care.
Some areas should be left unspoiled.
-
Sounds like a local problem. Why blame Bush?
-
I ate 4 dozen of them things one time. Had about 4 rum and cokes and drank a gallon of draft beer when I got home.
I thought I was gonna die. Got the dry heaves at 3 in the morning and the next morning there there was nothing by the bed on the carpet.
Found out later that mixing oysters and alcohol turns them solid like a rubber ball.
:)
Les
-
hmm... local enforcement sounds lax. I am sure that no federal guideline allows arsenic and chromium.
You seem to believe that Bush has lessened the standards on those pollutants for recieving waters.
lazs
-
""A spokesman for DuPont discounted the reliability of the article because the research was funded by the law firm suing the company on behalf of Glenn Strong, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.""
-
If all else fails blame Bush.
It goes a little further back than that. Say a century or so.
If it were found out that menopausel cramps had increased, some would say that it was Bush`s fault and was his job to put an end to it.
-
This is definately not a local problem. Powerplants burn coal that releases mercury. Arsenic and metals come from other sources of industrial pollution.
John Kerry had a plan to clean up our waters. Thats why I voted for him.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
John Kerry had a plan to clean up our waters. Thats why I voted for him.
Yep......It was fill the oceans with ketchup bought from his dominatrix.......errrrr I mean wife. :rofl
-
Evil Booooooooooooooooooooooosh.
Water pollution stared in 2000! Before that all US waters were crystal clear and pure as life itself.
-
It didnt just start, he went out and started pouring it in by the buckets personally.
-
if kerrie had a plan he wasn't forthcoming with it.
Do you know how to remove arsenic and chromium or any heavy metals from large recieving water bodies?
lazs
-
Yeah Laz, you mix it with ketchup and it will all disappear instantly.
-
When hell freezes over.
15 years ago our Bay (Long Islands Great South Bay, home of the Blue Point Clam) was populated by the largest shellfish industry in the North East.
The bay is dead now.. contaminants, road runoff, industrial waste, human waste.. it's disgusting.
Yer waters are doomed. Move inland.
-
Kerry had a plan to reduce powerplant emissions within a few years. Bush's plan calls for a reduction after 2028.
But thats a moot point now.
Laz, I know there are methods to remove arsenic and chromium from water. For large scale use, different methods would probably be used. Certain plants uptake heavy metals very easily, and they could be used to remove pollution.
-
different methods? And how pray tell... do you create the huge amounts of electricity needed to remove chrome and arsenic from recieving waters?
kerrie had a plan to get rid of coal? unless it was nuke then it wasn't a plan that was feasable. kerrie was a buffoon.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Kerry had a plan to reduce powerplant emissions within a few years.
And did Kerry tell how he was going to accomplish this and who would pay for it?
Those are important details you know. There are huge costs to reducing pollution, and often the price paid is in jobs lost. It's a very difficult tradeoff. Kerry had plans, but quite incomplete and could even be called short-sighted unrealistic promises.
dago
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
John Kerry had a plan to clean up our waters.
haha, ya'right... he had a plan to get your vote, thats what plan he had.
-
Here was Kerrys environmental policy:
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/issue-environment.html
And laz, here is an efficient method of removing mercury from water:http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/wonderslife/project07_en.html
Mercury is a well-known highly toxic pollutant. To remove it from industrial waste-water, US scientists have developed an efficient method by using an easy-to-grow bacterial strain engineered in bioreactors to produce a mercury-binding protein. An EU-funded FP5 demonstration project (Biotechnology Programme) aims to prove the feasibility and profitability of this approach under real-time conditions. Within this framework, a bioremediation plant installed at Usti-nad-Labem (Czech Republic) has been operating since July 2000.
And Chromium: http://thelatestmagazine.com/Articles/0604PoisonedWaters.htm
Heck, California is already poisoned with chromium. Drink up.
-
You are talking pilot projects on small amounts of water... Do you have any idea of what introducing a biological agent in enough quantities to leach out mercury would do to said recieving waters?
lazs
-
and... what kerrie plan? ask/force us to use less and.... get this... put a ballpark in every town? I don't even like baseball.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dago
...There are huge costs to reducing pollution, and often the price paid is in jobs lost. It's a very difficult tradeoff. Kerry had plans, but quite incomplete and could even be called short-sighted unrealistic promises.
dago
I agree, but there are also costs to continuing to pollute (including lost jobs)-- as Hangtime pointed out:
15 years ago our Bay (Long Islands Great South Bay, home of the Blue Point Clam) was populated by the largest shellfish industry in the North East.
The bay is dead now.. contaminants, road runoff, industrial waste, human waste.. it's disgusting.
Like John9001 points out, the whole problem is made worse by science funded by special interest groups, that starts out with the conclusion to prove already in mind. Everything conclusion becomes political and debatable. Of course, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and the dead Great South Bay aren't really debatable, any more are they?
It's pretty safe to say that the environment has been a huge loser under Bush. Seems like a pretty tall leap to blame Kerry for this, but whatever floats yer boat, I guess.
-
Do you have any idea of what introducing a biological agent in enough quantities to leach out mercury would do to said recieving waters?
Make fish and shell-fish safe to eat again. Besides, the first thing to do is stop the source of pollution.
what kerrie plan? ask/force us to use less
Why wouldn't Bush sign the Kyoto treaty? In the biological science community, Bush is thought of as a monster.
-
we're all going to die
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Why wouldn't Bush sign the Kyoto treaty? In the biological science community, Bush is thought of as a monster.
Because the Kyoto treaty does nothing to stop the greatest ecological disater in history. Or that's what it will be called when China and India really ramp up their industrialization in the coming decades.
CHINA AND iNDIA GET OFF EASY WHILE THE WEST SUFFERS SEVERE RESTRICIONS MAKING IT EVEN LESS COMPETTITVE.
Now I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain economics to you considering you actually voted for Kerry "because he had a plan" but I'm dumb that way.
-
Google up "combined sewer overflows" and see what kind of effect you think those are having on our seashores, rivers and lakes.
And then blame a politician, any politician.
-
That's Laz's line isn't it? Wastewater treatment? He should know a thing or two about it I would think...
-
Why wouldn't Bush sign the Kyoto treaty? In the biological science community, Bush is thought of as a monster.
I was waiting for this to come up!
First off the same people that blame Bush for the environment blame him for outsourcing jobs in the US as well.
If he'd signed that treaty you could say goodby to almost all of the manufacturing jobs in the US....they'd all go to China and India who wouldnt have such pollution restrictions placed on them.
Imagine that you try and fight pollution but it only shifts elsewere and now we have rapent unemployment to boot.
I'm sure people are gonna love the fact that we have a "cleaner" environment while waiting in a stuffy building to collect their unemployment paychecks.
-
(1) The West must make a precedent in order for the East to follow.
(2) The U.S. isnt known for cheap labor. Its known for having a technological edge.
(3) In your logic gunslinger, instead of one huge country polluting away, we now have two (China AND the U.S.)
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
(1) The West must make a precedent in order for the East to follow.
(2) The U.S. isnt known for cheap labor. Its known for having a technological edge.
(3) In your logic gunslinger, instead of one huge country polluting away, we now have two (China AND the U.S.)
They are nbot going to follow the west out of the goodness of their hearts or because they percieve the west to be morally superior.
Why must the west lead and the east follow? Where does that iodea come from/
What you are proposing is inherently racist and typically eurocentric.
You do understand that reducing pollution has costs that are external to the key production processes of a business. That is it takes extra money on top of proiducing a good to clean up the waste. Tell me why a fast growing Chinese govt owned company wpuld want to invest that money in polution when no legal requirement or trade law asks for that polition to be reduced/
The goodnes opf their hearts? Fondness for western culture and concern for environment? Following the lead of the west?
Laughable. And dont even try to say they will do it because the orient is closer in touch with nature. Just look at what happened in Japan or is happing in China and India now.
You are ignorant and your post demonstartes iot amply, Grow up, learn and cure your ignorance with some real knowledge.
-
No mercury problem here. If you guys polluted your water with mercury then clean it up on your own dime. Stop expecting Uncle Sam to be do what you should be doing yourselves.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
This is definately not a local problem. Powerplants burn coal that releases mercury.
Make up your mind. Is it a coal powerplant or the DuPont DeLisle Ti02 plant?
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
(1) The West must make a precedent in order for the East to follow.
(2) The U.S. isnt known for cheap labor. Its known for having a technological edge.
(3) In your logic gunslinger, instead of one huge country polluting away, we now have two (China AND the U.S.)
not in the treaty. In Kyoto India and china have lesser restrictions imposed apon them.
The US still has manufacturing jobs not nearly as much as other countrys but those factories are employed by American citizens that would lose their jobs.
If I own a business and a new set of restrictions come out that set rediculous standards and I can outsource my manufacturing base to china or india for half the costs now......I WOULD!
The treaty is unfair, it gives economic edges to allready economicly competative countries. It would be suicide for the US. We would be looking at 10-20% unemployment rates for a good amount of time.
about number 3......we dont have ONE huge poluter we have many. China and India are growing and in the near future they will out pace the US as far as pollution goes. This gives them an advantage and no incentive to follow suit.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
about number 3......we dont have ONE huge poluter we have many. China and India are growing and in the near future they will out pace the US as far as pollution goes. This gives them an advantage and no incentive to follow suit.
Come now Gunslinger, all those little yellow and brown people just want to be like the west and want to follow our superior leadrship! It is the way of things! They must!
-
Just to remind you guys again, that polluting has costs, just like not polluting does. Please get this real, true scenario through your heads:
Originally posted by Hangtime
15 years ago our Bay (Long Islands Great South Bay, home of the Blue Point Clam) was populated by the largest shellfish industry in the North East.
The bay is dead now.. contaminants, road runoff, industrial waste, human waste.. it's disgusting.
An entire industry, destroyed by pollution.
In the end, I don't think it matters much - manufacturers can cut labor costs by 90% by moving to China. Pretty tough to argue with that. Plus they get to pollute their little hearts out as icing on the cake.
-
He will start on the cleanup after he cuts down all the trees. Please dont think of him as a RADICAL RIGHTY:)
:D
-
Originally posted by Tumor
haha, ya'right... he had a plan to get your vote, thats what plan he had.
to bad he didn't have a plan to win the presidency :lol
-
fish that glow + muslim extremist = dirty bomb
might just get a few hundred billion.
-
I'd settle for a Congressman to clean up my garage.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
haha, ya'right... he had a plan to get your vote, thats what plan he had.
And Bush has done what extraordinary thing? I mean it's moot who isn't in office, either way. What's more important is who IS in office. Ain't it?
OTOH the extremist in the USA switch their signs from Green Peace "Save the enviroment" to "Stop the war in Iraq", then "Save Terry Shriavo", then back to "Stop the war in Iraq".
The the voice of the enviroment from those groups has taken a backseat. Like I said, they are extremeist, did anyone really expect them to stay focued? Trekies are more focused. ~G~ And did you think Bush was just going to do it without pressure? BAAHAhahaha.
;-)
-
You'll see Rosie O'Donnell pass by a Dunkin Donuts without stopping before you'll see Bush do something about the environment.
-
When is Rosie going to clean up our donut shops? Most of them are filthy with grease.
-
Oh yeah.. for those of you that don't like links:
Combined Sewer Overflow Studies
Pollution of the Ohio River from urban areas is a significant problem. Previous ORSANCO studies have pinpointed elevated levels of bacteria from such sources as combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to be the pollution source most in need of attention.
So when is Bush going to stop cities from expanding, building more homes, more stores and parking lots that create excessive runoff causing combined sewer overflow?
Also, when are all of us going to stop crapping in the sewers? Fer pete's sake! It's running into our rivers and seashores! Put a cork in it!
-
i've read this same thread regularly for maybe 4 years
-
Suntracker thats what happens when you live in a place where the average citizen has an eco footprint of 10 hectares and your country is the worlds greatest polluter!
If you are worried about the environment try doing something bout your consumption and polution of natural resources.
Just an idea
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh yeah.. for those of you that don't like links:
So when is Bush going to stop cities from expanding, building more homes, more stores and parking lots that create excessive runoff causing combined sewer overflow?
Also, when are all of us going to stop crapping in the sewers? Fer pete's sake! It's running into our rivers and seashores! Put a cork in it!
Give Bush a break will you Toad. Hes got horses to milk and other important things to do.
:D
-
I would like to read your cities/states local limits to see how much mercury and arsenic is allowed to be released into the recieving waters.
Did Bush give these polluters an exemtion? I would like to know how they got it since my limits for wastewater are actually lower than that for drinking water (and therefore impossible to achieve).
Your state water quality resources board must be really easy to get along with eh?
lazs
-
Local limits for my city
Parameter Maximum Daily Concentration
Total Arsenic 0.82 mg/l
Total Cadmium 0.15 mg/l
Total Chromium 5.0 mg/l
Total Copper 0.92 mg/l
Total Lead 0.25 mg/l
Total Mercury 0.0015 mg/l
Total Nickel 1.5 mg/l
Total Silver 0.40 mg/l
Total Zinc 3.4 mg/l
Ammonia 50.0 mg/l
Cyanide, Amenable 0.15 mg/l
Oil & Grease (Hydrocarbon) 100.0 mg/l
-
sounds about right. Where do you (your city) discharge to? oceans with good flushing action have higher limits usually.
rivers may have all the available dillution factor used up do to population.... in those cases... there is usually a ND or, none dettectable limit applied to most heavy metals for instance.
All cities operate under a discharge permit that is renewable every so many years or whenever the EPA passes new limits.
local problems should be addressed by state water resouces boards.
not meeting impossible goals leaves two options... A "cease and desist" order where you are no longer allowed to discharge therefore closing the city or saddling it with huge fines or... simply not allowing any growth.
The biggest problem is that most forms of treatment only move the problem around. simple example is cl2 for disenfection... somebody needs to make the stuff... making it causes pollution... then... it has to be removed... removing it requires another chemical that needs to be made and the whole thing takes a facility that uses a lot of resources to run.. and on and on..
Oh... the limits described in his post are in parts per million for those who didn't know. (mg/l=ppm in the meteric politicaly corect version)
lazs