Ad Crable's Article _ 02/02/10

[Tom Boyd]

Please Read and tell me what you think.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/248206

dadTB

[DRY1]

Originally Posted by Tom Boyd

Please Read and tell me what you think.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/248206

dadTB

I applaud your newspaper for their continued coverage and pursuit of this issue.

It is positive news!!

I hope 2008 is not the first year since 1985 that these monitoring stations have had below average nutrients flows....but it might be. PA's track record since the Chesapeake Bay clean up initiative was begun in the early 1980's hasn't been good.

Then again....just what does "declining" and "below average" really mean. It still may be one heck of a load of nutrients and chemicals.

We need more critical articles pointing out the need for more aggressive action by the legislature and agencies with the mandate to protect us and the environment.

Bill

[Susqyman]

If the report is true, then we're on the right track. But it's not excessive nutrients that's causing our male smallies to have eggs in them. We need to find out what else is polluting the river and clean it up. Reducing the nutrients will help the DO problem in the river and will make the Chesapeake Bay people very happy. Hopefully this news is true.

[DRY1]

Originally Posted by Susqyman

If the report is true, then we're on the right track. But it's not excessive nutrients that's causing our male smallies to have eggs in them. We need to find out what else is polluting the river and clean it up. Reducing the nutrients will help the DO problem in the river and will make the Chesapeake Bay people very happy. Hopefully this news is true.

Please do not take this personally. But I don't see how anyone can put a "happy face" on any of this. We need to get mad and involved and show a little more disgust for protective agencies that have allowed these things to persist. It just didn't happen yesterday. The Chespaeake Bay clean Up effort began in the early 1980's and PA refused to even get involved in the beginning.

It may not be the nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in agricultural fertilizers causing the intersexing but it is the other chemicals that are being put on the soil. They go together.

Atrazine, a heavily used agricultural herbicide, has been shown to be one of the chemicals that causes "endocrine disruption" in fish.

I guess we can assume that if N and P levels go down, so will the chemicals....I hope. Only problem is you only need quantities in the ppm range to affect fish and these chemicals remain in the mud and silt for a long time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0507084013.htm

These same chemicals also reduce immunity to infection. Thus, we have fish kills like we have been having when fish get stressed by other enviromental factors like the high nutrients and lower oxygen levels.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article...from=news_side


Bill

[Susqyman]

I didn't take it personally Bill. I just thought any step in a positive direction deserves a "happy face". At least something positive is happening, hopefully.

I thought the atrazine was a chemical used in the manufacture of birth control pills?????

[smalljaw]

It doesn't sound so easy of a fix to me, they seem to be saying that the chemicals and sediment are down but they adjust it to reflect the flow among other factors so with all the high flow rates the last few years just means that based on the amount of water it seems there is a decrease in chemicals when it may just be the same amount as it has been but the numbers are adjusted to because of the increased amount of water, personally I hate when agencies use the word "adjusted", whenever I hear it it means its a number to support whatever agenda an agency wants to push. I'm probably wrong with my interpretation of what is actually being said but I remain suspicious...JMO.

[DRY1]

Originally Posted by smalljaw

It doesn't sound so easy of a fix to me, they seem to be saying that the chemicals and sediment are down but they adjust it to reflect the flow among other factors so with all the high flow rates the last few years just means that based on the amount of water it seems there is a decrease in chemicals when it may just be the same amount as it has been but the numbers are adjusted to because of the increased amount of water, personally I hate when agencies use the word "adjusted", whenever I hear it it means its a number to support whatever agenda an agency wants to push. I'm probably wrong with my interpretation of what is actually being said but I remain suspicious...JMO.

Agreed.

You and I need concentraions of drugs in the mcg%-mgm% range in our systems.

Fish will respond negatively to some chemicals when the concentration in their environment is only several ppm.

Bill

[Tom Boyd]

Bill,

I think it's reports like this that throw the general public off. When they see the word "improvement", they make a sigh of relief and go about their daily business. This report doesn't even begin to touch on the other chemicals floating in our waterways.

Our sewer systems are so antiquated that it will take years and millions of dollars to upgrade them to stop the now-known chemicals that are currently escaping into our waters.

As you mentioned, the general public doesn't see the entire story and how our waters got to where they are today. There is need for so much more to be done.

I was under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that DEP started their own monitoring in the past two years.

Here is the info straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.srbc.net/whatsnew/Newsletters/article_34.asp

Direct from the SRBC website - "The full technical report (Publication No. 267) and interactive map are available on SRBC’s web site at www.srbc.net/programs/CBP/nutrientprogram.htm "