Great Lakes Problem
- Thread starter rockriver
- Start date
Problem is everywhere.... I have no idea what the heck the half life of this stuff is that people are putting in their bodies. But it doesn't just disappear... it goes somewhere. 65% increase in people using anti-depressants in last decade. That's sad...
Water treatment plants need to consider alternative testing and treatment for these products..... whether it be nanofiltration or membrane technology/RO. And Big Pharma should pay for it. The problem is, it will be a tax and they will pass it on to the consumer / insurance companies and the middle class will end up paying for it eventually.
Like we/fish don't have enough to worry about.....
ft09
Water treatment plants need to consider alternative testing and treatment for these products..... whether it be nanofiltration or membrane technology/RO. And Big Pharma should pay for it. The problem is, it will be a tax and they will pass it on to the consumer / insurance companies and the middle class will end up paying for it eventually.
Like we/fish don't have enough to worry about.....
ft09
dennyk
Well-known member
PITIFUL!!
:ranting3:
Denny
:ranting3:
Denny
el jefe
Well-known member
There is an underlying assumption in these articles that the presence of those chemicals is bad. We exhibit a conditioned response to such reports, as if none of this stuff has ever happened before. More likely, the presence of those chemicals found in trace amounts in the fish is neither good nor bad, it's just irrelevant.
Love this quote from the article:
Valium has been around since 1910; don't you think that's in the fish? How about salicylic acid? Ibuprofen? Acetaminophen? There's a boatload of that stuff out there and their associated metabolites; always has been, way more than anti-depressants. Opiates? You'll find a lot of those things in fish, in trace amounts, I'd bet, but say it like, "There are anti-depressants found in fish!" and we freak out. Anti-depressants aren't the first pharmaceuticals to make their way into the Great Lakes and its resident fish, and they won't be the last. This isn't even news. Folks, funky things have been in those fish for decades. At least in this case, they should be happy fish.
Love this quote from the article:
What the H-E-double-toothpicks does that even mean? I think that woman has zero perspective. This is in no way unprecedented.
Valium has been around since 1910; don't you think that's in the fish? How about salicylic acid? Ibuprofen? Acetaminophen? There's a boatload of that stuff out there and their associated metabolites; always has been, way more than anti-depressants. Opiates? You'll find a lot of those things in fish, in trace amounts, I'd bet, but say it like, "There are anti-depressants found in fish!" and we freak out. Anti-depressants aren't the first pharmaceuticals to make their way into the Great Lakes and its resident fish, and they won't be the last. This isn't even news. Folks, funky things have been in those fish for decades. At least in this case, they should be happy fish.
ia_trouter
Senior Member
El JefeThere is an underlying assumption in these articles that the presence of those chemicals is bad. We exhibit a conditioned response to such reports, as if none of this stuff has ever happened before. More likely, the presence of those chemicals found in trace amounts in the fish is neither good nor bad, it's just irrelevant.
Love this quote from the article:
What the H-E-double-toothpicks does that even mean? I think that woman has zero perspective. This is in no way unprecedented.
Valium has been around since 1910; don't you think that's in the fish? How about salicylic acid? Ibuprofen? Acetaminophen? There's a boatload of that stuff out there and their associated metabolites; always has been, way more than anti-depressants. Opiates? You'll find a lot of those things in fish, in trace amounts, I'd bet, but say it like, "There are anti-depressants found in fish!" and we freak out. Anti-depressants aren't the first pharmaceuticals to make their way into the Great Lakes and its resident fish, and they won't be the last. This isn't even news. Folks, funky things have been in those fish for decades. At least in this case, they should be happy fish.
To my recollection you and I have been on the opposite side of every enviro
type discussion on this forum. Not this time. The article is sensationalized journalism. After dilution, I am wondering what parts per gazillion we are talking about here? A lot of basic facts are completely absent from the article. It offers no information of value as written.
Last edited:
Is Scientific American garbage? Fish on Prozac Prove Anxious, Antisocial, Aggressive - Scientific American
The same "ah bs" ideology led to the PCB and Mercury tainting of these same Great Lake waterways for decades.... making them basically dead, a running joke, and what little fish that did survive.....inedible. In the case of Onodoga Lake in NY..... this was the case. No one bothered to fish or live near this lake.
These pollutants yeah have dilution effect in a massive ecosystem.... but low levels effect fish in ways not fully understood. And they build up and concentrate.
It's not bunny or tree hugging bs. Consider the facts is all I say.
ft09
The same "ah bs" ideology led to the PCB and Mercury tainting of these same Great Lake waterways for decades.... making them basically dead, a running joke, and what little fish that did survive.....inedible. In the case of Onodoga Lake in NY..... this was the case. No one bothered to fish or live near this lake.
These pollutants yeah have dilution effect in a massive ecosystem.... but low levels effect fish in ways not fully understood. And they build up and concentrate.
It's not bunny or tree hugging bs. Consider the facts is all I say.
ft09
Unknownflyman
Well-known member
Yeah yeah I'm sure everything is going to be fine. Not to worry the problem is going to go away all on it's own like everything else by using:
Denial, it's cheap easy and spreds good feelings and inaction.
Denial, it's cheap easy and spreds good feelings and inaction.
pnc
Well-known member
The part about suicidal tendencies & light is the best. Hope fish don't see this.
Imo, many so called studies are nothing more than paid for propaganda. Reflecting what whoever flipped the bill wants. If water levels were rising as touted. I'd been using a snorkel to get to my door for ten years instead of pulling into driveway.
On a lighter note...... be glad its not amphetamines or barbiturates. Eating fish could be addictive. Fish for breakfast and you could end up speedballing.
Seriously though , what stands out is that cold must be depressing around the lakes.
......... pc
Imo, many so called studies are nothing more than paid for propaganda. Reflecting what whoever flipped the bill wants. If water levels were rising as touted. I'd been using a snorkel to get to my door for ten years instead of pulling into driveway.
On a lighter note...... be glad its not amphetamines or barbiturates. Eating fish could be addictive. Fish for breakfast and you could end up speedballing.
Seriously though , what stands out is that cold must be depressing around the lakes.
......... pc
ia_trouter
Senior Member
I'd be happy to consider facts. The original article contained nothing quantitative.
el jefe
Well-known member
I read the article. From that:
Further, the article cited concentrations in effluent, but those concentrations don't remain consistent. When the effluent is discharged and mixes with the water, it gets extremely diluted. The research on the fish cited in the article was based on those pharmaceuticals being practically fed to the fish, in a lab, not out in the wild where it gets mixed with all kinds of other stuff.
Quite honestly, there is all kinds of stuff in our air and water. It has ever been thus. I'm more worried about the condition of the people that have to take those drugs than any remote impact on fish; those people have the tougher go of things.
The Great Lakes folks need to be more worried about Asian Carp than Prozac.
pnc
Well-known member
Problem is consumption on land. Now I know why snowbirds drive like their on drugs.
........ pc
........ pc
ddb
Well-known member
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 275
Back in the 60s onward, there were warnings not to eat lake trout, salmon.steelhead from the Great Lakes due to harmful pollutants including lead. Someone tested a Lake trout mounted at U of M that dated from the late 1800s and found the same level of lead.
Noone has done much research into predating industrialization/ fertilzers as environmental problems to determine a realistic approach to fixing problems rather than running around with hair on fire in order to attract research grants and drive social/political aggendas.
DDB
Noone has done much research into predating industrialization/ fertilzers as environmental problems to determine a realistic approach to fixing problems rather than running around with hair on fire in order to attract research grants and drive social/political aggendas.
DDB
el jefe
Well-known member
ratchet
Well-known member
The article talks about antidepressant medications ending up in lake water at low levels. This is not at new problem, only that it hasn't been studied in detail. I've been aware of this problem hypothetically ending up in our drinking water for as long as l've been testing our water supplies (over 25 yrs), but it has only been in the past 5-10 yrs that I have been able to get funding to purchase reliable commercial scientific instruments that can detect these types of contaminants at those low levels. Don't forget that there are also many different types of pesticides (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc.), industrial waste, plastics and other urban pollutants that wash off our streets every time it rains. Those pollutants also degrade in the environment and the degradation products could be even toxic than the original compound.
More work should be centered on improving our wastewater treatment facilities to remove these new, emerging contaminants from entering our waterways. Also need to relook at our use of reclaimed water for irrigation use, you don't want this stuff getting into your market produce until we get a better handle on the problem.
Just because it doesn't seem to have any effect on you yet, we just don't know enough on the long-term impact.
My question for everyone: Why the increase in anti-depressant use?
More work should be centered on improving our wastewater treatment facilities to remove these new, emerging contaminants from entering our waterways. Also need to relook at our use of reclaimed water for irrigation use, you don't want this stuff getting into your market produce until we get a better handle on the problem.
Just because it doesn't seem to have any effect on you yet, we just don't know enough on the long-term impact.
My question for everyone: Why the increase in anti-depressant use?
ddb
Well-known member
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 275
Long ago -- in the 70s ? -- University of Michigan scientists did an autopsy on a prize Lake Trout mounted in the late 1800s. They found many of the same harmful deposits in nearly the same doses that were cited as reasons for warnings then being issued about eating fish from the Great Lakes. But the envirocrowd buried that report as unhelpful to their cause.
The beat goes on.
ddb
The beat goes on.
ddb
What's up, ddb? Couldn't stir any other pots, so you restated your own post (#12) above?
I am not a "tree hugger" by any standard. With no children of my own, I have no concern about what the Earth will be like in 50 years. I'll be dead, and I'm not "leaving the Earth" to anyone. As long as I get my enjoyment out of the environment, I don't care what's left for YOUR kids.
More accurately, I know that mankind will likely destroy itself, but the Earth will survive and go on peacefully without us.
Everyone KNOWS that we pollute every part of the planet. Everyone KNOWS that our impact on Earth is negative. We deplete resources, we destroy natural environments to provide more and more housing for more and more people. We WILL self destruct ... it's inevitable. And it will be the best thing to happen to Earth.
To all the people who deny or ignore the warnings, Mother Nature thanks you. She just wishes you'd hurry up and get the self genocide over, so she can get on with repairing the flora and fauna.
I am not a "tree hugger" by any standard. With no children of my own, I have no concern about what the Earth will be like in 50 years. I'll be dead, and I'm not "leaving the Earth" to anyone. As long as I get my enjoyment out of the environment, I don't care what's left for YOUR kids.
More accurately, I know that mankind will likely destroy itself, but the Earth will survive and go on peacefully without us.
Everyone KNOWS that we pollute every part of the planet. Everyone KNOWS that our impact on Earth is negative. We deplete resources, we destroy natural environments to provide more and more housing for more and more people. We WILL self destruct ... it's inevitable. And it will be the best thing to happen to Earth.
To all the people who deny or ignore the warnings, Mother Nature thanks you. She just wishes you'd hurry up and get the self genocide over, so she can get on with repairing the flora and fauna.
ddb
Well-known member
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 275
Mike,
So who knew this was an old post? The nice thing about having your memory go south is that everything is new again every day.
The depredations of "civilization" are visible everywhere but so are sky-falling 'self-genocide' prophecies that only sew defeatism and distract attention and resources from necessary and doable fixes.
ddb
So who knew this was an old post? The nice thing about having your memory go south is that everything is new again every day.
The depredations of "civilization" are visible everywhere but so are sky-falling 'self-genocide' prophecies that only sew defeatism and distract attention and resources from necessary and doable fixes.
ddb
How high are the fish in Colorado?
