Net Pen farms make no sense... Times Colonist: WSA

[Little Hawk]

Published in Victoria's Times Colonist on Sunday.

http://www.timescolonist.com/Technology/farms+make+sense/1559216/story.html

[island idiots]

Well done Terry! We will win this fight. After the debate last night, I am more confident than ever that we will have a new leader that will end the environmental assault that is the legacy of open pen fish farms. Cheers, I.I.

[sockeyefry]

Terry,

Was that a letter to the editor, or was it an actual news article?

[fish4all]

wow it would be nice to see this cleaned up.

Off the water and on the beach..

[Little Hawk]

Sockeye;

It's an opinion editorial (Oped), not unlike one I had published last year.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=9f75125f-c5f7-42c2-91b8-db42f2f8ea27

[sockeyefry]

Terry,

Just as I thought. just your opinion with no facts to back it up. It is unfortunate that this type of OpEd gets printed. Loose cannons with passion and little else trying to sway public opinion to what they believe to be right, although not necesarily what is actually factual.

Sorry Terry, while I admire your passion and commitment to a cause I think you are going about it the wrong way. That of course is only my opinion. Maybe I should do an Op Ed also.

[rico]

terry, you are doing the Right thing, regardless of what some may think. This BS needs to end, and end soon!!

[alley cat]

And what will you say sockeyefry when the runs are wiped out ..........OOPPSSSS Sorry ?
Fish farms are to be encouraged in enclosed sterile containment areas unrelated to the main flows and migration routes ........... period.

AL

[sockeyefry]

If you ban fish farms because they impact the wild salmon, then you have to ban ALL activity which poses a threat. This includes Rec and Commercial fisheries which are the largest threat to the wild salmon population. It is quite hypocritical to ban one while seeking to expand the other. I don't see Terry calling for the ban on development on the Fraser River, or a ban on commercial salmon harvest, or the forest industry to stop cutting trees. All of which impact the salmon. He has a pet peeve regarding fish farms and his blinders on for everything else cause it doesn't fit with his agenda.

Farms can't be put on shore. This idea is ludicrous. The environmental impact of putting the farms on shore is immense. One has to consider the amount of land which will have to be cleared, and the amount of energy which will be required. When this is factored in, the sum total impact on the environment is huge. The real solution is to stop talking about silly ideas such as on shore, closed containment, and shutting the farms down (which by the way will cost the province dearly after the legal battles are over). Start using sdome common sense, and try to come up with an equitable solution. Have the WSA, Morton et al, instead of radical BS, use their energy to start talking to the companies and discuss how the production plans could be altered to allow the out migration with little or no impact. Has anyone tried that? No because that would mean that Alex is out of a job.

[Poppa Swiss]

so sockeyefry you openly admit you are on the same level as overfishing, logging and development of watersheds?

Seems to me your only defense is, ya we are hurting the stocks but look the other guys are hurting them too, how come they get too!

ever heard the phrase 2 wrongs don't make a right?

[sockeyefry]

Nice spin Poppa.

What I am saying is that the problems with wild salmon will not be eliminated by banning salmon farms. Salmon stocks will continue to have issues, and all you will accomplish is having several thousands of people lose their livlihood in North Van Isle.

Terry's solution helps no one, especially not the wild salmon.

[Poppa Swiss]

blah blah blah sockeyfry, you do realize terry's voice is louder then yours and its only getting louder.

Good job on the piece terry, keep pounding away its working slowly but surely.

[rico]

when i hear people defend the farms, i think they just sound stupid. It is ridiculous to think, in light of the science, that we actually need that crap. The fish are gross, people around here dont want to eat them, and most of it is shipped to the states where the average joe doesnt even know what he is buying. The only people who think it is a great idea are the people who receive a pay cheque from it. If it doesnt make sense to move onto land, then get them the hell outta here. It doesnt make sense in the water!

[sockeyefry]

You haven't addressed my post. Just the typical "I don't understand it, so it must be bad" put downs.

Rico, the science is complete in favour of the farms. It is the people who want to oppose them who do not think it is complete.

Actually Terry is not having much success. Look at his WSA post for the proof.

[rico]

so i guess if some fish are exposed and die, it is ok. Fish that escape are okay too? that's the mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. At least there are some people willing to do something about it. Terry may be up against huge odds now, but slowly, things are changing. In the end, it will be on land, or it wont be here at all. Do you eat the fish? If so, i hope not more than once a month, cause it is loaded with chemicals. Sounds like the **** i want to feed my family! I bet, none of the people who work at those farms eat the fish, because they know whats in them.

[Little Hawk]

Sockeye;

The barrel of your verbal-cannon is worn and bent, and I sense with each post an increased cadence of desperation in your voice.

A prediction: Soon you, too, will run from this forum in disgrace and join the likes of Barbender and others who've trolled here promoting this filth.

More to come before the Election...

[sockeyefry]

Again LH I see how this fiorum works. Agree with the great unwashed and you are heralded a hero. Disagree and you are spreading filth.

What happens when you ban the fish farms and the salmon do not recover? Because this is what is going to happen. You had better be ready to answer those questions. DFO banned commercial salmon fishing on the east coast in 1985, saying that was the cause of the salmon populations dropping. Guess what, it wasn't and there are very few salmon left. They were so sure about this that they shut down their hatcheries, and cut funding to programs. Do you see what happens when you hang your hat on a single root cause in a population dynamic?

Fish farms may have a small impact on the environment they occupy, but wide spread population affecting impacts is ludicrous to suggest. They simply do not have the scope that such activities as overfishing, development, commercial fisheries have. Start using your common sense if you have any and take your blinders off. A lot of very learned people have said that salmon farming and wild salmon can co exist. The few but very media prolific people who disagree mostly are getting paid to disagree, and are sucking in good passionate people such as yourself with their "filth".

I would suggest you educate yourself, visit a farm or several. Go talk to the companies and find out what they are doing, and are willing or able to do if someone would simply come and open the discussion.

I urge all the people on this forum: Don't condemn what you don't understand, don't take someone's word for it, find out for yourself.

[chris73]

Haha, nice try sockeye. I have seen enough fish farms and so have quite a few who argued with you here in other threads. Science is not with you and you and most here know this.
quote:What happens when you ban the fish farms and the salmon do not recover? Well, at least we then eliminated one relevant factor - one by one we will take them on... And we start with the most useless environment harming business. By the way, ludicrous is saying that land-based farming can't be done. You are just too cheap to invest some $ - at the expense of our salmon. That attitude will stop very soon. The technology is long there to move farms on land and if you can't sell your lousy product for a few cents more per pound maybe you are producing the wrong product. Failed business plan I would say. BTW, if you are really interested send me a plan and I design you a land-based facility that will not need much energy and will work fine and simple. If you were seriously looking into this you would see it's actually not that hard but of course if you deal with technical staff as "credible" as the lousy scientist you cite then all is hopeless...

Nice work Terry. Soon we will have them where they belong.

[sockeyefry]

Chris,

You have not idea of what you are talking about. The technolgoy does not exist to make onshore farms viable from an evironmental aspect. They are WORSE than net pens. Net pens properly sited and managed are the most environmentally friendly culture method. I personally have operated 3 closed containment farms, I know how they operate and the tremendous power bills associated with them. I would like to see your plan, cause if it works you could become quite rich selling it to the farming companies.

Rico,

What mess are we in? According to DFO salmon runs in the broughtopn are at average levels for the last 40 years, and actually have been MORE ABUNDANT SINCE FARMING BEGAN. Salmon runs in Alaska and California and Oregon are very low trhis year. They don't have any farms Ever wonder why they are so low? Maybe just maybe the farms are not the problem.
What chemicals are they loaded with? I would like to see if you know what you are talking about.

[rico]

CTV.ca News Staff

Flame-retardant chemicals that may harm human health are found in higher levels in farmed salmon than in wild salmon, says a new study.
Researchers studied samples from 700 farmed Atlantic salmon and wild Pacific salmon from around the world, examining levels of chemicals known as PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers). PBDEs are a group of flame-retardant chemicals used in electronics, upholstery, plastics and other products.

HEALTH RISKS - Farmed salmon have higher levels of dioxins
and PCBs than wild salmon do. These contaminants increase your
risk of cancer and should be avoided by children and pregnant
women.

CHEMICALS & COLOURANTS - Because they don’t
benefit from a natural diet, the flesh of farmed salmon is grey.
Colourants are added to their feed to turn them a “salmon” pink.

We are maximising human exposure to these chemicals by promoting an artificial food chain.

A 2004 study in Science showed that concentrations of contaminants are significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild, and that eating farmed Atlantic salmon may pose health risks that detract from the positive effects of fish consumption.

[chris73]

You are a technical banana, sockeye! It's not hard - it's actually too simple if you only wanted. Power bill - huh? Maybe you're using the wrong pumps? Next time you run a closed containment farm hire a proper water/wastewater designer for your system and you will figure out how easy it can be! Sounds like somebody's riding a mule in the city and claiming that this is as good as it gets...

Oh ya, nice! Since when does anyone looks as DFO's predictions? Are you not following the annual stats? Your statements are just dull...

[sockeyefry]

Chris,
If you know of a whiz bang way of pumping water for free, I am all ears, cause I have yet to find one. A "proper wastewater designer" never grew a fish. NEXT.

Rico, every one of those studies has been refuted as being false and exagerated
NEXT.

DFO's stats not good enough because they tell the wrong story eh Chris.
NEXT.

[Little Hawk]

Sockeye;

Your words become more desperate with each post because you, too, sense that this 'Sunset-Industry' you so woefully defend is a 'Sinking Ship' and your bailing-bucket has a big-hole in it.

When you used the phrase, "...most environmentally friendly culture method..." I nearly puked!

All anyone needs to know about the net-pen business is this:

"WE GOT A BIG-NORWEGIAN-DOGGY SH!TTING IN OUR FRONT-YARD WHILE GROWING FISH TO FEED AMERICANS."

Even a lowly carpenter like me can see the problem with the science.

Next...

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Chris,
If you know of a whiz bang way of pumping water for free, I am all ears, cause I have yet to find one. A "proper wastewater designer" never grew a fish. NEXT.
Well, sockeyefry - as you know - you can grow fish in recirculating or enclosed facilities. The question is can you do it profitably.

I'm sorry, the risks to our environment and our wild fish stocks are too great to continue with open net-cage technology.

Either fish farmers will find a way to adapt their operations and market system to adapt - or they will fade, like a bad dream.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Rico, every one of those studies has been refuted as being false and exagerated
NEXT.
I really don't know what you are declaring here. Studies on PCBEs, or effects of open net-cages, or what. We just spent 45 pages of talking about the science of the effects of open net-cages at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

DFO's stats not good enough because they tell the wrong story eh Chris.
NEXT.
Anyone have those stats in front of them? I'd like to see them.

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

You know very well that all the PCB studies have been refuted as being alarmist and untrue.

Yes you are right about RAS, and the question being profitablilty.

The problem is that all human endeavour has impacts. Some we accept and some we don't. I just don't get how we seem to condone driving cars, overfishing salmon, developing watersheds, and pollution of waterways by our city sewage, all of which have far reachjing environmental conerns. Yet a small activity such as fish farming gets so much attention and emotion. I havent' seen Terry take out an add against logging, or in support of car pools, yet he is on here and in the papares ranting about the dangers of fish farms. I just don't get it how we can pick and chose like that, when given the experience in ORegon and California that wild salmon are in decline in the absence of fish farms. How do you explain that away Terry? Or does it not fit nicely with your agenda so you conveniently ignore it?

[chris73]

Why would you not rather start removing the dog-**** from your front door steps than dealing with the horse **** in your neighbours yard? One at the time but the most obvious first.

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

You know very well that all the PCB studies have been refuted as being alarmist and untrue.
Alarmist - yes. Untrue - NO. This is something you should know well, sockeyefry. We had quite a long discussion on this previously.

I was actually thinking you were talking about fire-retardant chemicals or PCEs We had some discussion on this, also.

AND by-the-way - the open net-cage industry is anything BUT a "small activity". This you should also know.

[sockeyefry]

Relatively speaking it is a small activity.

Chris, You are not starting with the most obvious, you are starting with the easiest as it impacts the least people if it is shut down. Only 4500 people on the North Island will be impacted. and who cares about them. Go and try to take the cars away from people in Vancouver, or shut down all logging or development.

[chris73]

No, sockeye, it IS the most obvious. Event a 3 year old has no problems understanding that putting a mass concentration of alien fish species with all the parasites and waste they come with right into the pathways of migrating wild fish separated by virtually nothing must have negative impacts on the wild fish. Therefore most obvious.

[Dave H]

"Only 4500 people on the North Island will be impacted."

One of my favorite lies............spouted again.

Not even close to reality sockeye fry.
Why do you type lies like that anyway?
Besides, acoording to Odd Grydeland there are now 6000 jobs in the industry.
Of course that's an even bigger lie but lying comes natural to some people it seems, specially if their paycheque depends on it.

Pathetic!

Take care.

[Little Hawk]

6000-jobs?

Ha-ha... I call more BS from the salmon-farmers!

Here's another funny one from someone else on the Norwegian payroll: Back in 1999 or so when Van Dongen (can't believe he got re-elected?) announced the lifting of the moratorium on expansion of the industry, he blabbed about how great the industry would be for BC and stated it would create something like 13,000-jobs...

Politicians should loose their jobs when they lie... and speed!

I read an NOAA report produced about 10 yrs ago that stated each net-pen farm created the full-time equivalent of 8 to 10 jobs. Since advances in technology tend to ELIMINATE JOBS over time, I'd say it's more accurate that BC's 125 or so fish-farms employ under 1000 people.

It's when we extrapolate the true-costs to BC for these 1000 or so jobs - mega tons of pollution/disease & parasite-transfer to our wild fish/escaping alien fish into our fish-habitat - that the folly of this pathetic industry becomes painfully clear to all.

A preemptive strike is warranted here before Sockeye spews more pro-industry vomit.

True, disease transfer from the net-pens has yet to rear its ugly head here on the BC coast but - as ISA/BKD/IHN have followed your filthy industry around the globe and have been shown in peer-reviewed studies to transfer from farmed to wild fishes - all agree, it's merely a matter of time until these pathogens find their way here.

When they do... pollution and parasite issues will pale in comparison.

[sockeyefry]

Terry,

Every time you post you display your ignorance.

IHN is a disease which exists in pacific salmon, all the way from California to Alaska. It is know as "Sockeye disease".

BKD is also endemic to the pacific coast, found in all pacific salmonids.

Neither have been brought here by the farm industry, as they were already here.

BTW the moratorium was lifted in spirit but not in practice. Very few new sites were licensed since the "lifting" of the moratorium.

WRT to jobs, stats are stats. Same as the figures thrown around as to what a wild salmon is worth. I have mine you have yours. The infrastructure which used to service the commercial fishery is now happily employed processing farmed salmon. It is not only the on farm jobs which count, but the processing, and service industries which would not exist if there were no farms. Your logic would dictate only counting the guides in the boats as having jobs from the sport fishery.

I do love the way you toss out the anti farm rhetoric "mega tons" ROTFLMAO.

[sockeyefry]

Global*warming*hits*wild*salmon*hard*Fish*farmers* say*their*practicesare*safe,*sustainable*and*well regulated

Mary*Ellen*Walling*Special*to*Times*Colonist**Tues day,*May*12,*2009*

Simple*science,*simple*solutions.*If*only*it*worke d*that*way.*Unfortunately,*science*is*seldom*black *and*white.*Cause*and*effect*are*often*difficult*t o*determine*and*solutions*to*difficult*problems*ra rely*ever*straightforward.*Let's*consider*the*plig ht*of*wild*salmon*by*looking*first*at*a*fact*that* no*one*disputes.**All*up*and*down*the*Pacific*nort hwest*coast*from*California*to*Alaska,*wild*salmon *populations*are*in*decline.*In*California,*salmon *runs*are*in*such*a*desperate*state*that*coastal*f ishing*was*called*off*for*the*second*year*in*a*row .**What*is*causing*the*decline*of*wild*salmon*popu lations?**Terry*Anderson*("Net#8208;pen*farms*make*no*sense*for*B.C.,"*May*3)*places*the*blame*on*salmon*farmers*citing* a*litany*of*environmental*impacts*that*he*claims*a re*"pushing*some*stocks*of*wild*Pacific*salmon*precipi tously*close*to*extinction."**However,*it*is*important*to*note*that*salmon*far ming*is*not*practised*in*California*or*many*other* areas*where*salmon*populations*are*dwndling.**Ande rson's*black*and*white*analysis*is*contrasted*by*a n*article*published*May*4*in*Seafood.com*news*that *points*to*a*new*threat*more*devastating*than*the* gill*nets*that*sent*dozens*of*salmon*runs*into*ext inction,*raising*doubts*about*whether*salmon*will* survive*in*the*Northern*Pacific*at*all.**Is*that*t hreat*salmon*farming?**No.*It*is*global*warming.*C hanging*ocean*conditions*have*already*made*rivers* and*oceans*warmer,*prompting*early*spring*run#8208 ;off*and*disrupting*the*lifecycle*of*the*salmon.*I n*addition,*as*those*who*have*invested*time*and*mo ney*in*rebuilding*watersheds*know,*urbanization,*f orestry,*mining,*land#8208;based*farming*and*a*hos t*of*other*factors*have*affected*fish*habitat*and* survival*rates.**Anderson*opts*to*do*what*he*calls *"fish#8208;farming*math"*to*determine*if*salmon*farming*is*a*good*deal*for *British*Columbia*and*concludes,*"the*answer*is*an*unequivocal*no."**We*share*Anderson's*concern*about*wild*salmon*an d*that's*one*of*the*reasons*why*we*are*proud*to*wo rk*as*salmon*farmers.*The*statement*is*not*as*cont radictory*as*he*would*have*you*believe.**B.C.*is*t he*most*stringently*regulated*of*any*salmon*farmin g*jurisdiction*in*the*world.*The*efforts*of*concer ned*British*Columbians,*combined*with*the*tightest *regulatory*framework*in*the*world,*have*made*B.C. 's*salmon*farming*community*commit*to*sustainabili ty*and*to*reducing*farming's*environmental*footpri nt,*while*actively*contributing*to*coastal*communi ties*and*their*economies.**Anderson*alleges*that*t he*only*benefit*salmon*farming*brings*to*B.C.*is*a *limited*number*of*jobs*in*what*he*describes*as*"remote"*communities.*According*to*a*study*done*by*PriceWa terhouseCoopers,*direct*employment*in*hatcheries,* grow#8208;out,*other*farm*activities*and*processin g*is*more*than*6,000*people,*generating*an*economi c*output*of*more*than*$800*million*in*2008,*with*m any*of*those*jobs*located*in*coastal*communities*h ard*hit*by*the*
recent*economic*downturn.**Farmed*salmon*is*also*B .C.'s*largest*agricultural*export.*In*2008,*B.C.*f armers*sold*73,600*dressed*tonnes,*with*wholesale* sales*of*$507*million.*Market*prospects*for*farmed *salmon*remain*strong*as*people*eat*more*fish.*By* 2030*the*world*is*expected*to*eat*nearly*70*per*ce nt*more*fish*than*it*does*now:*That*demand*cannot* be*sustainably*supplied*by*wild*fisheries.**Salmon *farmers*in*B.C.*are*committed*to*making*environme ntally*responsible*choices.*As*a*result,*we*have*s uccessfully*addressed*many*of*the*initial*environm ental*issues*and*are*earning*international*recogni tion*for*our*sustinable*farming*practices.**Does*t his*add*up*to*a*good*deal*for*British*Columbians?* The*answer*is*an*unequivocal*yes.**Mary*Ellen*Wall ing*is*the*executive*director*of*the*B.C.*Salmon*F armers'*Association.

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Global*warming*hits*wild*salmon*hard*Fish*farmers* say*their*practicesare*safe,*sustainable*and*well regulated

Mary*Ellen*Walling*Special*to*Times*Colonist**Tues day,*May*12,*2009*

B.C. is the most stringently regulated of any salmon farming jurisdiction in the world...The efforts of concerned British Columbians, combined with the tightest regulatory framework in the world...
utter BS - we already went over this in much detail at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847

[gimp]

http://www.sustainable-aquaculture.ca/
JUST GOT AN E-MAIL UPDATE ON THIS =) JUST A GLIMMER OF HOPE AFTER A BOTCHED ELECTION

You’re one of a multitude! Tank fabrication underway, still shooting for late summer launch. Pile driving should begin in June, oxygen generation system almost complete now, waste system should be running by middle of July. We have fish in the sea in a Future SEA system holding tank, and more smolts in the hatchery.



There will likely be some press releases within a month. AgriMarine will launch the TSVX listing soon under ticker FSH, if you watch these things.



Cheers,



Rob



http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll301/gimpsphoto/Picture002-1.jpg

[sockeyefry]

Hey Gimp,

I hope they can make a go of it, in spite of the fact that no other project like this in the world has. It would be nice if they have worked out all the issues and can compete on a global scale. It sure would be a benefit to the entire industry.

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

You know very well that all the PCB studies have been refuted as being alarmist and untrue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520122227.htm
Marine Mammals' Brains Exposed To Hazardous Cocktail Of Pesticides Including DDT, PCBs, Brominated Flame Retardants

ScienceDaily (May 21, 2009) — The most extensive study of pollutants in marine mammals’ brains reveals that these animals are exposed to a hazardous cocktail of pesticides such as DDTs and PCBs, as well as emerging contaminants such as brominated flame retardants.


Eric Montie, the lead author on the study currently in press and published online April 17 in Environmental Pollution, performed the research as a student in the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution-MIT Joint Graduate Program in Oceanography and Ocean Engineering and as a postdoctoral fellow at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). The final data analysis and writing were conducted at College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, where Montie now works in David Mann’s marine sensory biology lab.

Co-author Chris Reddy, an associate scientist in the WHOI Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Department, describes the work as “groundbreaking because Eric measures a variety of different chemicals in animal tissues that had not been previously explored. It gives us greater insight into how these chemicals may behave in marine mammals.”

The work represents a major collaborative effort between the laboratories of Reddy and Mark Hahn in the WHOI Biology Department, where Montie was a graduate student and post doc, as well as Robert Letcher at Environment Canada. Montie traveled to Environment Canada in Ottawa to learn the painstaking techniques required to extract and to quantify more than 170 different pollutants and their metabolites. He then brought the methods back to WHOI and performed the analyses in Reddy’s laboratory. Reddy describes the methods as extremely unforgiving and explains, “This is not making Toll House cookies. The fact that Eric pulled it off so seamlessly is amazing considering that he did this by himself far away from Ottawa.”

Montie analyzed both the cerebrospinal fluid and the gray matter of the cerebellum in eleven cetaceans and one gray seal stranded near Cape Cod, Mass. His analyses include many of the chemicals that environmental watchdog groups call the dirty dozen, a collection of particularly ubiquitous pesticides that were banned in the 1970s because of their hazards to human health. But the Montie study goes much further in the scope of contaminants analyzed. And many of the contaminants are anything but benign.

The chemicals studied include pesticides like DDT, which has been shown to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity, and PCBs, which are neurotoxicants known to disrupt the thyroid hormone system. The study also quantifies concentrations of polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs (a particular class of flame retardants), which are neurotoxicants that impair the development of motor activity and cognition. This work is the first to quantify concentrations of PBDEs in the brains of marine mammals.

The results revealed that concentration of one contaminant was surprisingly high. According to Montie, “The biggest wakeup was that we found parts per million concentrations of hydroxylated PCBs in the cerebrospinal fluid of a gray seal. That is so worrisome for me. You rarely find parts per million levels of anything in the brain.”

The particular hydroxylated PCB found at these soaring concentrations, called 4-OH-CB107, has some serious side effects. In rats, it selectively binds to a carrier protein called transthyretin, which has been found to be abundant in cerebrospinal fluid in mammals. This protein plays a role in thyroid hormone transport throughout the brain, though its exact role is not known. Thyroid hormone plays a key role in the development of the brain, as well as sensory functions, in particular hearing in mammals. Compromised hearing would have significant impact for dolphins, because as Montie points out, “these animals rely on hearing as their primary sensory modality to communicate and to find and catch food.”

Just how these chemicals might impact marine mammal health is something Montie plans to pursue. This summer, Montie, Mann, and Dr. Mandy Cook (from Portland University) will partner with scientists from NOAA to test the hearing in dolphins living near a Superfund site in Georgia and compare it to dolphins from locations where ambient concentrations of pollutants are significantly lower. Montie is also working with Frances Gulland, director of the Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito, CA, to examine how California sea lions’s exposure to PCBs may increase their sensitivity to domoic acid, a naturally produced marine neurotoxin associated with “red tides.”

The work of Montie and his colleagues lays the groundwork for understanding how environmental contaminants influence the central nervous system of marine mammals. Montie sees this work as the forefront of a new field of research, something that might be called neuro-ecotoxicology. For years, most of the work in this area focused on how concentrations of marine pollutants affected the animal’s immune system or its hormone systems. The research by Montie, Reddy, Hahn, and their coauthors provides tools to ask deeper questions about how the ever-growing list of contaminants in the ocean affect the neurological development of marine mammals.

And what sort of results does Montie expect this new field of neuro-ecotoxicology to produce? “I think we don’t really know the brunt of what we are going to see in wildlife.”

This study was performed with funding form the WHOI Ocean Life Institute, WHOI Marine Policy Center, Walter A. and Hope Noyes Smith, and an EPA STAR fellowship. Supplemental funding was provided from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada (to Robert Letcher), David Mann at the College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, and a NOAA Oceans and Human Health postdoctoral traineeship provided by Jonna Mazet (UC Davis Wildlife Health Center), Kathi Lefebvre (Northwest Fisheries Science Center), and Frances Gulland (The Marine Mammal Center).

Journal reference:

1. Eric W. Montie, Christopher M. Reddy, Wouter A. Gebbink, Katie E. Touhey, Mark E. Hahn, Robert J. Letcher. Organohalogen contaminants and metabolites in cerebrospinal fluid and cerebellum gray matter in short-beaked common dolphins and Atlantic white-sided dolphins from the western North Atlantic. Environmental Pollution, 2009; DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.03.024

Adapted from materials provided by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Email or share this story:
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA

MLA
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (2009, May 21). Marine Mammals' Brains Exposed To Hazardous Cocktail Of Pesticides Including DDT, PCBs, Brominated Flame Retardants. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 22, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2009/05/090520122227.htm
enlarge

Atlantic white-sided dolphin and her calf. (Credit: Eric Montie)

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Doesn't mean that conclusion of the studies involving the PCB content of farnmed vs wild were untrue and exagerrated for media impact.

But yes I agree that there is a lot of crap from a lot of sources being accessed by the top levels of the food chains, of which we are one.

Curiously it has a nice headline but not alot of data to back it up, like how much PCB? yet again another empty alarmist science article.

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

Doesn't mean that conclusion of the studies involving the PCB content of farnmed vs wild were untrue and exagerrated for media impact.
Not sure what you are trying to say here - but obviously marine mammals ultimately get their PCB's and other toxic persistent pollutants that work their way up the food chain and bioaccumulate from eating fish that contain lesser amounts of these pollutants.

Both wild and farmed fish also have these pollutants - the levels of which depend upon what they eat.

The real question we have not truly answered is: "What levels are [u]SAFE</u>?", and more importantly: "Are any levels [u]SAFE</u>?"

We are the living guinea pigs and we have not been asked if we want to be test animals. Other organisms co-inhabiting this spaceship earth also have not been asked for their permission to be test animals.

All this polluting by persistent pollutants to support corporate greed.

As far as the levels go, the full report is available at:
http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org:8080/dspace/bitstream/1912/2815/1/Montie%20et%20al_BrainChem_rev031209.pdf

Quote from the article (p.11 - Results and Discussion):
"The levels of p,p’-DDE were the highest of all OCs, followed by trans-nonachlor, which was similar to what we found in dolphin brain tissue. In the study by Weisbrod et al. (2001), the mean concentrations of p,p’-DDE (ng/g wet wt.) were 10 985 in blubber (n = 6); 2,021 in skin (n = 6); 1,243 in kidney (n = 2); 303 in lung (n = 2); and 228 in liver (n = 6). The concentrations of p,p’-DDE in blubber, skin, kidney, lung, and liver reported previously by Weisbrod et al. (2001) were orders of magnitude higher (on a wet wt. basis) than the levels found in CSF (2.23 ng/g wet wt.) and cerebellum GM (12.06 ng/g wet wt.) from Atlantic white-sided dolphins in our study (Table 3).

The dichlorodiphenylethanes (e.g., p,p’-DDE, p,p’-DDD), the chlorinated cyclodienes present in chlordane (e.g., cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, cis-chlordane, and trans-chlordane), and the chlorinated benzenes (e.g., hexachlorobenzene) found in CSF and cerebellum GM have been shown to be neurotoxic in humans and wildlife species (reviewed by Ecobichon (1996))."

There's lots more info on levels of specific pollutants in this report, and their risks. It's a complicated read at times, though.