Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ain't Progress Grand!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ain't Progress Grand!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/...JhY2t0b3N0b3J5


    Toxins found in whales bode ill for humans


    By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 24, 7:35 pm ET

    AGADIR, Morocco – Sperm whales feeding even in the most remote reaches of Earth's oceans have built up stunningly high levels of toxic and heavy metals, according to American scientists who say the findings spell danger not only for marine life but for the millions of humans who depend on seafood.

    A report released Thursday noted high levels of cadmium, aluminum, chromium, lead, silver, mercury and titanium in tissue samples taken by dart gun from nearly 1,000 whales over five years. From polar areas to equatorial waters, the whales ingested pollutants that may have been produced by humans thousands of miles away, the researchers said.

    "These contaminants, I think, are threatening the human food supply. They certainly are threatening the whales and the other animals that live in the ocean," said biologist Roger Payne, founder and president of Ocean Alliance, the research and conservation group that produced the report.

    The researchers found mercury as high as 16 parts per million in the whales. Fish high in mercury such as shark and swordfish — the types health experts warn children and pregnant women to avoid — typically have levels of about 1 part per million.

    The whales studied averaged 2.4 parts of mercury per million, but the report's authors said their internal organs probably had much higher levels than the skin samples contained.

    "The entire ocean life is just loaded with a series of contaminants, most of which have been released by human beings," Payne said in an interview on the sidelines of the International Whaling Commission's annual meeting.

    Payne said sperm whales, which occupy the top of the food chain, absorb the contaminants and pass them on to the next generation when a female nurses her calf. "What she's actually doing is dumping her lifetime accumulation of that fat-soluble stuff into her baby," he said, and each generation passes on more to the next.

    Ultimately, he said, the contaminants could jeopardize seafood, a primary source of animal protein for 1 billion people.

    "You could make a fairly tight argument to say that it is the single greatest health threat that has ever faced the human species. I suspect this will shorten lives, if it turns out that this is what's going on," he said.

    Payne called his group's $5 million project the most comprehensive report ever done on ocean pollutants.

    U.S. Whaling Commissioner Monica Medina informed the 88 member nations of the whaling commission of the report and urged the commission to conduct further research.

    The report "is right on target" for raising issues critical to humans as well as whales, Medina told The Associated Press. "We need to know much more about these problems."

    Payne, 75, is best known for his 1968 discovery and recordings of songs by humpback whales, and for finding that some whale species can communicate with each other over thousands of miles.

    The 93-foot Odyssey, a sail-and-motor ketch, set out in March 2000 from San Diego to document the oceans' health, collecting pencil-eraser-sized samples using a dart gun that barely made the whales flinch.

    After more than five years and 87,000 miles, samples had been taken from 955 whales. The samples were sent for analysis to marine toxicologist John Wise at the University of Southern Maine. DNA was compared to ensure the animals were not tested more than once.

    Payne said the original objective of the voyage was to measure chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants, and the study of metals was an afterthought.

    The researchers were stunned with the results. "That's where the shocking, sort of jaw-dropping concentrations exist," Payne said.

    Though it was impossible to know where the whales had been, Payne said the contamination was embedded in the blubber of males formed in the frigid polar regions, indicating that the animals had ingested the metals far from where they were emitted.

    "When you're working with a synthetic chemical which never existed in nature before and you find it in a whale which came from the Arctic or Antarctic, it tells you that was made by people and it got into the whale," he said.

    How that happened is unclear, but the contaminants likely were carried by wind or ocean currents, or were eaten by the sperm whales' prey.

    Sperm whales are toothed whales that eat all kinds of fish, even sharks. Dozens have been taken by whaling ships in the past decade. Most of the whales hunted by the whaling countries of Japan, Norway and Iceland are minke whales, which are baleen whales that feed largely on tiny krill.

    Chromium, an industrial pollutant that causes cancer in humans, was found in all but two of the 361 sperm whale samples that were tested for it. Those findings were published last year in the scientific journal Chemosphere.

    "The biggest surprise was chromium," Payne said. "That's an absolute shocker. Nobody was even looking for it."

    The corrosion-resistant metal is used in stainless steel, paints, dyes and the tanning of leather. It can cause lung cancer in people who work in industries where it is commonly used, and was the focus of the California environmental lawsuit that gained fame in the movie "Erin Brockovich."

    It was impossible to say from the samples whether any of the whales suffered diseases, but Wise found that the concentration of chromium found in whales was several times higher than the level required to kill healthy cells in a Petri dish, Payne said.

    He said another surprise was the high concentrations of aluminum, which is used in packaging, cooking pots and water treatment. Its effects are unknown.

    The consequences of the metals could be horrific for both whale and man, he said.

    "I don't see any future for whale species except extinction," Payne said. "This is not on anybody's radar, no government's radar anywhere, and I think it should be."

  • #2
    Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

    Silver is NOT toxic, nor is aluminum, nor other metals found in whale bones.

    What are bones for, anyway? Fish and mammals store un-needed metals in their bones. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE, NOR SHOULD IT BE AN ISSUE.

    The bottomline is that this is more eco-fraud rubbish to try to scare the public.

    Radioactive potassium (found in bananas) which is needed to maintain cardiac health is
    stored in human bones, too. So is excess calcium metal. WHAT IS THE ISSUE???????????????????????????????????????

    I have a minor in Public Health at the MA level from the University of Minnesota, and I think I know more about public health issues or sperm-whale concerns than all of the eco-frauds in Greenpeace and in the Sierra Club put together. Let's be frank here. Anyone want to debate how bones work in nature?

    I think the issue is how these frauds have the good jobs in government, and I was ignored. But let's not get into that interesting point now; just debate me on how bones work in living things like human-beings.
    Last edited by Starving Steve; July 01, 2010, 03:30 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

      Note from the KGW post #1 above the remark that chromium causes cancer in humans! Might I ask: "Is that sort of like taconite-tailings in Lake Superior were supposed to cause cancer too?" People my age might remember that Canada's nickels were plated in pure chromium in 1944, 1945, some 1951, all 1952, all 1953, and all in 1954. Many kids loved them so much that they put them in their mouths to taste. Just where are the cancers? Show me since the EPA is so convinced that chromium causes human cancer? Convince me. (I'm the slow learner.)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

        I thought everything caused cancer, even oxygen (sarcasm off).
        We are all little cockroaches running around guessing when the FED will turn OFF the Lights.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

          Yep. The list of sloppy "science" is too long to even list. The different tissues accumulate the materials at different rates, and a control sample was not even mentioned. Without a control sample, how do you know what the normal range is? Answer: you don't.

          There are lots of other problems with the conclusions.

          Anything is toxic in high enough concentration. Almost nothing is toxic below about 1 part in 10exp-15.

          Yes, where are all the cancers? The fact is that the cancer rate of non-behavioral-related cancers is flat for the past 50 years in the US, which is the period over which we have at least partially reliable data. The cure rate is increasing mostly due to early detection.

          It's pretty simple.



          Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
          Silver is NOT toxic, nor is aluminum, nor other metals found in whale bones.

          What are bones for, anyway? Fish and mammals store un-needed metals in their bones. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE, NOR SHOULD IT BE AN ISSUE.

          The bottomline is that this is more eco-fraud rubbish to try to scare the public.

          Radioactive potassium (found in bananas) which is needed to maintain cardiac health is
          stored in human bones, too. So is excess calcium metal. WHAT IS THE ISSUE???????????????????????????????????????

          I have a minor in Public Health at the MA level from the University of Minnesota, and I think I know more about public health issues or sperm-whale concerns than all of the eco-frauds in Greenpeace and in the Sierra Club put together. Let's be frank here. Anyone want to debate how bones work in nature?

          I think the issue is how these frauds have the good jobs in government, and I was ignored. But let's not get into that interesting point now; just debate me on how bones work in living things like human-beings.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

            These were not bone samples, nor were they stated as such. Tissue samples, taken with a dart.

            How do these metals get into the ocean? Perhaps if we directed them to your house, Steve, you could get rich in commodities. . .

            Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
            Silver is NOT toxic, nor is aluminum, nor other metals found in whale bones.

            What are bones for, anyway? Fish and mammals store un-needed metals in their bones. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE, NOR SHOULD IT BE AN ISSUE.

            The bottomline is that this is more eco-fraud rubbish to try to scare the public.

            Radioactive potassium (found in bananas) which is needed to maintain cardiac health is
            stored in human bones, too. So is excess calcium metal. WHAT IS THE ISSUE???????????????????????????????????????

            I have a minor in Public Health at the MA level from the University of Minnesota, and I think I know more about public health issues or sperm-whale concerns than all of the eco-frauds in Greenpeace and in the Sierra Club put together. Let's be frank here. Anyone want to debate how bones work in nature?

            I think the issue is how these frauds have the good jobs in government, and I was ignored. But let's not get into that interesting point now; just debate me on how bones work in living things like human-beings.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

              You can bring all of the metals you would want to dump onto my property here in East Sooke, BC, but you would have to get a permit from the Capitol Regional District; i.e, something that ought to take five minutes of time and five dollars of cost but would end-up costing you thousands of dollars of expense and years of time fighting with the eco-frauds in the CRD. My toxic waste dump fees be darn cheap, especially if you would be so kind as to start with your toxic silver coin, first. In fact, I would let you dump any silver that you wish to rid yourself of. And unlike other businesses in British Columbia, I would be here to serve YOU, the public; that is to say, I would not "cop" an attitude onto you, my valued customer. (This means, no horse-carts and no ferry fees, no bird habitat studies, no expiditer fees, no carbon accounting, nor bull-sh*t like that.)

              One might think that the NDP Caucus at the Provincial Legislature might catch onto this and see the light, but they don't even talk to me on the phone. Thus, welcome to BC. It is in a class by itself! One has to experience BC to comprehend it fully.
              Last edited by Starving Steve; July 02, 2010, 05:24 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

                10 G Street NE Suite 800
                Washington, DC 20002
                http://www.wri.org

                Read this post online at: http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8375
                Heavy metals and health

                Overview

                Since the Industrial Revolution, the production of heavy metals such as lead, copper, and zinc has increased exponentially. Between 1850 and 1990, production of these three metals increased nearly 10-fold, with emissions rising in tandem [170]. (See Heavy Metal Production has Soared Since 1850.) Heavy metals have been used in a variety of ways for at least 2 millennia. For example, lead has been used in plumbing, and lead arsenate has been used to control insects in apple orchards. The Romans added lead to wine to improve its taste, and mercury was used as a salve to alleviate teething pain in infants [171] [172].
                Heavy metal production has soared since 1850
                Global production and consumption of selected toxic metals, 1850-1990
                Source: J.O.Nriagu, “History of Global Metal Pollution,” Science, Vol. 272 (April 12, 1996), pp. 223-224.
                The toxicity of these metals has also been documented throughout history: Greek and Roman physicians diagnosed symptoms of acute lead poisoning long before toxicology became a science. Today, much more is known about the health effects of heavy metals. Exposure to heavy metals has been linked with developmental retardation, various cancers, kidney damage, and even death in some instances of exposure to very high concentrations. Exposure to high levels of mercury, gold, and lead has also been associated with the development of autoimmunity, in which the immune system starts to attack its own cells, mistaking them for foreign invaders [173]. Autoimmunity can lead to the development of diseases of the joints and kidneys, such as rheumatoid arthritis, or diseases of the circulatory or central nervous systems [174].
                Despite abundant evidence of these deleterious health effects, exposure to heavy metals continues and may increase in the absence of concerted policy actions. Mercury is still extensively used in gold mining in many parts of Latin America. Arsenic, along with copper and chromium compounds, is a common ingredient in wood preservatives. Lead is still widely used as an additive in gasoline. Increased use of coal in the future will increase metal exposures because coal ash contains many toxic metals and can be breathed deeply into the lungs. For countries such as China and India, which continue to rely on high-ash coal as a primary energy source, the health implications are ominous [175].
                Once emitted, metals can reside in the environment for hundreds of years or more. Evidence of human exploitation of heavy metals has been found in the ice cores in Greenland and sea water in the Antarctic. The lead contents of ice layers deposited annually in Greenland show a steady rise that parallels the mining renaissance in Europe, reaching values 100 times the natural background level in the mid-1990s [176].
                Mining itself, not only of heavy metals but also of coal and other minerals, is another major route of exposure. Despite some noted improvements in worker safety and cleaner production, mining remains one of the most hazardous and environmentally damaging industries. In Bolivia, toxic sludge from a zinc mine in the Andes had killed aquatic life along a 300-kilometer stretch of river systems as of 1996. It also threatened the livelihood and health of 50,000 of the region’s subsistence farmers [177]. Uncontrolled smelters have produced some of the world’s only environmental “dead zones,” where little or no vegetation survives. For instance, toxic emissions from the Sudbury, Ontario, nickel smelter have devastated 10,400 hectares of forests downwind of the smelter [178].
                References and notes

                170. Jerome O. Nriagu, “A History of Global Metal Pollution,” Science, Vol. 272, No. 5259 (April 12, 1996), p. 223.
                171. David L. Eaton and William O. Robertson, “Toxicology,” in Textbook of Clinical Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Linda Rosenstick and Mark R. Cullen, eds. (WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1994), pp. 116 -117.
                172. Cheryl Simon Silver and Dale S. Rothman, Toxics and Health: The Potential Long-Term Effects of Industrial Activity (World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., 1995), p. 7.
                173. Janet Glover-Kerkvliet, “Environmental Assault on Immunity,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 103, No. 3 (March 1995), pp. 236 -237.
                174. Ibid., p. 237.
                175. Op. cit. 172, p. 7.
                176. Op. cit. 170.
                177. Rob Edwards, “Toxic Sludge Flows Through the Andes,” New Scientist (November 23, 1996), p. 4.
                178. John E. Young, “Mining the Earth,” Worldwatch Paper No. 109 (Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., July 1992), p. 21.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

                  So to the eco-frauds, the ones who get published in Washington, DC at the World Resources Institute, not only is aluminum toxic, but also copper, also chromium, also nickel, silver, and even gold, too. As one can see above in the article, one eco-fraud quotes the other, and the pyramid of mis-information and junk science grows. But the point is these frauds have the ear of government in Washington, and they also have the good government jobs. They even have the ear of the American courts in law-suits. And they certainly set the programming agenda on the BBC World Television channel.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

                    Yeah, sure. . .You and Peabody Coal appear to have a lot in common. . .As this post of yours elsewhere makes clear:

                    http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/16109-Deepwater-not-performing?p=166980#poststop

                    "Conservation is always a wise policy for consuming any natural resource. But we are lucky with oil because heavy oil locked in the oil sands of Alberta is almost limitless in supply. Investment in the oil sands of Alberta is one of my few profitable investments in recent years, and gold was the other profitable investment for me.

                    I see the future as oil sand up-grading, natural gas from shale-fracking, hydro-electricity from new dams, and atomic power from new atomic reactors, both large-scale and small-scale. There is at least 200 years of heavy oil in Alberta's oil sands, so it's a no-brainer as an investment play. (But I do disclose that I own several oil and gas trusts in the tar sands, so I am advancing or arguing in favour of my own investment portfolio here.) As the light oil plays in deep water become out-of-favour, the heavy oil plays in Alberta become even more attractive. "

                    I love it: "Conservation is always a wise policy for consuming any natural resource."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

                      My computer could not show thread # 16109, so perhaps you might be so kind as to summarize what I posted there. I do own stock in BP, and it has performed quite poorly recently. However, my dividends keep compounding. If you are short BP stock, I think you may have to cover that short, and whatever happens, you would have to cover my dividends. If you would be so kind as to write a cheque to the NYSE to cover the dividends as they compound, thank you.

                      As much as I hate to say so, I am now looking forward to the Repukes running the Congress in 2011, and Obama being a lame-duck after that. It is the anti-energy and anti-drilling policies of the Obama Administration that has soured me on the Demos. That caper with Nancy Pelosi demanding the passage of the TARP so that big and incompetent banks could be bailed-out was unforgiveable too. And then Obama re-appoints Bernanke to head the Fed in 2010. Dr. Chu from the Sierra Club was selected by Obama to run the Energy Department, and then we have the junk studies and the junk science, not to mention the total policy failure in energy planning based upon hope and bird-habitat preservation........... Truly, enough is enough for me!
                      Last edited by Starving Steve; July 03, 2010, 05:47 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

                        Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                        My computer could not show thread # 16109,
                        That is because the link KGW posted is wrong. He should have posted http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/16109-Deepwater-not-performing?p=166980#poststop

                        It's not KGW's fault; those faulty links (missing the /showthread.php/ component in their path) are provided by the web forum software (vBulletin) that iTulip uses. I forget offhand where they come from, but I am sure I knew sometime in the past. Even EJ or FRED has gotten caught with them, posting a bad link this way.
                        Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

                          Yep, these references are sloppy science yet again. The word "production" is even an unfortunate word, because the metals aren't really produced, they are refined or purified.

                          Yes there can be toxic amounts of metals, but the amounts/concentration in the original post about the sea-life are probably not toxic.

                          The emission data are also sloppy. While there can be "pollution" related to too much of a certain material being emitted, often there are several modes where nature reduces or rids itself of the pollution: various types of degradation (mostly for organic substances) including photo-, bio- and other types, and immobilization, where for example a metal combines with another material and sinks to the bottom of the ocean and/or is distributed evenly within other parts of the environment/biosphere.

                          The developed world lives in the cleanest environment known in the history of man. These scare tactics are actually part of the problem in the economy. All of our litigiousness, and environmental red tape is making the developed world less competitive with the 2nd and 3rd world. Our efforts are reaching (have already reached) the point of diminishing returns. Most of the costs heaped on industry are wasted. The costs should be focused on catastrophic failures, such as the BP blowout. Instead we pay millions of bureaucrats to make sure nickel is less than 1 ppb in fish or whale bones. Crazy.
                          Last edited by yernamehear; July 03, 2010, 07:45 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

                            I have always been a strong advocate of conserving energy for two reasons: 1.) it saves money; and 2.) it helps the next generation to have a future.

                            I have always agreed with being green, but this bunch in power now in the Obama Administration are radical greens that rub me the wrong way. We have this same bunch of radical greens in British Columbia too. Radical anything, even radical green, is too radical for me. People come first, NOT rare birds, not salmon habitat, not micro-organisms, and not sperm-whales.

                            Is the NDP in British Columbia reading this post? PEOPLE COME FIRST. So why the love-in with the radical greens in BC; i.e, that was never what being a social-democrat was all about in Canada. Tommie Douglas of Saskatchewan must be turning-over in his grave.
                            Last edited by Starving Steve; July 03, 2010, 07:53 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ain't Progress Grand!

                              Pictured: Edward Burtynsky's "Nickel Tailings #34" reveals the damage done by a nickel plant in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Taken from 'Manufactured Landscapes."

                              Attached Files

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X