TRI Report

Anyone else see this in the BASSTIMES? This is terribly sad, although it really isn't all that surprising.

[URL]http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster/fishingtips/news/story?page=BT_bonus_201001_bonus_polluted_lakes_rivers[/URL]

Maybe...but then again, you are dealing with people who think CO2 is a pollutant, and are militant enough to give it legal status as such. By the EPA's' definition, the bass themselves are guilty of polluting those rivers.

Not to make light of the situation, but the TRI only lists stuff by weight. Some pollutants are tens of thousands of times more toxic than others. There needs to be some different measure of effect on people and habitat than weight.

One of the toxins measured is arsenic...you have to be kidding me. A longer article also estimated that 49% of freshwater in the U.S. is deemed unsafe for recreational use due to the toxin levels.

You're missing my point, Steve. Arsenic is definitely worth worrying about. IT's a serious problem in some areas. But as toxic waste goes, it's not particularly heavy. Because the TRI is just based on weight, some other "more polluted" watersheds with heavier, but less toxic pollutants, will get more attention than one that is laced with Arsenic.

By the way, you have to understand something about the phrase "deemed unsafe". If you listen to the press, they like to scream "our waters are less safe than ever before...look at the stats!!" What they don't mention is that the definition of a "safe" level of Arsenic has been changed, and for political reasons. It used to be 50 ppb. Clinton changed it to 10 ppb. So if the level in your area used to be 40 ppb, and industry reduced it to 30 ppb, guess what? Your area is now polluted, when it wasn't before, even though the level of pollution went down. These are the games politicians and government agencies play.

It's the same way with diabetes. Haven't you heard the media and the medical community howling about the "diabetes epidemic?" Well, it's because they've changed the very definition of diabetes from a blood glucose level of >200 mgl/dl to >124 mg/dl. So now your health insurance company gets to deny your coverage, and you may not even be able to get life insurance, even though your health hasn't changed at all. Now you're "sick".

Thats a interesting post nofear.

[QUOTE=nofearengineer;396832]You're missing my point, Steve. Arsenic is definitely worth worrying about. IT's a serious problem in some areas. But as toxic waste goes, it's not particularly heavy. Because the TRI is just based on weight, some other "more polluted" watersheds with heavier, but less toxic pollutants, will get more attention than one that is laced with Arsenic.

By the way, you have to understand something about the phrase "deemed unsafe". If you listen to the press, they like to scream "our waters are less safe than ever before...look at the stats!!" What they don't mention is that the definition of a "safe" level of Arsenic has been changed, and for political reasons. It used to be 50 ppb. Clinton changed it to 10 ppb. So if the level in your area used to be 40 ppb, and industry reduced it to 30 ppb, guess what? Your area is now polluted, when it wasn't before, even though the level of pollution went down. These are the games politicians and government agencies play.

It's the same way with diabetes. Haven't you heard the media and the medical community howling about the "diabetes epidemic?" Well, it's because they've changed the very definition of diabetes from a blood glucose level of >200 mgl/dl to >124 mg/dl. So now your health insurance company gets to deny your coverage, and you may not even be able to get life insurance, even though your health hasn't changed at all. Now you're "sick".[/QUOTE]

I didn't miss your point and I understood what you meant. I just find it appalling that Indiana released the most toxins in terms of weight than any other state in the U.S. into waterways.

P.S. The article stated that 90% of the toxins released were nitrates. And carbon dioxide is not considered a toxin or pollutant according to the TRI report.

[QUOTE=SteveM4A1;396877]I didn't miss your point and I understood what you meant. I just find it appalling that Indiana released the most toxins in terms of weight than any other state in the U.S. into waterways.

P.S. The article stated that 90% of the toxins released were nitrates. And carbon dioxide is not considered a toxin or pollutant according to the TRI report.[/QUOTE]

Oh, okay. I thought you meant I had "to be kidding you." I don't want to come off as too preachy.

However, while excess nitrates aren't a great thing, it is very difficult to build up truly toxic levels of nitrates in fresh water. This is due to benthic bacteria in the stinky muck at the bottom of rivers and lakes. These bacteria turn nitrates back into Nitrogen gas and water. There's lots of other smelly processes going on down there at the same time, so it's maybe not easy to see a purification process going on. If nitrate levels increase, the population of these bacteria increase to feed on it. I'm curious as to what the dissolved nitrate levels are in these same waters. Simply because they dumped nitrates in, doesn't mean they're still there.

One place this process doesn't work is in very well-oxygenated waters such as mountain streams and lakes with hard bottoms. Benthic bacteria can't survive there, so there's nothing to control nitrate levels. Polluting these waters is like a crime against nature too.

Steve...does the report say which of the pollutants they found in Indiana water? I'd be very interested to find out. Maybe it's the pollution keeping me from catching any fish last year at Patoka.....yeah, that must have been it. :D

[QUOTE=nofearengineer;396885]Oh, okay. I thought you meant I had "to be kidding you." I don't want to come off as too preachy.

However, while excess nitrates aren't a great thing, it is very difficult to build up truly toxic levels of nitrates in fresh water. This is due to benthic bacteria in the stinky muck at the bottom of rivers and lakes. These bacteria turn nitrates back into Nitrogen gas and water. There's lots of other smelly processes going on down there at the same time, so it's maybe not easy to see a purification process going on. If nitrate levels increase, the population of these bacteria increase to feed on it. I'm curious as to what the dissolved nitrate levels are in these same waters. Simply because they dumped nitrates in, doesn't mean they're still there.

One place this process doesn't work is in very well-oxygenated waters such as mountain streams and lakes with hard bottoms. Benthic bacteria can't survive there, so there's nothing to control nitrate levels. Polluting these waters is like a crime against nature too.

Steve...does the report say which of the pollutants they found in Indiana water? I'd be very interested to find out. Maybe it's the pollution keeping me from catching any fish last year at Patoka.....yeah, that must have been it. :D[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't say, just that we were unfortunately the number 1 polluter. But yea, I am DEFINITELY blaming this on my inability to catch fish on the river below the AK Steel dishcarge :D