Re: NANFA-L-- Chicken Estrogen? or? ... Mummy's my Father


Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Chicken Estrogen? or? ... Mummy's my Father
From: Dave Neely (rheopresbe at hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Oct 15 2004 - 16:59:04 CDT


Um, actually, they're not.

Smallmouth were introduced to the Potomac drainage in 1854, from a founder
population of about 20 adults brought from Wheeling, WV to Cumberland, MD,
where they were stocked into the C&O Canal and the adjacent Potomac.

That's mostly irrelevant, though. It's still downright scary, and it's not
likely to be restricted to smallmouths. The South Branch is the cleanest
large tributary to the Potomac left - no major cities and just a bunch of
poultry farms - if this is happening there, I'd hate to know what's going on
below the paper mill on the North Branch.

Cheers,
Dave

--
St. Louis, MO... but originally from Cumberland, MD.

>From: dlmcneely at lunet.edu >Reply-To: nanfa-l at nanfa.org >To: nanfa-l at nanfa.org >Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Chicken Estrogen? or? ... Mummy's my Father >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:40:14 -0500 > >Actually, they are. Note that the bass affected are smallmouth bass near >the Potomac headwaters, not the introduced lm bass downstream (they may be >affected, too, but this article doesn't mention them). > >Dave > >David L. McNeely, Ph.D., Professor of Biology >Langston University; P.O. Box 1500 >Langston, OK 73050; email: dlmcneely at lunet.edu >telephone: (405) 466-6025; fax: 405) 466-3307 >home page http://www.lunet.edu/mcneely > >"Where are we going?" "I don't know, are we there yet?" > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dean A. Markley" <damarkley at earthlink.net> >Date: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:08 pm >Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Chicken Estrogen? or? ... Mummy's my Father > > > Well, those bass aren't natives anyways!!! > > > > Dean > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Watson <onefish2fish at comcast.net> > > Sent: Oct 15, 2004 1:20 PM > > To: nanfa-l at nanfa.org > > Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Chicken Estrogen? or? ... Mummy's my Father > > > > Here's the whole article: > > > > Male Bass in Potomac Producing Eggs > > Pollution Suspected Cause of Anomaly in River's South Branch > > > > By David A. Fahrenthold > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > Friday, October 15, 2004; Page A01 > > > > MOOREFIELD, W.Va. -- The South Branch of the Potomac River is as > > clear as > > bottled water here, where it rolls over a bed of smooth stones > > about 230 > > miles upstream from Washington. But there is a mystery beneath > > this glassy > > surface. > > > > Many of the river's male bass are producing eggs. > > > > Scientists believe this inversion of nature is being caused by > > pollution in > > the water. But they say the exact culprit is still unknown: It > > might be > > chicken estrogen left over in poultry manure, or perhaps human > > hormones > > dumped in the river with processed sewage. Chances are, it is not > > something > > that federal and state inspectors regularly test for in local waters. > > > > The discovery has made the South Branch the latest example of an > > emerging > > national problem: Hormones, drugs and other man-made pollutants > > appear to be > > interfering with the chemical signals that make fish grow and > > reproduce. > > While researchers look for answers in West Virginia, other > > scientists are > > testing Rock Creek, and another group is seeking financial support > > to test > > the rest of the Potomac to see whether they can find the same > > troubling > > effects downstream. > > > > "Whatever's doing this to the fish may be the canary in the > > mineshaft," said > > Margaret Janes, a West Virginia activist with the Appalachian > > Center for the > > Economy and the Environment. > > > > Scientists say it's still too early to tell what these findings > > will mean > > for the bass population in the South Branch; they aren't sure > > whether the > > affected males are still able to reproduce. And no one is aware of > > any > > effects on human health in the Potomac watershed. > > > > But scientists believe that fish might be the first to absorb any > > dangerous > > chemicals that might later affect humans. > > > > "They're likely to be hit first," said Mike Focazio, a researcher > > with the > > U.S. Geological Survey. "We look there, and it seems to be happening." > > > > The situation in West Virginia was discovered by accident, when > > scientists > > from the state and the geological survey were called in to > > investigate > > reports that fish in the South Branch were developing lesions and > > dying en > > masse. > > > > They dissected dozens of bass caught last summer, mainly > > smallmouth bass. > > They found no obvious cause for the lesions or deaths, but did > > discover that > > 42 percent of the male bass had developed eggs inside their sex > > organs. > > The study surprised scientists. Though the South Branch has been > > cited for > > problems with bacteria from poultry manure, state officials said > > it did well > > on most aspects of water-quality testing. > > > > "We always have, and still do, look at this as one of our highest- > > quality > > fisheries," said Patrick Campbell of the state Department of > > Environmental > > Protection. "It's counter-intuitive to think we would have this > > type of > > problem out there." > > > > But the problem is there: A follow-up survey in the spring found > > even higher > > rates of "intersex" bass -- as the affected males are called. A > > study of 66 > > male smallmouths from the South Branch found that about 79 percent > > showed > > such symptoms, according to U.S. Geological Survey data. > > > > The scientists are now analyzing water samples from the South > > Branch and the > > Cacapon River -- a nearby Potomac tributary where intersex bass > > were also > > found. The chemicals they're looking for now are not the well- > > known > > pollutants that the state already tests for, such as nitrogen and > > phosphorus > > from manure and metals from mine runoff. > > > > Instead, the culprit is probably in a class called "emerging > > contaminants," > > which includes everything from caffeine and prescription drugs to > > hormones > > excreted by livestock or humans. > > > > Some of these pollutants have been linked to developmental > > problems in > > wildlife. Scientists believe that fish, especially, absorb > > hormones from > > other animals, as well as other chemicals that their bodies > > mistake for > > hormones. > > > > One recent study near sewage plants in Colorado found male fish > > whose bodies > > were trying to produce eggs and some females whose reproductive > > systems were > > out of sync. Other studies have found similar effects from the > > hormones in > > cow manure and from chemicals from a wood-pulp plant. > > > > "It is certainly an alarming situation that we're seeing more and > > more gross > > effects," said David O. Norris, a professor who worked on the > > Colorado > > study. > > > > These emerging contaminants were hard to detect without the finely > > tuned > > equipment developed recently. The first nationwide survey, > > conducted in 1999 > > and 2000, found hormones in about 37 percent of the streams > > surveyed and > > caffeine in more than half. > > > > The only testing in the Potomac, done in Washington in 2002, found > > low > > levels of caffeine, plus the insecticide DEET and chemicals > > produced when a > > body breaks down nicotine. There were also a few suspected > > endocrine > > disruptors, including chemicals found in hand soap and household > > cleaners. > > As of now, little is done to test for these chemicals -- either in > > river > > water or in drinking water. The U.S. Environmental Protection > > Agency has not > > set standards, saying more research is needed to determine which > > contaminants are harmful and what levels are unsafe. > > > > West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland and the District do not test > > river water > > regularly for drugs or hormones. The same goes for drinking water > > after it > > is processed by the Washington Aqueduct, supplying the District, > > Arlington > > County and Falls Church, and the Washington Suburban Sanitary > > Commission. > > Still, the West Virginia study has spurred scientists to look for > > more > > information. Researchers at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are > > seeking > > money for a much larger study across the Potomac watershed. They > > want to > > look for intersex bass and potentially disruptive chemicals in > > sites > > including the Blue Plains sewage plant in Southwest Washington. > > > > Another federal study is underway in Rock Creek, looking for > > intersex > > symptoms and other health problems in a species of fish called > > white > > suckers. > > > > Scientists across the region stressed that their work is just > > beginning. "We > > really don't know what's going on," said Vicki S. Blazer, a > > researcher for > > the geological survey in West Virginia. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bruce Stallsmith" <fundulus at hotmail.com> > > To: <nanfa-l at nanfa.org> > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:19 PM > > Subject: RE: NANFA-L-- Chicken Estrogen? or? ... Mummy's my Father > > > > > > > The Post requires registration... but I love shooting the poop > > about > > > gonadal steroids. What do they claim? > > > > > > --Bruce Stallsmith > > > the Tennessee > > > Huntsville, AL, US of A > > > > > >>From: "Tom Watson" <onefish2fish at comcast.net> > > >>Reply-To: nanfa-l at nanfa.org > > >>To: <nanfa-l at nanfa.org> > > >>Subject: NANFA-L-- Chicken Estrogen? or? ... Mummy's my Father > > >>Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:18:44 -0700 > > >> > > >>From the Washington Post: > > >> > > >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33850-2004Oct14.html > > >> > > >>There must be a Nanfa person close to this that could shed some > > light?>> > > >>Tom > > >>West Hyblos Creek Drainage > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter > > tools and > > > more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx > > > > > > /---------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------- > > > / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes > > > / Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily > > > / reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information > > about NANFA, > > > / visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to > > nanfa-l are > > > / consistent with the guidelines as per > > > / http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe, > > > / unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and > > > / archive at http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/. > > > > > > > /------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- > > / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes > > / Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily > > / reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information > > about NANFA, > > / visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa- > > l are > > / consistent with the guidelines as per > > / http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe, > > / unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and > > / archive at http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/. > > > > > > > > > > /------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- > > / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes > > / Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily > > / reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information > > about NANFA, > > / visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa- > > l are > > / consistent with the guidelines as per > > / http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe, > > / unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and > > / archive at http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/. > > > > > >/----------------------------------------------------------------------- >/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes >/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily >/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA, >/ visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are >/ consistent with the guidelines as per >/ http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe, >/ unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and >/ archive at http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/. >

_________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

/----------------------------------------------------------------------- / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes / Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily / reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA, / visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are / consistent with the guidelines as per / http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe, / unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and / archive at http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/.



: Fri Dec 31 2004 - 11:27:47 CST