PDA

View Full Version : Go ahead, eat the fish at Palos Verde!!



sansou
01-15-2009, 06:51 PM
Local marine-life contaminant levels 'terrifyingly high'

By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 12/22/2008 10:32:50 PM PST


http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site577/2008/1223/20081223_090113_seals2_500.jpg (http://www.dailybreeze.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2240886 ) A seal pops up for a look around in the kelp forest off Long Point in Palos Verdes. (August 2008 photo). (Brad Graverson/Staff Photographer)




More than 35 years after local companies stopped dumping now-banned toxic chemicals off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, a new study shows that seals and sea lions feeding in the area have contamination levels that are "terrifyingly high," according to one environmental advocate.
The California State University, Long Beach, study found that California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals and northern elephant seals have much higher concentrations than previous data has shown for the pesticide DDT and a group of industrial compounds called PCBs.

The chemicals were dumped off San Pedro's White Point from 1947 to 1971 by Harbor Gateway-based Montrose Chemical Corp. and other companies. The ocean pollution resulted in a decadelong legal battle and, in 2001, a $140million settlement with state and federal governments.
More than 120 tons of DDT and PCBs settled on the Palos Verdes Shelf, contaminating many varieties of marine life and changing fishing habits along the coast.

The Cal State study, published this month in the scientific journal Marine Pollution Bulletin, said the contamination levels it found were among the highest ever detected worldwide for marine mammals.
"The results are extremely disturbing because the concentrations of DDT are so extremely high," said Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay. "I personally have not seen values this high in any species." Gold said the study indicates that the federal Environmental
Protection Agency "urgently" needs to move forward with its delayed clean-up effort. A plan is set to be released early next year, an EPA official said.


Last year, a broad federal study, funded by the Montrose settlement, showed that many species of fish along the Palos Verdes Shelf remained contaminated. Advisories to anglers about limiting consumption have been in effect since 1991.

Previous studies have looked at contaminants in sea lions and seals along the California coast, but few have focused specifically on the Palos Verdes Shelf, a DDT "hot spot."

The new study looked at 145 seals and sea lions - called pinnipeds - that were stranded on the coast of Los Angeles and Orange counties from 1994 to 2006, using tissue samples saved by marine mammal centers in San Pedro and Laguna Beach.

California sea lions had, on average, 594 parts per million of DDT and 87 parts per million for PCB. Results were much higher for Pacific harbor seals, which had a small sample size, and lower for Northern elephant seals, which typically come to the region's waters only for breeding and molting. The pinnipeds' high body-fat content makes them particularly susceptible to the accumulation of fat-loving DDT
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site577/2008/1223/20081223_085940_seals_300.jpg (http://www.dailybreeze.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2240881 ) Seals sleep on a buoy off the coast of Palos Verdes Estates in a September 2008 file photo. (Silvia Flores/Press Enterprise-Scripps Howard News Service photo )



and PCBs, as does their position higher on the food chain, said Gwen Goodmanlowe, the Cal State Long Beach lecturer who published the study with graduate student Mary Ellen Blasius.

Concentrations of the chemicals generally declined over the period of the study but remained high.

"To me, the take-home message is that we stopped dumping this stuff 30-something years ago, and it's still causing problems," Goodmanlowe said.
"We don't know if they're dying from these (chemicals), but there is a possibility that these animals with these high levels are suspectable to other things - cancer, suppressed immune systems," she said.
During the Montrose litigation, seals and sea lions were never proved to show measurable effects from the contamination, so the species are not part of restoration plans, said David Witting, a federal fish biologist.
"There was never any doubt that there was lots of DDT in sea lions," said Witting, who helps oversee restoration programs funded by the Montrose settlement. "The question is, is it hurting them?"
That matter has never been investigated, in part because it's a difficult topic to study and it's almost impossible to isolate the effects of DDT and PCBs, Goodmanlowe said.

The effects of chemical contaminants of pinnipeds may have been ignored in part because - unlike bald eagles - sea lions and seals have seen continued population growth, Witting said.
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com (melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com)

Tail Chaser
01-16-2009, 11:28 AM
Thanks for that info sanou.
I have wondered about that for a few years.
Now for sure, I know which way im not going.

tpfishnfool
01-16-2009, 11:37 AM
I dont see a problem you guys !! I feel fine...

one_leg
01-16-2009, 12:25 PM
I dont see a problem you guys !! I feel fine...


If it did that to your face imagine what it must do to the brains of the people that catch and eat fish off of Long Beach.

I will pass, thank you very much!!!
Thanks goodness JapanRon never eats the fish from out there.

Tail Chaser
01-16-2009, 01:13 PM
I dont see a problem you guys !! I feel fine...

Funny Pic there :ROFL:

sansou
01-16-2009, 01:37 PM
If it did that to your face imagine what it must do to the brains of the people that catch and eat fish off of Long Beach.

I will pass, thank you very much!!!
Thanks goodness JapanRon never eats the fish from out there.

Axe to grind with Long Beach? FYI: Long Beach is not the site of a Fed Superfund, unlike a particular area off Palos Verde.

FISH_HUNTER
01-16-2009, 01:39 PM
:OMG!::Shocked:Thanks for the heads up Sansou....................But don't tell me ALL of us at some time or another hasn't EATEN fish/bugs caught from that area?!

sansou
01-16-2009, 01:48 PM
:OMG!::Shocked:Thanks for the heads up Sansou....................But don't tell me ALL of us at some time or another hasn't EATEN fish/bugs caught from that area?!


So true.

Keep in mind that about a year and a half ago, this was a hotly debated topic here on FNN!! I posted this most recent article as it seems to add concrete scientific evidence to the fact that we have to watch out where we choose to keep our fish.

one_leg
01-16-2009, 01:54 PM
Axe to grind with Long Beach? FYI: Long Beach is not the site of a Fed Superfund, unlike a particular area off Palos Verde.

Hey, you posted this thread in the first place. I got no beef with any city in California.


BTW, did you read the Army Corp of Engineers report?

Here is a snipet from the report.


"The volume of the entire mapped EA layer has been estimated at
approximately 9 million cubic meters, and the mapped layer covers a surface area
of approximately 40 square kilometers. The volume of the contaminated sediment
is large and well in excess of those volumes which would provide economies of
scale for potential restoration/ remediation alternatives."

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel99-2.pdf

Linked from this page: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Palos+Verdes+Shelf?OpenDocument



That pretty much includes the entire area along the coastline from above Malibu to below Long Beach. And the water flows down the coast for the most part?

Rich, why do you always gotta make everything personal? I will fish at the Islands from now on. LBSF has boats that go to the Islands. You don't hear me saying people should not fish out of LBSF, do you? Think before you write. See you soon.

Wingnut
01-16-2009, 02:14 PM
Rich, why do you always gotta make everything personal? I will fish at the Islands from now on. LBSF has boats that go to the Islands. You don't hear me saying people should not fish out of LBSF, do you? Think before you write. See you soon.


That's because if you would stay off of people's thread like THEY ASKED you to, you might avoid the response that you don't want to hear... get it?!?

one_leg
01-16-2009, 02:19 PM
That's because if you would stay off of people's thread like THEY ASKED you to, you might avoid the response that you don't want to hear... get it?!?


What are you talking about? Trout Only didn't author this thread.

sansou
01-16-2009, 02:30 PM
What are you talking about? Trout Only didn't author this thread.

Well, add me to the growing list of members who are asking the same thing.

I guess my 2008 request must have expired and must be renewed for 2009. While we are at it, let's go ahead and make it a request for 2010 too.

Wingnut
01-16-2009, 02:31 PM
What are you talking about? Trout Only didn't author this thread.

What does Bob have to do with it... care to elaborate?
Careful, he's a sponsor and a possitive contributor to this board.

FISH_HUNTER
01-16-2009, 03:05 PM
:Shocked::EyePop::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::Dead Horse::Dead Horse::Nut Kick::Popcorn::Popcorn::Popcorn::Popcorn::Popcorn: :Popcorn:......................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...QUOTING A BANKRUPT BUT FAMOUS OR INFAMOUS ONCE CELEBRITY "CAN'T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG"! :LOL:

ghetto dad
01-16-2009, 06:28 PM
Well, add me to the growing list of members who are asking the same thing.

I guess my 2008 request must have expired and must be renewed for 2009. While we are at it, let's go ahead and make it a request for 2010 too.

:ROFL::ROFL: I want to put a request in for a one_leg free thread until 2050 please......and i dont mean just MY threads.....


GD

a biley
01-16-2009, 06:57 PM
I dont see a problem you guys !! I feel fine...

thats messed, up, he's my uncle, so i know thats not you!

tpfishnfool
01-16-2009, 09:43 PM
The Wing Ding sounded pissed OL . Better get out the save my *** pills !! LOL

dockboy
01-17-2009, 01:01 AM
Well getting on with the issue this thread started on. DDT resides in the fat of animals it contaminates. In animals like marine mammals, the DDT builds up quickly due to high levels of fat in the form of blubber. DDT and other contaminants such as PCBs, are long lived. Indeed, DDT has a life of nearly 40 years before major degradation occurs.
There is a belief in the toxicology community that DDT is a xenoestrogen. A foreign (xeno) estrogen causes many severe issues, especially reporductive. However, though often no other xenoestrogens were present in cases when DDT was believed to be a potential agent, there is no solid scientific evidence to prove DDT an xenoestogen.
In areas with high DDT concentrations fish have been proven a vector contaminant species. As vectors, unlike seals, the fish do not suffer the effects of the DDT in their bodies. However, as the DDT is conumed by higher life forms with more fatty tissue, ie. marine mammals and humans, the build up increases and affects them. For example, in Menorca (sic), the inhabitants live on a heavy fish diet. Studies of cord serum from pregnant women showed DDT, when consumed with significant buildup, worked into the serum and degraded into its secondary state, DDe-. Exposed levels of DDe- was linked to increased asthma rates and decreased immune systems in children of women who had high levels of DDT buildup in their serum.
Basically...dont eat the fish! The effects of DDT are not immediate. But they persist on a long generational scale. What you eat today may very well cause problems for the children of the future.

socalhover
01-17-2009, 05:49 PM
i've known about the dumping into santa monica and pv... i'm not surprised about long beach... i know not to eat the fish in the harbor / bays.

how come it's ok to eat crab, lobster, shrimp, shellfish and other bottom dwelling fish (halibut, sculpin, rockfish, etc.) along the coast and inshore?

BIGRED KILLA
01-17-2009, 06:04 PM
i've known about the dumping into santa monica and pv... i'm not surprised about long beach... i know not to eat the fish in the harbor / bays.

how come it's ok to eat crab, lobster, shrimp, shellfish and other bottom dwelling fish (halibut, sculpin, rockfish, etc.) along the coast and inshore?



It's not okay to eat them they are toxic throw them back.





Bigred

gavin310
01-17-2009, 09:32 PM
how come it's ok to eat crab, lobster, shrimp, shellfish and other bottom dwelling fish (halibut, sculpin, rockfish, etc.) along the coast and inshore?

It's not "OK" to eat them, everyone just does it... :EyePop: I personally will only eat bugs that are out quite a ways, like Catalina. Sometimes I eat fish I catch out of this ocean, but I try to go far north around or past Malibu and it's only rarely.

Is DDT the stuff in bug spray? If you eat enough of it do you not have to use bug spray? :ROFL:

GeordyBass
01-17-2009, 09:58 PM
The DDT makes the fish more tastier,especially deep fried seals.




Bigred


:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

It's fun saying what you were thinking,but didn't decide to post Mr. Redman.:Twisted::LOL:

J/K...

You are what you eat,ehhh???

dockboy
01-18-2009, 11:04 AM
DDT is not in bug spray. That is DEET, which has no serious environmental effects to its use thus far. DDT was heavily used in the 30s-60s as a general use pesticide.As a complex chlorine compund, it was strong and does not degrade. Its owner actually received the Nobel prize for his discovery. One solid application of DDT lasts for decades in the soil and animal tissue. Thats why its also a concern in third and second world nations with malaria issues. DDT is cheap, and kills all the mosquitoes. Its a troubling decision.

The inshore and coastal fish, with exceptions like PV, are probably safe to eat. Unless exposure is at a high level like there, fish generally dont concentrate high levels of DDT. Shellfish are different. They are bottom feeders, and whatever the sediment has they have. I would be more concerned, however, in the majority of cases about things like harmful acid in shellfish. Shellfish become toxic when there are heavy algal blooms (red tides are an example). With increased sewage runoff from urban areas, the nutrient levels increase and the algal blooms supersize.

WJC71
01-19-2009, 08:20 AM
What are you talking about? Trout Only didn't author this thread.

:ROFL:


What does Bob have to do with it... care to elaborate?
Careful, he's a sponsor and a possitive contributor to this board.

:Worship:

Wow................
I guess members have to watch their P's and Q's from now on

It's best to be impartial
especially when you have "FNN" attached to your name