Are the toxic contaminates in Oregon's Nearshore rockfish hidden on the path of the road less traveled, or have they suffered the same fate as the Nearshore rockfish species in California. What we found was revealing.
Oregon represents the road less traveled and lags behind California testing program for contaminates in rockfish. Click on the link of red text to view the window to our future.
Click on the following attachments to view the level of contamination in Coos Bay and the contaminated levels in tissue samples taken from fish and crabs. Pay attention to the contamination in fish and crabs tested nearly 30 years ago. Click on Open followed by Allow to open the spread sheet in the file. Coos Bay Sediment Results 92-95.xls (41.5 KB) Tissue Detects 92-95.xls (195.5 KB)
You have the right to know what is in the fish you eat and feed to your family and friends.
Where is Oregon's contaminate testing data for rock fish?
When I recently learned that a Phd from OSU was quoted saying that the Oregon's Sea Lion's meat was too polluted with contaminates to be eaten. How come the alarm bells didn't off go off at ODFW, ODA and OHA? Sea Lions main food supply are the near shore rock fish.
Are people purposely not looking at this possible health risk? Isn't OSU a State college which is owned by the tax payers of Oregon? This reminds me what happened at the Coos Bay superfund sites. Classic agency politics with health consequences. We shouldn't have to beg these people to do the right thing.
Common cancer in a wild animal: the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) as an emerging model for carcinogenesis
Helen M. Browning,1 Frances M. D. Gulland,2 John A. Hammond,3 Kathleen M. Colegrove,4 and Ailsa J. Hall1 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Associated Data
Data Availability Statement
The data published in this study is available through the British Oceanographic Data Centre.
Naturally occurring cancers in non-laboratory species have great potential in helping to decipher the often complex causes of neoplasia. Wild animal models could add substantially to our understanding of carcinogenesis, particularly of genetic and environmental interactions, but they are currently underutilized. Studying neoplasia in wild animals is difficult and especially challenging in marine mammals owing to their inaccessibility, lack of exposure history, and ethical, logistical and legal limits on experimentation. Despite this, California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) offer an opportunity to investigate risk factors for neoplasia development that have implications for terrestrial mammals and humans who share much of their environment and diet. A relatively accessible California sea lion population on the west coast of the USA has a high prevalence of urogenital carcinoma and is regularly sampled during veterinary care in wildlife rehabilitation centres. Collaborative studies have revealed that genotype, persistent organic pollutants and a herpesvirus are all associated with this cancer. This paper reviews research to date on the epidemiology and pathogenesis of urogenital carcinoma in this species, and presents the California sea lion as an important and currently underexploited wild animal model of carcinogenesis.
Urogenital neoplasm From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Urogenital neoplasm Specialty Oncology, genitourinary oncology Edit this on Wikidata
A urogenital neoplasm is a tumor of the urogenital system.
Cancer of the breast and female genital organs: (Breast cancer, Vulvar cancer, Vaginal cancer, Vaginal tumors, Cervical cancer, Uterine cancer, Endometrial cancer, Ovarian cancer) Cancer of the male genital organs (Carcinoma of the penis, Prostate cancer, Testicular cancer) Cancer of the urinary organs (Renal cell carcinoma, Bladder cancer)
This should be cause for concern because of the Columbia River superfund sites.
The Trump administration EPA says regulations to reduce power plant emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants are too costly and should no longer be considered legally "appropriate and necessary."
In another proposed reversal of an Obama-era standard, the Environmental Protection Agency Friday said limiting mercury and other toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants is not cost-effective and should not be considered "appropriate and necessary."
The EPA says it is keeping the 2012 restrictions in place for now, in large part because utilities have already spent billions to comply with them. But environmental groups worry the move is a step toward repealing the limits and could make it harder to impose other regulations in the future.
In a statement, the EPA said it is "providing regulatory certainty by transparently and accurately taking account of both costs and benefits."
The National Mining Association welcomed the move, calling the mercury limits "punitive" and "massively unbalanced."
When coal is burned it releases mercury into the air, where it can cause health risks to people including neurological disorders, heart and lung problems and compromised immune systems. Babies developing in the womb and young children are especially at risk. The main source of exposure is through eating contaminated fish and seafood.
In 2015, a court ordered the EPA to take into account not just the benefits of the mercury rule but also its cost to industry. In its new proposal, the EPA estimates that cost at $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually and the benefits at just $4 million to $6 million a year.
By contrast, the Obama administration had calculated an additional $80 billion in health benefits because particulate matter and other toxic pollutants are also reduced when utilities limit mercury. It said those "co-benefits" included preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths each year.
"What has changed now is the administration's attitude towards public health," said Clean Air Task Force Legal Director Ann Weeks in a statement. Weeks called the EPA's estimates outdated and said more recent research finds billions of dollars in public health benefits from reducing mercury emissions alone.
Others are concerned about the future impact.
"We should not limit ourselves in the ongoing fight against this dangerous pollutant," said mercury expert Celia Chen of the Dartmouth Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program. In a statement, she said the warming climate, for example, might affect mercury's impact on the environment but the EPA's proposal could make it harder to address that. "Regulators need the tools to strengthen mercury controls in the future if needed," she said.
Critics worry that revising the way the costs and health benefits of regulations are calculated could undermine the justification for a range of other environmental rules as well, possibly making them more vulnerable to legal challenge.
Jeff Holmstead doesn't think that's necessarily so. He's a former EPA air administrator now with Bracewell LLP, which represents energy industry clients. In a statement, he said the EPA is not restricting courts from considering the co-benefits of a certain regulation but merely saying it should not justify a regulation like "this case, where virtually all the benefits are co-benefits."
Even though the EPA's mercury standards have faced court challenges, utilities spent more than $18 billion to comply with the requirements. In a letter to the EPA last summer, utilities and regulatory and labor groups said mercury emissions had been reduced by nearly 90 percent over the past decade.
In that letter they also asked the Trump administration's EPA to leave the existing standards in place.
Since many regulators have included the equipment costs in utility rates, some worry that no longer requiring the limits could leave customers paying for the pollution controls without getting cleaner air. That's because it also costs money to continue operating that equipment.
"It's not unreasonable to expect that if the standards go away there will be some number of utilities that will choose to no longer operate pollution controls that they've installed," says Janet McCabe, former acting assistant administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA during the Obama administration.
In 1990 Congress amended the Clean Air Act and advised the EPA to limit mercury emissions from a variety of industries. It took 21 years before the EPA finalized the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants. The standards help meet the country's commitments under the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
The proposal to weaken the mercury limits is the latest in a series of efforts the Trump administration has taken to help the struggling coal business. The federal Energy Information Administration says U.S. coal consumption in 2018 is expected to be at its lowest level in nearly four decades. Even as coal use rises in China and India, the domestic industry has struggled to compete with cheaper electricity produced from natural gas and renewable energy.
In December the administration proposed a revision that would allow coal-fired generators to emit more CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. The EPA has also moved to relax Obama-era regulations on carbon emissions and roll back existing regulations that govern coal ash.
The EPA proposal is open to public comment for 60 days after it is posted in the Federal Register.