ctfisherman.com logo

Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#1706630 - 02/03/17 03:17 PM Re: CT General Assembly January 2017 proposition to BAN the USE, mfc and sale of fishing tackle containing LEAD! [Re: Don P]
onthewater102 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/14/05
Posts: 1128
Loc: Kent, CT
I wonder how many of those "Unknown" deaths in their study were due to Busch beer/pharma contaminated water...
Top
Fishing Info
#1706640 - 02/03/17 05:32 PM Re: CT General Assembly January 2017 proposition to BAN the USE, mfc and sale of fishing tackle containing LEAD! [Re: onthewater102]
Don P Offline

Member

Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 6290
Originally Posted By: onthewater102
I wonder how many of those "Unknown" deaths in their study were due to Busch beer/pharma contaminated water...


Nawwww....you'll live forever like Mick Jagger on all dat stuff.
Top
#1706736 - 02/05/17 05:34 PM Re: CT General Assembly January 2017 proposition to BAN the USE, mfc and sale of fishing tackle containing LEAD! [Re: Don P]
RichZ Offline

Geezer

Registered: 12/29/02
Posts: 5773
Loc: CT
Interesting look into the mind of researchers with an agenda.

As onthewater102 pointed out, they have combined "suspected" with actual lead tackle deaths, and throw that figure around as the total for actual lead deaths. If the study were a study and not an attempt to sell an agenda, the "suspected" numbers would be added to the unknown, not those that are provably fishing tackle lead related.

Even the layout of the chart is misleading. Charts quoting percentage should show the scale on a 100% basis. but it doesn't look as dramatic when you only fill a small portion of the scale, so they left off the empty side.

To be honest the thing that stood out to me as the oddest, is why do loons in a fresh water environment attack each other (intraspecfic trauma) but none in a saltwater environment do.


Edited by RichZ (02/05/17 05:34 PM)

RichZ

Everybody's got to believe something I believe I'll go fishing.

Check out my Bass Blog.
Top
#1706769 - 02/06/17 10:26 AM Re: CT General Assembly January 2017 proposition to BAN the USE, mfc and sale of fishing tackle containing LEAD! [Re: RichZ]
Tod Osier Offline

Member

Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 873
Loc: Newtown, CT
Originally Posted By: RichZ
Interesting look into the mind of researchers with an agenda.

As onthewater102 pointed out, they have combined "suspected" with actual lead tackle deaths, and throw that figure around as the total for actual lead deaths. If the study were a study and not an attempt to sell an agenda, the "suspected" numbers would be added to the unknown, not those that are provably fishing tackle lead related.

Even the layout of the chart is misleading. Charts quoting percentage should show the scale on a 100% basis. but it doesn't look as dramatic when you only fill a small portion of the scale, so they left off the empty side.

To be honest the thing that stood out to me as the oddest, is why do loons in a fresh water environment attack each other (intraspecfic trauma) but none in a saltwater environment do.


In looking at previous work by the group at Tufts (Northeastern Naturalist 16(2):177-182. 2009 ), they scored "suspected lead toxicosis" as: 1) sick/dead loons found with lead in their digestive tract (but not analyzed for lead in the liver to confirm poisoning), 2) sick/dead loons with lead in their digestive tract and showing clinical signs of lead poisoning (but not analyzed for lead in the liver) and 3) sick/dead loons with lead in their digestive tract that had liver lead levels in the 2-6 ppm range (6 ppm is considered toxicosis). For me the conclusion that the total amount confirmed and suspected was presented is acceptable practice because they presented the data individually so that you can see what was absolutely confirmed and what was highly suspected based on a number of characters. Another way to say it is that they show the data individually based on confirmed and suspected but put their best estimate of accurate poisoning out there as 44%.

Either way, as has been said 25% (or 44%) of loon mortality is a lot of loons with toxic levels of lead in them. I am always surprised that this is so common.

As for the question why loons in freshwater have higher intraspecific mortality... It is because loons breed on freshwater lakes and not saltwater. The combative territorial interactions that injure them occur where they breed and claim territory, not where they winter on the ocean.
Top
#1707546 - 02/17/17 10:34 AM Re: CT General Assembly January 2017 proposition to BAN the USE, mfc and sale of fishing tackle containing LEAD! [Re: Don P]
onthewater102 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/14/05
Posts: 1128
Loc: Kent, CT
I think a lot of the disparity in the study between fresh & salt water populations is due to such a large portion of the salt water remains being decomposed or degraded beyond a point where cause of death could be determined.

That said, the freshwater results clearly indicate that lead contamination is an issue. If we REASONABLY curtail the use of lead in favor of less toxic/non toxic options I don't think we will see any improvement in the lead related mortality for quite some time due to the existing material already in the water, but we should be able to avoid any increased mortality due to lead and over time allow the causes of mortality to shift back to more natural ones.

A total lead ban is far from reasonable.
Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3

Moderator:  Editors, EnCon Police, FindBass 


Active Topics