 |
|
|
previous topic :: next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ptavv
Since 29 May 2006
30 Posts
|
 Thu Jul 27, 06 3:20 pm |
 |
|
| pdxmonkeyboy wrote: | http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=396612&in_page_id=1770
|
I was generally puzzled by what these researchers purportedly found based on this article. So I found the journal article in which they published their findings (Environmental Science & Technology, 34(8), 1521-1528).
The preface to their paper is particularly interesting, and seems to have been completely disregarded by the author of the news story in order to make his story more sensationalistic. Emphasis added by me.
| Quote: | Sewage treatment works (STW) effluents throughout the
U.K. have been shown to be estrogenic, inducing vitellogenin
(VTG) synthesis in caged and wild fish for considerable
distances (up to several kilometers) downstream of the effluent
discharge. Thresholds for vitellogenin induction in caged
fish in those studies have been derived from shortterm
exposures, and may not necessarily be representative
of thresholds for estrogenic responses in wild fish living
in rivers that contain STW effluent. In addition, very little is
known about the long-term fluctuations in the concentrations
of the estrogenic components of STW effluents. In this
paper, it was established that the concentrations of natural
steroid estrogens and xenoestrogens (alkylphenolic
chemicals) in a treated sewage effluent fluctuated temporally
(over 8 months), from between 36 and 308 ng/L and
between <0.2 (detection limit) and 10.7 íg/L, respectively.
Long-term exposure of maturing adult roach to a graded
concentration of this effluent (0, 9.4, 17.5, 37.9, and 100% v/v)
demonstrated that the vitellogenic response was both
dose and time dependent. After 1 month exposure, the
response threshold was 37.9(2.3% treated sewage effluent,
whereas after 4 months exposure, a significant induction
of VTG occurred at an effluent concentration of 9.4 ( 0.9%.
The data presented suggests that estrogenic responses
in wild fish living in U.K. rivers cannot necessarily be predicted
from short-term exposures using caged fish. The functional
significance and/or ecological consequences of induction
of vitellogenin resulting from exposure to STW effluent has
yet to be determined in wild fish. |
So basically they're saying if you cage some fish and keep them locked in an area exposed to much higher levels of effleuent than normal, you'll see ridiculous changes in their physiology, no surprise there.
There are a bunch of citations in the article, but I don't really have time to read through them, perhaps tomorrow, or next time I get a break in my workflow. |
|
|
pdxmonkeyboy
Since 16 May 2006
6081 Posts
forever labled as the
retired kiter & motorhead Unicorn Master
|
| Fri Jul 28, 06 9:06 am |
|
|
Weird that they would include such a disclaimer in a research paper. To be honest, it seems that concentrations would need to be higher to have an effect but fish have such a permeable skin that I thought it was possible, especially if the hormones were fat soluable..which I don't know if they are.
All this stuff is totally off topic, unless you like to kiteboard and are thinking about having a sex change. I just find it really interesting and its always good to spread a little info about what is going on in the world.
One questions though, how do they seal those sites? |
|
|
ptavv
Since 29 May 2006
30 Posts
|
| Fri Jul 28, 06 9:34 am |
|
|
In order to "seal" it they built a cement (IIRC) wall that blocks ~16 acres of the site off from the water table. It extends down into the ground below the riverbed, to the bottom of the water table (I don't remember how deep, it's been awhile since I had anything to do with the site).
They also removed 30,000 tons or so of contaminated soil and 2,000 gallons of contaminated water from wells they drilled on the site.
Considering the amount of metals (which I forgot to mention in my OP about the M&B site, there was a bunch of arsenic and zinc present on the site), PAHs, and other nasty chemicals, they did a good job. When I was still at the University of Portland we went down and did some analysis of the soil, river water, and sediment near the site as part of an analysis to determine whether the University was still interested in purchasing the property. Our findings were all pretty solid, and the site seems to be contained pretty well.
This whole thread reminds me how much I want to get out of my current job and into enviromental consulting.  |
|
|
pdxmonkeyboy
Since 16 May 2006
6081 Posts
forever labled as the
retired kiter & motorhead Unicorn Master
|
| Fri Jul 28, 06 10:05 am |
|
|
I can tell you from first hand experience that env. consulting can be a pain in the arse. I am a wetland and habitat specialist so I often have the pleasure of telling private landowners that portions of the property are essentially worthless to them (always fun). And I get allot of calls from regulators and code enforcement people about my clients "doing it wrong".
I have to deal with ALOT of red tape but I can't begin to fathom the amount of paperwork required to clean up polluted sites. The EPA is such a fun group of happy go lucky and pragmatic people  . |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
