|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
StriperTalk! All things Striper |
 |
06-14-2012, 11:08 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven
doesn't pay to eat them
that's for sure
old fish have been absorbing
mercury from rainfall....
and not necessarily from USA smoke stacks
|
I heard a lot of the mercury accumulation comes from menhaden and some of the other critters they eat.
|
|
|
|
06-15-2012, 12:51 AM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: RI
Posts: 383
|
no sense at all
smokestacks = rainfall = acid rain = mercury in fish.
coal tar. yum
|
|
|
|
06-15-2012, 07:47 AM
|
#3
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,408
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmah
no sense at all
smokestacks = rainfall = acid rain = mercury in fish.
coal tar. yum
|
It actually makes a lot of sense... many toxins come from bioaccumulation of small doses in the fatty tissue.
|
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^^^^^^^^^^^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
06-15-2012, 11:25 AM
|
#4
|
........
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,805
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
bioaccumulation of small doses in the fatty tissue.
|
over a period of 30 years and it only took say ten years
to reach the danger level if that 30 year old fish had three times the amount needed to be considered Hazardous for human consumption.
so how old is a 30 inch fish ?
|
|
|
|
06-15-2012, 11:38 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hyde Park, MA
Posts: 4,152
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought acid rain is more of a contributor of carcinogenics than of mercury.
Isn't mercury pollution more the result of our own logging industry and CURRENT polluting of our own rivers and streams?
Sadly, it affects both fresh and salt water inhabitants eqaully.
The larger the predator, the more mercury they absorb from their prey, their prey's prey and their prey's prey's prey etc......
Whether it's acid rain or mercury pollution, we all lose in the end!!!
|
|
|
|
06-15-2012, 12:27 PM
|
#6
|
........
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,805
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FishermanTim
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought acid rain is more of a contributor of carcinogenics than of mercury.
Isn't mercury pollution more the result of our own logging industry and CURRENT polluting of our own rivers and streams?
Sadly, it affects both fresh and salt water inhabitants eqaully.
The larger the predator, the more mercury they absorb from their prey, their prey's prey and their prey's prey's prey etc......
Whether it's acid rain or mercury pollution, we all lose in the end!!!
|
quite true.... speaking of Carcinogens...diesel fumes have now been linked to cancer...
seems pretty dammed stupid to be shuttling kids around in diesel fueled buses now doesn't it...
Mercury is being widely used in Gold Mining especially down in countries like Brazil where its reminiscent of the gold mining days
of the old wild west... and probably in Alaska too to some degree...
it's mercury though that causes brain dysfunctional learning disabilities in kids and it gets then stored in OUR fatty tissues
until we reach the Toxic levels where it manifests into health problems as we metabolize fat
|
|
|
|
06-15-2012, 12:30 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FishermanTim
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought acid rain is more of a contributor of carcinogenics than of mercury.
Isn't mercury pollution more the result of our own logging industry and CURRENT polluting of our own rivers and streams?
|
That's why I was asking because I thought the Mercury was from other contributing factors, but not nearly as articulate as you do. Thanks for the extra info.
|
|
|
|
06-15-2012, 02:13 PM
|
#8
|
Not Jack
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Other Cape
Posts: 1,239
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FishermanTim
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought acid rain is more of a contributor of carcinogenics than of mercury.
Isn't mercury pollution more the result of our own logging industry and CURRENT polluting of our own rivers and streams?
|
I forget the exact mechanism (been a while since environmental chem), but combustion releases mercury into the atmosphere, it gets precipitated then becomes methyl mercury, which is absorbed by plankton/inverts... those are eaten in turn by smaller critters, then fish, etc... which leads to the bio-accumulation RIR spoke of.
Power plant emissions have historically accounted for about a third of the mercury pollution present in the US each year- a pretty significant amount. Thankfully the EPA finally put restrictions on power plants to curb mercury emissions last year, so hopefully we'll be seeing less of it in gamefish going forward. When I was in college I helped with a project done by one of the professors (Mercury contaminants in commercial and recreational finfish of Narragansett Bay, RI)- some interesting findings. Bluefish had the least amount of mercury (due to no minimum size and a fast growth rate) followed by striped bass. Tautog however were by far the worst- they grow so slowly that by the time they're of legal size they're pretty old, and are completely loaded with mercury. Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
 |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:44 AM.
|
| |