Replies

non point source phosphate pollution in that watershed is now the number one pollutant in the region, right behind it is the point source phosphate from agriculture...

Okay, I believe the facts there, but those are relative by saying "the number 1, number 2". Well the no.1 may not be a problem at all just like my number 1 skin issue may be slight cracking by my finger nails, but thats not a huge issue nor really a problem worth worrying about!

What I defiantly do not buy is the the assertion later:

it was killing huge swathes of the Chesapeake Bay.

I don't believe that for a second "huge swathes." Yeah, something tells me we would have noticed that. And if it was, isn't it already "killed?" Killing means you can't come back to life, you're dead.

This is baloney of the first degree here.

Finally, ponder this... if bedbugs can beat our stuff and survive, and other pests, why can't sea life? ARE THEY SUPER DUPER SPECIAL?

Seems to be the life that can't beat whatever we are putting in there will go, and the resilient and better species will adapt and survive... oh the wonder!

You are from Jersey, you should know better than to be swayed by the "facts" of a doctoral student who decided to focus on environmental assessment. NO AGENDA THERE! /sarc

That is my true skeptic showing here and advanced apologies if your Ph.D friend is one of the rare "true conservatives" who would engage in that level "research" for an environmental cause/field (it could be possible)

Dishwasher detergent from urban areas generally pass through water treatment plants, thus dishwasher detergent are a (small) part of a point source, not a non-point source, contrary to what JerseyHighlander would lead you to believe.

I can't refute the pollution claim, but I can refute the idea that dishwasher detergent has any significant role in the pollution of the Bay.

yeah, well, you answer your own question. killing huge swathes of the bay doesn’t mean it will never return, it just means it takes a long time.

bed bugs were killed in ‘huge swathes’ too, but they slowly came back when the use of certain pesticides was banned.

when huge swathes of the chesapeake die, it isn’t really obvious from the surface. it is obvious to fisherman, and to anyone who knows what the chesapeake was like before it was decimated by pollution and by exploitive fishing/oyster harvesting. it was full of life.

comparing bay ecosystem to a some of the pests that bother humans is problematic. first, you simply can’t compare the amount of industrial and human waste that goes into the ocean to the relatively small amounts of poison that we use in and around our bodies and houses to get rid of pests. it’s an order of magnitude different in scale.

the problem isn’t that some of the life in the bay will survive, or just the strong species will make it, it’s that a healthy marine ecosystem that produces a large amount of healthy sea food that we like to eat is something we want to take care of, not poison or take for granted.

oysters are a great example. we want the bay to be full of them. oysters should be fat and free from carcinogens.the oysters have completely disappeared from certain parts of the bay. even though it hasn’t been harvested in decades, they’re still gone. point is, it can take decades, centuries, or even thousands of years for certain kinds of populations of sea creatures to recover from exploitation and pollution. some never recover.