Is Nature Polluting Itself? A Look at Water Contamination Sources

[Kenneth Mann]

A rather curious development was reported in the Friday (Sept. 29) Washington Post --- that "nature is apparently polluting itself". Within most rivers and streams within the Maryland, Virginia area --- it has been found through water testing(for bacteria) --- that most of the pollution is coming from animals in the wild, like deer, geese and raccoons; not from people, their pets and domestic farm animals. Much of this stems from the fact that we have large and growing populations of these creatures.

This would seem to hint that, just maybe, there was a flaw in our original clean-water assumptions. The question to be answered then is --- "how clean should the environment be"? What if wildlife pollution exceeds the set standards?
1) Do we kill the animals to meet the standards? (Sounds like a political nightmare)
2) Do we try to clean up behind them? (Sounds like a bank-breaker.)
3) Do we bring back the natural predators. (Imagine a Congressman looking out his window at a bear walking down Massachusetts Avenue.)

We needn't worry though. Those who do our thinking for us have apparently come up with an answer --- "Just ignore the wildlife and deal with leaking sewer pipes" (and other human sources).

KM

 

[Mk]

This would seem to hint that, just maybe, there was a flaw in our original clean-water assumptions. The question to be answered then is --- "how clean should the environment be"? What if wildlife pollution exceeds the set standards?
1) Do we kill the animals to meet the standards? (Sounds like a political nightmare)
2) Do we try to clean up behind them? (Sounds like a bank-breaker.)
3) Do we bring back the natural predators. (Imagine a Congressman looking out his window at a bear walking down Massachusetts Avenue.)

No, no, no. It is all in the last thread. Moonbear's posts and the middle part of Micheal Crichton's speech covered this fairly well I believe.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, no, no. It is all in the last thread. Moonbear's posts and the middle part of Micheal Crichton's speech covered this fairly well I believe.

And what thread would that be?

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Nature is emo and is commiting suicide, I wonder why(!)

 

[Chi Meson]

I live 300 yards away from an estuary that used to be full of life. People could catch fish and shell fish to their hearts content. Right now, there are no fish there, and all of the shell fish are toxic.

Tell me, why don't you, Rush O'Riley, that the killings of our waterways are because of raccoon poop. Tell me that it is OK to dump our mining waste in streams since deer are going to pee in in anyway.

 

[DaveC426913]

I live 300 yards away from an estuary that used to be full of life. People could catch fish and shell fish to their hearts content. Right now, there are no fish there, and all of the shell fish are toxic.

Tell me, why don't you, Rush O'Riley, that the killings of our waterways are because of raccoon poop. Tell me that it is OK to dump our mining waste in streams since deer are going to pee in in anyway.

While the anecotal recount may be true, it does not invalidate the OP's point that Man is not the only polluter. And I don't think anyone's suggresting that makes it OK to continue for us to pollute. What it deos indicate is that we may not know as much as - nor be as responsible as we thought for - pollution.

 

[JasonRox]

While the anecotal recount may be true, it does not invalidate the OP's point that Man is not the only polluter. And I don't think anyone's suggresting that makes it OK to continue for us to pollute. What it deos indicate is that we may not know as much as - nor be as responsible as we thought for - pollution.

So, who did these tests? Who paid who?

Honestly, I'm not that stupid to fall for this kind of crap. We messed up the planet in so many ways. The least we can do is help the wildlife and give back a little.

Sadly, if outside intelligence ever found this planet, I'd be embarassed to say I'm human. This planet is a mess.

Note: This post isn't geared towards you Dave. :tongue2:

 

[Chi Meson]

What this test is doing is trying to redefine pollution as "anything that is not water." If anyone is suggesting that "natural pollutants" are just as bad as heavy metals, VOC's, acids and bases, then you really are missing something.

This is another case of "trees cause more air pollution than industry," or whatever the actual RR quote is.

I am nota raving liberal, but this right-wing envorinmental backlashing really ticks me off. The "logical conclusion" of the OP is a standard neocon non-sequetor that always convinces the weak minded that "environmentalism has gone too far." I'm very thankful, actually, that there are streams in Maryland where the contaminants are NOT primarily man-made toxins.

What does the OP really intend? Just say it. So far I'm reading it as "Our environmental laws are too extreme; if we allow nature itself to add toxins to our waterways, then we too should be allowed to dump our refuse into rivers and streams."

Am I reading you correctly? IF not, tell me what you do mean.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

What this test is doing is trying to redefine pollution as "anything that is not water." If anyone is suggesting that "natural pollutants" are just as bad as heavy metals, VOC's, acids and bases, then you really are missing something.

This is another case of "trees cause more air pollution than industry," or whatever the actual RR quote is.

I am nota raving liberal, but this right-wing envorinmental backlashing really ticks me off. The "logical conclusion" of the OP is a standard neocon non-sequetor that always convinces the weak minded that "environmentalism has gone too far." I'm very thankful, actually, that there are streams in Maryland where the contaminants are NOT primarily man-made toxins.

I don't see the need for a 'rant' session; no one has suggested your "neocon" reaction of easing up on protection of the environment from man's ravages. On the other hand, it is equally a non-sequitor to apply the "neolib" response by ignoring the effects of factors that are not directly contributed by man (but that have come about indirectly because of man's actions) --- such as those stemming from the burgeoning overpopulation of certain species (because their natural predators have been eliminated or because easy sources of food and shelter have been provided them). We have caused these species overpopulations, and it has its consequences, and no head-in-the-sand approach is going to rectify this.

First, the rivers and streams of the Virginia/Maryland vicinity have largely been cleaned up of heavy metals and industrial wastes, and whatever remains I trust can be taken care of. There are still problems of the likes of phosphate and silt run-off, such as from farms, homes and construction sites, but these too are not being ignored. What the article was dealing with was specifically "bacterial contamination", most of which can to a large extent be isolated to and identified with the animal species (including man) in which they reside. The entire purpose of the effective laws is to make the lakes, rivers and streams suitable for "swimming". If that is to be done, it makes absolutely no sense to simply push to reduce to a negligible amount those bacteria contributed by man and his animals --- while ignoring those from creatures in the wild. Our "animal rights" notions are taking us into realms of the absurd --- notions that didn't even exist before the 1970s, and are now taken by many as universal and sacrosanct.

What does the OP really intend? Just say it. So far I'm reading it as "Our environmental laws are too extreme; if we allow nature itself to add toxins to our waterways, then we too should be allowed to dump our refuse into rivers and streams."

Am I reading you correctly? IF not, tell me what you do mean.

Actually, I read it just the other way --- which is not logically equivalent to yours --- that "if we can't allow man to overpollute the waterways, we can't allow nature to do it either --- the result is just as disasterous.

Actually: "Neocons" and "Neolibs" are so different that they are almost alike. A Neocon is so certain that he is correct that he doesn't even bother listening to counter-arguments --- while a Neolib is so uncertain of himself that he doesn't dare face a counterargument, lest it overwhelm his own. He simply resorts immediately to name-calling and demonizing. As result, both extremes come across making equal impressions of intolerance.

KM

 

[Kenneth Mann]

So, who did these tests? Who paid who?

The concerned States did them.

KM

 

[Chi Meson]

First, the rivers and streams of the Virginia/Maryland vicinity have largely been cleaned up of heavy metals and industrial wastes, and whatever remains I trust can be taken care of. There are still problems of the likes of phosphate and silt run-off, such as from farms, homes and construction sites, but these too are not being ignored. What the article was dealing with was specifically "bacterial contamination", most of which can to a large extent be isolated to and identified with the animal species (including man) in which they reside. The entire purpose of the effective laws is to make the lakes, rivers and streams suitable for "swimming". If that is to be done, it makes absolutely no sense to simply push to reduce to a negligible amount those bacteria contributed by man and his animals --- while ignoring those from creatures in the wild. Our "animal rights" notions are taking us into realms of the absurd --- notions that didn't even exist before the 1970s, and are now taken by many as universal and sacrosanct.

Your steady moderate tone here is in contrast to your OP which does sound (sorry to say) like it came from the neocon playbook. ("Those who do our thinking for us" etc) Oddly, my next line of argument was to be essentially what you just said about habitat and predator reduction. As this is a man-made problem, I am of the opinion that if we can't live with the appropriate ecological balance, then we don't get to swim in the water.
RE intention of OP:

Actually, I read it just the other way --- which is not logically equivalent to yours --- that "if we can't allow man to overpollute the waterways, we can't allow nature to do it either --- the result is just as disasterous.

I disagree with the "just as disaterous" part. Nature has a long way to go be for it achieves our level of disaster. And I again think that the conditions here are anything but natural.

It appears you are in favor of either culling the wildlife to reduce bacterial contamination OR removing environmental restrictions on levels of human contamination.

In a much calmer tone I ask, is this what you mean?

 

[JasonRox]

The concerned States did them.

KM

So, the Republican party probably did.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

Your steady moderate tone here is in contrast to your OP which does sound (sorry to say) like it came from the neocon playbook. ("Those who do our thinking for us" etc)

I have this little thing for allowing "bureaucrats" to set policy, even though I know that politicians have neither the guts nor often the intelligence. Our rules and policies are established by unelected officials within agencies, and this has always been a problem in my way of thinking. There is nothing different in this case. They have (according to the article) decided to push for enforcing human compliance while at the same time ignoring the effects of animals in the wild. This is probably due in part to the fact that the public at large is relatively compliant, whereas animal rights groups are not.

I disagree with the "just as disaterous" part. Nature has a long way to go be for it achieves our level of disaster. And I again think that the conditions here are anything but natural.

And I disagree with you! Where bacteria is concerned, that which comes from wild animals is just as harmful as that from humans, and in this case, nature has more than matched man.

It appears you are in favor of either culling the wildlife to reduce bacterial contamination OR removing environmental restrictions on levels of human contamination.

In a much calmer tone I ask, is this what you mean?

Concerning removing restrictions --- no! Concerning the other --- precisely! I have no "Bambi" inhibitions. (This will probably get me demonized by Bambi lovers.) Now, I admit a problem. I don't have the faintest idea how it can be done.

KM

 

[Kenneth Mann]

So, the Republican party probably did.

Actually, Maryland is a Democratic state with a Republican governor, and Virginia is a Republican state with a Democratic governor, so I suspect that the parties had to cooperate in both cases --- as strange as that might sound.

KM

 

[Mk]

And what thread would that be?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=133901

 

[edward]

Getting back to the OP. Wildlife and nature itself can of course account for certain types of polution. But what could cause this:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Scientists say abnormal "intersex" fish, with both male and female characteristics, have been discovered in the Potomac River and its tributaries across the Capitol Region, raising questions about how contaminants are affecting millions of people who drink tap water there.
"I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows, the answer to that question right now: Is the effect in the fish transferable to humans?" said Thomas Jacobus, general manager of the Washington Aqueduct, which filters river water for residents to drink in the District of Columbia, Arlington, Va., and Falls Church, Va.

The worrisome fish were first found in a West Virginia stream in 2003. Now, scientists are finding male smallmouth and largemouth bass with immature eggs in their sex organs at testing sites dotting the region.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-09-06-intersex-fish_x.htm?csp=15

I am betting that this problem is not caused by bear poop.

 

[edward]

A rather curious development was reported in the Friday (Sept. 29) Washington Post --- that "nature is apparently polluting itself". Within most rivers and streams within the Maryland, Virginia area --- it has been found through water testing(for bacteria) --- that most of the pollution is coming from animals in the wild, like deer, geese and raccoons; not from people, their pets and domestic farm animals. Much of this stems from the fact that we have large and growing populations of these creatures.

We have an increasing population in many species of wildlife because man has killed off their natural enemies. There is no longer a balance of nature.

 

[Chi Meson]

We have an increasing population in many species of wildlife because man has killed off their natural enemies. There is no longer a balance of nature.

I think that we all agree on this point. What does happen after this point? My own general opinion is that we must lie down in our own mess. As to the point of culling wildlife, we have a nature preserve where I live. Every few years they have to thin the deer poulation in order to preserve the preserve. Animal rightists are up in arms. The hunters are up in real arms. The hunt proceeds each time.

If the problem is raccoons, just wait for the first case of rabies. Whoosh! watch as raccoon heads pile up at the local animal pathologist lab. Now if the problem is squirrles, I dunno. They repopulate so quickly...more hawks? Canada geese? Make it illegal to feed them during winter.

Then again, if solutions were simple, there would never be a problem.

 

[DaveC426913]

We have an increasing population in many species of wildlife because man has killed off their natural enemies. There is no longer a balance of nature.

Let's just put this in perspective.

There is no such thing as a "balance of nature". Species wipe out other species all the time. Extinction and population blooms are part of nature. True, the ecosystem is often relatively stable over long periods, but species come and go.

I do not state this to justify the loss of habitats and species, I merely wish to ensure that we don't make the classic mistake of presuming there is a "balance of nature" that we are trying to "protect".

 

[Averagesupernova]

^^^^^^^^^You beat me to it Dave.

 

[edward]

Let's just put this in perspective.

There is no such thing as a "balance of nature". Species wipe out other species all the time. Extinction and population blooms are part of nature.

Exactly Dave, that is the balance of nature. An over population in the wild is usually followed by a natural event that controls that population. Humans interfere with this natural process for instance, when we step into control diseases or kill off predators.

 

[Blahness]

Humans interfere with this natural process for instance, when we step into control diseases or kill off predators.

Interfere with it, or aid it?

After all, we ARE from nature.

 

[DaveC426913]

Exactly Dave, that is the balance of nature. An over population in the wild is usually followed by a natural event that controls that population. Humans interfere with this natural process for instance, when we step into control diseases or kill off predators.

No. Sometimes they establish an equilibrium for a while, often they wipe out whole species or even whole ecologies. This is natural. Any balances are temporary, and there's no way of deciding how long they might last - it could a couple of generations as easily as a hundred.

Humans are part of nature too. We maximize our own species just like every other creature. There is no boundary between what we are doing and what nature is doing, it's a just a matter of degree and scale.

Furthermore, the decisions we make to try to "preserve" ecologies are what is artificial. There is no way to preserve (as in stasize) something that naturally changes. What we end up with is a zoo. And that's not natural.

 

[DaveC426913]

It might be a good time to point out that we are not the first, nor the worst creatures, by orders of magnitude to poison the Earth to death.

There was an entire thriving planet of life around, long before any of our oxygen-breathing ancestors. They thrived so well that they polluted the entire Earth with their own poisonous waste, wiping out virtually all existing life on the planet. The planet never recovered. To this day, the Earth is virtually entirely uninhabitable, covered in a thick, dense, poisonous, killing atmosphere...

...of oxygen.

The cyanobacteria - some of the first forms of life to develop on Earth. They polluted the Earth, forever altering its atmosphere from methane and ammonia to nitrogen and oxygen.

 

[edward]

It might be a good time to point out that we are not the first, nor the worst creatures, by orders of magnitude to poison the Earth to death.

There was an entire thriving planet of life around, long before any of our oxygen-breathing ancestors. They thrived so well that they polluted the entire Earth with their own poisonous waste, wiping out virtually all existing life on the planet. The planet never recovered. To this day, the Earth is virtually entirely uninhabitable, covered in a thick, dense, poisonous, killing atmosphere...

...of oxygen.

The cyanobacteria - some of the first forms of life to develop on Earth. They polluted the Earth, forever altering its atmosphere from methane and ammonia to nitrogen and oxygen.

I see your point. I was referring to a much more recent and localized scale of events, like too much bear poop in the woods. Weren't those cyanobacteria absolutely devilish?

 

[Chi Meson]

No. Sometimes they establish an equilibrium for a while, often they wipe out whole species or even whole ecologies. This is natural. Any balances are temporary, and there's no way of deciding how long they might last - it could a couple of generations as easily as a hundred.

Humans are part of nature too. We maximize our own species just like every other creature. There is no boundary between what we are doing and what nature is doing, it's a just a matter of degree and scale.

Furthermore, the decisions we make to try to "preserve" ecologies are what is artificial. There is no way to preserve (as in stasize) something that naturally changes. What we end up with is a zoo. And that's not natural.

While I am generally in agreement, I don't see why human activities which cause severe changes in ecosystems can be natural, but human activities that try to counter the effects of the earlier activities are considered artificial.

Some could drag the argument to a logical extreme that "whatever we do is natural, so whatever we do is OK." What follows is recinding environmental laws and a return to "anything goes" devastation. This extreme POV is what I was ranting against earlier in the thread (though, turns out, it was not the POV of the OP--my error).

The word that I think we can agree with is "equilibrium." Natural systems seek a point of equilibrium (such as populations--often chaotically swinging through and away from equilibrium like a pendulum on crack). WHen we change the "equation" a new equilibrium point is set and we have to deal with the results (too many bunnies, for example). We can then choose to do nothing and see what happens (bunnies die of starvation), or we can choose to take deliberate action to "fix" or otherwise remedy any unpleasant results (reintroduce panthers to eat bunnies).

I'd be more specific and eloquent, but I've got three screaming kids behind me and now I got to go.

 

[Yonoz]

This isn't just about wiping species out.
Squirrels don't pee dioxin and fish don't poop PCBs. It's not as if the human animal developed a sharp set of talons. We introduce massive amounts of synthesised compounds that affect life at the cellular level into our own ecosystems. To me, that's worse than drinking water with a bit of ammonia.

 

[edward]

We have a lot of rabies control measures here in Arizona including baiting suspected areas with an oral rabies vaccine. like the one described in the link below.

Novel approaches to rabies control include the vaccination of free-ranging wild animals through vaccines incorporated in edible baits. The concept of wildlife vaccination was first proposed at the Centers for Disease Control more than three decades ago. In Europe and Canada, considerable success in rabies control among free-ranging wildlife has been achieved through oral rabies vaccination (ORV) of red foxes. Baits containing rabies vaccine, were distributed throughout rabies-enzootic areas. These programs ultimately resulted in control of rabies among red foxes in large geographic areas.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/prevention&control/ovalvacc.htm

I guess you could say we are trying to force the situation back into equilibrium.

Another big problem, especially here in the west, is that large areas have been developed with homes and businesses that were previously the domain of wildlife.

A good example of what happens occurred just last week. A black bear freightened by car horns climbed a utility pole and was electrocuted. This didn't happen in a remote area, it happened on the close in south side of town within 1/2 mile of Tucson International Airport.

Coyotes on the other hand adjusted to the city years ago and will frequently raise a litter of pups in an abandoned automobile. People fear the bears and the mountain lions so they are usually killed or tranqiluized and moved away from town. Coyotes on the other hand are not feared by most people here and their population has grown.

 

[Phobos]

What if wildlife pollution exceeds the set standards?

States have various surface water standards, often based on the water body's intended use and/or ecological niche. If the pollution is directly from a human point-source (e.g., industrial discharge pipe), then the regulations allow for action against that source (fines, etc.). With a human non-point source (e.g., runoff from a neighborhood), the state/town may use the regulations to obtain funding to correct the problem (e.g., better stormwater controls, new sewer systems, etc.). If the source is from animals then the question becomes is it due to human activity (e.g., removing all the predators)...and if so, is there some corrective action or a wildlife management plan that would be appropriate? If it's totally not influenced by human activity (does such a place exist anymore?) then there still may be some wildlife management plan that could help or perhaps they'll declare the water body a "non-attainment" area and conduct periodic monitoring and make sure people are not adversely affected by the problem (e.g., prohibitions on swimming, fishing during more polluted times). Anyway, each state will have its own nuances.

This should not be a political fight (although, granted, pollution regulations have a certain degree of politics to them)

 

[DaveC426913]

While I am generally in agreement, I don't see why human activities which cause severe changes in ecosystems can be natural, but human activities that try to counter the effects of the earlier activities are considered artificial.

The point is, whichever we do is meddling. We can meddle, that's fine - but what we can't do is claim that our motives for taking action (or not taking action) are because we want to restore or preserve nature. That is an misguided motive.

Some could drag the argument to a logical extreme that "whatever we do is natural, so whatever we do is OK."

Well, what we end up with is that, whatever we do it's because we choose to do it. If we want to act to preserve species, it is because we have chosen to take repsonsibility for their survival. This is not the same as "leaving them and their natural habitat alone."

What we end up with is known as stewardship.

The word that I think we can agree with is "equilibrium." Natural systems seek a point of equilibrium (such as populations--often chaotically swinging through and away from equilibrium like a pendulum on crack).

No. That is one, scenario. Other natural systems wipe out whole species or ecologies. THAT is natural.

WHen we change the "equation" a new equilibrium point is set and we have to deal with the results (too many bunnies, for example).

No. The equation changes all the time - human intervention or not. This is why we can't separate human effects from other effects.

We can then choose to do nothing and see what happens (bunnies die of starvation), or we can choose to take deliberate action to "fix" or otherwise remedy any unpleasant results

Fix is a completely arbitrary, human-invented concept.
unpleasant results is a completely arbitrary, human-invented concept.

Bottom line: There is no objective Right or Wrong in natural ecosystems, even disasters. The only thing we can do to nature is arrange it the way we like it.



All this being said, if we choose to have rivers and streams in Virginia clean, and we decide that we will artificially reduce animal population to facilitate this, then that's great. But there's no Right or Wrong about it.

 

[Chi Meson]

Well, what we end up with is that, whatever we do it's because we choose to do it. If we want to act to preserve species, it is because we have chosen to take repsonsibility for their survival. This is not the same as "leaving them and their natural habitat alone."

What we end up with is known as stewardship.

I agree with this

No. That is one, scenario. Other natural systems wipe out whole species or ecologies. THAT is natural.

The natural method usually take centuries or millenia or longer. We are so efficient, we can wipe out a species in a few decades. In the long run it is the same, true.

Fix is a completely arbitrary, human-invented concept.
unpleasant results is a completely arbitrary, human-invented concept.

I have seen some amazingly horrible environmental disasters in my travels. I choose to call them unpleasant, and that's an understatement. I choose to not like them. I choose to do what I can to have them "fixed." It's my conceit, my concept if you will, and my choice. More often than not it has been little more than spitting into the wind, hence my current view of "living with our own messes." Nevertheless, I am in favor of maintaining most of our environmental laws. Don't care about right or wrong, it's what I want.

All things that we enjoy or dislike are arbitrary, human-invented concepts, aren't they?

Bottom line: There is no objective Right or Wrong in natural ecosystems, even disasters. The only thing we can do to nature is arrange it the way we like it.

I like my nature wild, but without the black panthers, please.
Right and wrong are of course the ultimate human concepts. Right and wrong is left up to society as a whole to decide. Too bad society as a whole is stupid. But I'm glad we got rid of the panthers. dangerous things.

"very well then, I contradict myself. I am full of multitudes."
.

 

[DaveC426913]

Agreed. We still want to preserve as many species and as many ecologies as possible. It is the right thing to do.

I just wanted to ensure that we not attempting to invoke some misguided "balance of nature" principle to try to justify it.

 

[snuffyluver123]

i need an interview

Hello, I'm working on a senior paper about the causes and effects of water pollution and I was wondering if there is anyone here, who is familiar with this topic, who would be willing to allow me to interview them for my paper. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.