How Does Heavy Metal Contamination in Fish Impact Ecosystems and Human Health?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyoshi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metal
AI Thread Summary
Heavy metal contamination in fish, particularly metals like iron, manganese, and lead, poses significant risks to both aquatic ecosystems and human health. Accumulation of these metals can disrupt fish development and fertility, leading to population declines. Additionally, humans and animals consuming contaminated fish may face health issues due to toxicity. Research indicates that while statistics on pollution levels are available, there is a lack of comprehensive studies on the specific impacts of these metals on fish and their predators. Effective keyword searches may yield more relevant information on this pressing environmental concern.
kyoshi
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




What exactly is the relative problem of extra accumilation of metals such as iron magnese and lead in fish? Do these metals cause problem with fish develoupment and fertility or do they effect the humans or animals that eat them?

Homework Equations




N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


My research has turned up nothing usefull, I have only found facts,figures, and staticstics on how much actual metal pollution is being done.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top