~~~~~~~~~~~~~><((((((((()'>

<')((((((((><~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This article in Cape Cod Today this summer, is written by folks upset over trawlers. They say the federal government missed the boat this year by not banning herring fishing in vibrant waters full of all kinds of fish. The big issue here is something called by-catch. That's all the other fish that get caught with the herring nets. These nets are big as football fields and hold more than one million pounds of catch. They can wipe clean whole swaths of ocean and hook fishermen are getting pretty upset that herring trawlers haven't been banned from the fish rich waters off Cape Cod, waters that are otherwise heavily regulated by the federal government. The hook fishermen may have a point. Indiscriminate fishing practices like open ocean trawl nets do a lot of collateral damage to other species and marine environments. That damage is called by-catch and hook fishermen say it's leaving fewer fish for them. But long liners also have a lot of by-catch. The organization that wrote this particular piece is looking for more monitors on the trawlers to make sure by-catch is kept to a minimum. It's a little surprising to see one commercial fishing organization sniping at another. However, as fish populations continue to dwindle across the board, it's likely we'll see more of this infighting.

<')((((((((><~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Keeping with today's theme of undersea oddities, the Washington Post did de rigueur on a Potomac River study finding that the bass there are losing their balls. Or, more accurately, they are growing a few eggs. It has to do with the level of medicines, particularly hormones being dumped into our waterways and how they are affecting fish. Similar problems have been found in rivers across the country being polluted by wastewater treatment plants. Who'da thunk it? After we eat all these pills, we pass them back out again, in effect medicating any water body unfortunate enough to have a wastewater treatment plant on its banks. And that's pretty much every river in the world.

And it's not just problems causes by synthetic hormones. This NPR piece says Prozac is affecting the reproductive cycles of mussels. Yet more examples of unexpected tolls on plant, animal and human life soaking up the diffusion of a broad spectrum of chemicals we're discharging into our surroundings. (The fish study prompted this de rigueur response from the White House.) The potential problem of medicines in sewage is also illustrated with frightening foreboding in this article. Japanese scientists found high levels of the popular flu medication Tamiflu in rivers near waste water treatment plants. The article goes on to suggest the omnipresence of the drug might result in resistant forms of flu turning up in ducks, increasing the chances those animals—and eventually humans—might be subject to a superflu immune to Tamiflu. Here, for visual impact, are a few ducks found stuck in a storm drain.

It would be nice if there was something we could do to prevent this. Sadly, our options are at best radical. We could take less medication. That would mean we'd have to live healthier lifestyles to better fight off the flu when we get it. That's too much work. Besides, enormous pharmaceutical companies have a little too much invested in preventing that. It's easier to take pills and it's better for the economy.

Taxers are the most likely way to clean up this planet. It's hard to profit from cleaning up spilled milk. There's just the vague promise that our largemouth bass will stop becoming bisexual. We're almost sorry to present this video. It's gross! However, it has a happy ending. Notice the fish! They could have easily ended up on your dinner plate.

Here's an interesting piece about Russian oil rigs off the coast of Cuba. It harkens back to the "Drill Bay Drill" mantra of McCain's failed presidential bid. That was one of the saddest things to have to watch as an American. A stodgy old man grinning ear-to-ear while advocating an environmentally destructive policy in one of the country's most sensitive marine ecosystems.

It was a policy McCain once opposed, and probably would have continued to oppose, if it weren't for political expediency. Scrounging for dwindling pockets of oil at the possibly catastrophic expense of a cherished recreational, national and environmental resource like the Gulf of Mexico makes no sense. Yet McCain and Palin rode it into a national cause that enlisted passionate support from hundreds of millions of Americans. Hopefully, these same folks won't start pointing to Russian oil interests  off Cuba as discussed in the release above as an excuse to fire up Drill Baby Drill again. Only now, in the interests of National Security.

The Aberjona River is back in the news. Never heard of it? It's the unfortunate, inflammable river made infamous in the Travolta movie “A Civil Action.” The Globe is ran a piece recently on a hospital's efforts to build alongside the river, over the objections of citizens who say the project will harm surrounding woodlands and wetlands. I bring it up here for what could not make it into the story for lack of space. The town officials presiding over the permits for the project have been accused of conflict of interest because they work with the hospital in various community-oriented capacities: fund-raising and the like.

The folks pointing the fingers are interlopers, people who for the most part moved to this town from other parts and now are resented for interfering in local goings-on. Isn't that pretty much how it goes. The local property owners are the ones caught up in the pollution problems. In Civil Action the fellow owned the property that Beatrice and Grace befouled. He was part of the community. Now you've got Town Hall officials giving the hospital the benefit of the doubt, great benefit, project opponents would say.

Here's another example that never made it into the local papers in a town not far from this hospital. Haverhill, MA, is a former milltown that saw plenty of pollution along its extensive Merrimack River shores. There is a cesspool pumping business owned by a very prominent Haverhill businessman that is right on the river. 

One day I get an email about a story I'm doing on cesspool inspectors working for this company that are handing in incomplete and inconsistent inspections to the town officials who oversee the private inspectors. Some of those inspectors started making a fuss, hence the story.

The email says there's much more to this company than bogus inspections. Specifically, they have a pipe leading from their property into the city sewer plant, next-door. I get a hold of this fellow, get his name and testimony that he has aerial pix of this cesspool company pumping untreated waste directly into the town's treatment plant. He is supposed to pay for each gallon he dumps into that system. It's a fee the cesspool company owner is charging customers but never paying himself. This is the goose that laid the golden...ahem. And nobody is paying any attention to him. Here comes the punchline: as I'm writing the story, a call comes in from Massachusetts State Sen. Steven Baddour. He wants to know why I'm writing the story and goes on to tell me what a great guy this cesspool company owner is. This, after I spent a week tracking down another source who confirmed everything the email fellow said. The anonymous source told me I was just scratching the surface, that the business owner “owned” Haverhill.

Now for the moral of the story. My editor at the time is Haverhill born and raised. The editor's Rabbi is this Sen. Baddour who dumps all kinds of great stories in the editor's lap. I hear the editor one day talking to the senator about my story. the editor says “oh that's not going anywhere.”

The editor was right. It went no where because I had seven stories to write that week and small town corruption is part of American life. Not just in Massachusetts, but in towns across the country. And what better place to reap the rewards than environmental clean-up. Going by the book is prohibitively expensive. Look the other way and the pay-off is equally large. I've written already on June 8, 2009 about the Greenport, NY, mayor in ONews. You've haven't heard about the former East Brunswick, NJ, mayor and the PA landfill. The point is, in the hospital town, and in Haverhill and in New Jersey, and on Long Island the fox is so often guarding the chicken coop, it takes outsiders to shed a little light.

With the ever-growing level of chemicals in the air we breath and the water we drink and swim in, you have to wonder if the filter industry might be a good investment. Hacking my way through the morning's email, no less that four press releases on water and air purifiers filtered through. Art Deco vacuum specialist Electrolux has taking their air filter expertise off the ground and applied it to the air we breath.

This company is looking to give bottle water magnates Nestle competition. Here's another air purifier company and then there's something called a membrane bioreactor which scrubs pollution out of groundwater in contamination sites like old gas stations. (This last one is worth a read. Few people have a grasp of the tens of thousands of gas stations and leaky chemical plant underground storage tanks that have ruined ground drinking-water supplies across the country. Clean up efforts swell the ranks of Superfund sites and costing billions annually!)

Why all the filters? Because of all the pollutants in our environment. Which brings us to the subject of burning trash to generate electricity and incinerators. Intuitively it's a great idea: get rid of garbage and product power at the same time. In practice it deserves a harder look.Companies like Wheelabrator say incinerator smoke stacks scrub all the pollutants out of the exhaust from these plants. How can they? These facilities burn millions of tons of the stuff nobody wants to breath. Some of it's got to get into our homes. Worse, it's a technology that appears to gaining in popularity.Pictured right is a Wheelabrator plant in Pennsylvania.

his takes us back to the argument over the role recycling should play in our society. Here's another great Boston Globe piece that helps illustrate a key point: those compact fluorescent light bulbs that save so much energy are causing a problem in trash incinerators. If we burn trash instead of separating and recycling it, we just compound our pollution problems by contributing to the continued spread of chemical contaminants into the environment. There is a reason mercury is tainting the fish found in lakes and ponds in Massachusetts' Merrimack Valley which hosts a couple of Wheelabrator incinerators. Do you want to breath what's coming out of this flame? If you live in the southern Merrimack Valley, you are! There's little doubt this flame can vaporize some pretty nasty stuff. Trash incinerators need ultra-hot flames to burn everything we throw away.

Now this may be reckless speculation, but it can't hurt to ponder. Cancer rates of all kind are going up and it seems that every day something new that causes cancer is being discovered in our surroundings. (I couldn't find a specific link, but this more telling this: Google “cancer rates going up” and see what you get.) Autism, is also suspected to have environmental origins. The point being, is it possible all these chemicals in the environment seeping into every pour in our bodies is causing increases in illnesses of certain sorts. Not the virus and bacteria sorts of aliments, but the kind of sickness that reflect a short-circuiting of our body's biochemistry. Is it possible our bodies don't take too kindly to the molecules of plastic, mercury, lead or dioxin seeping in from the air we breath and the water we drink and swim in. Make no mistake the emission from these smoke stakes eventually settle into the world's waterways.

How much more so for fish that must swim in these waterways. I can't find verification on the web, but it seems to me more and more fish are turning up with tumors and the increased incidence of fish with female and male parts has been clearly documented. The question is, do we really want to put more of this stuff into the environment. Do we really want to burn all this trash? Shouldn't we instead place much more emphasis on recycling. Theoretically, we shouldn't have to throw out anything. This is not utopian, it's just very expensive. But not more so than the cost we will end up paying in future health care and heartache. In the meantime, if we continue to slowly poison ourselves and our planet, perhaps we might want to buy some Electrolux stock. Too bad it's trading at $100 a share. BTW Here's a great general info page on garbage. Swedish company Electrolux may refuse to give up on the art deco motif, but it's showing some innovation in filtration systems.

In case you think Bernie Madoff just hurt wealthy investors,Mass High Tech had a piece showing two Boston research labs that will have to look elsewhere for some of their funding. It's worth reading, if for nothing else, a reminder that an awful lot of science is driven by charity.