4 ms·

Right now, the question to answer is "how much would it cost to use a different chemical?" and the answer could be "Oh, we just have to use one of the 100 diffe

by Iv 6y ago

Right now, the question to answer is "how much would it cost to use a different chemical?" and the answer could be "Oh, we just have to use one of the 100 different ones from our catalog, that's barely a tenth of a cent of difference" or it could be "no can do, this is a crucial molecule that prevents tires from rotting in winter." Once you know that, you can approach regulators who will have to weight between the interests of the fish industry and the interests of the tires industry.

grawprog 6y ago
>who will have to weight between the interests of the fish industry and the interests of the tires industry. This bothers me. It's not about the 'fish industry' it's about weighting the interests of the tire industry against the life in the Puget sound ecosystem. https://wildsalmoncenter.org/why-protect-salmon/ https://wildsalmoncenter.org/why-protect-salmon/ >Few animals have been as central to the Pacific human experience as salmon. Their annual migrations are a miracle of nature. They feed us and their presence tells us that our rivers are still healthy. From grizzly bears to orca whales, at least 137 different species depend on the marine-rich nutrients that wild salmon provide >Salmon and freshwater ecosystems are inextricably linked by feedbacks between salmon runs, food webs, and riparian forests. Salmon runs function as enormous pumps that push vast amounts of marine nutrients from the ocean to the headwaters of otherwise low productivity rivers. For example, sockeye salmon runs in southwest Alaska contribute up to 170 tons of phosphorous per year to Lake Illiamna. These nutrients are incorporated into food webs in rivers and surrounding landscapes by a host of over 50 species of mammals, birds, and fish that forage on salmon eggs, juveniles, and adults in freshwater. Predators, such as brown bears, disperse these marine nutrients into surrounding forests, enhancing the growth of stream-side trees that shade and protect stream banks from excessive erosion
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  If its really that localized, why doesn't the state of Washington just ban the chemical? Not unprecidented for a state to have its own environmental regs that are stricter than national regs. And since there are no salmon migrating up rivers in Kentucky, it should be less of a concern there and you don't need to spend effort/political favors getting the support from the Kentucky delegation in congress. Sure it would not be perfect, because you would still have out-of-state vehicles using the roads, but it would be an improvement that could probably get done a lot faster and it might be enough.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    >why doesn't the state of Washington just ban the chemical? Is it just salmon affected by this chemical? It looks like Kentucky has both cutthroat and rainbow trout. Both of which are actually species of salmon in the genus Oncorhynchus, which are true salmon. Would they be affected by the chemical? How about other species of fish? That's the thing about this kind of stuff, it's not necessarily localized. There's a lot we don't know about ecosystems and the long term effects of chemicals like this. Chances are though, if it affects one area in such a negative way, it'll have other negative effects.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      Well start with what we know. We have a problem in the Puget Sound area. I'm not hearing anything about trout in Kentucky. A lot of environmnental regulation got its start with regulation in California that spread from there. It's easier to get something passed locally than to get national support from day one.
      - munificent 6y ago
        > I'm not hearing anything about trout in Kentucky. That probably says more about environment research funding in Kentucky than it does their fish. Washington is one of the most pro-science states in the US, the Puget Sound area has one of the greatest concentration of environmentally focused people, and salmon are historically deeply ingrained in Washington culture. If it took all of that to garner enough resources to discover this problem, imagine all of the other environmental disasters out there that we're simply oblivious to.
    - mattgrice 6y ago
      This research was motivated by the runoff effect being especially acute in coho salmon. It probably affects other species, too. Now that we know the chemical responsible it will be easier to test that.
- Iv 6y ago
  I am stating it how it is, not as I think it should be.

by Iv 6y ago

grawprog 6y ago

>who will have to weight between the interests of the fish industry and the interests of the tires industry. This bothers me. It's not about the 'fish industry' it's about weighting the interests of the tire industry against the life in the Puget sound ecosystem. https://wildsalmoncenter.org/why-protect-salmon/ https://wildsalmoncenter.org/why-protect-salmon/ >Few animals have been as central to the Pacific human experience as salmon. Their annual migrations are a miracle of nature. They feed us and their presence tells us that our rivers are still healthy. From grizzly bears to orca whales, at least 137 different species depend on the marine-rich nutrients that wild salmon provide >Salmon and freshwater ecosystems are inextricably linked by feedbacks between salmon runs, food webs, and riparian forests. Salmon runs function as enormous pumps that push vast amounts of marine nutrients from the ocean to the headwaters of otherwise low productivity rivers. For example, sockeye salmon runs in southwest Alaska contribute up to 170 tons of phosphorous per year to Lake Illiamna. These nutrients are incorporated into food webs in rivers and surrounding landscapes by a host of over 50 species of mammals, birds, and fish that forage on salmon eggs, juveniles, and adults in freshwater. Predators, such as brown bears, disperse these marine nutrients into surrounding forests, enhancing the growth of stream-side trees that shade and protect stream banks from excessive erosion

throwaway201103 6y ago
If its really that localized, why doesn't the state of Washington just ban the chemical? Not unprecidented for a state to have its own environmental regs that are stricter than national regs. And since there are no salmon migrating up rivers in Kentucky, it should be less of a concern there and you don't need to spend effort/political favors getting the support from the Kentucky delegation in congress. Sure it would not be perfect, because you would still have out-of-state vehicles using the roads, but it would be an improvement that could probably get done a lot faster and it might be enough.
- grawprog 6y ago
  >why doesn't the state of Washington just ban the chemical? Is it just salmon affected by this chemical? It looks like Kentucky has both cutthroat and rainbow trout. Both of which are actually species of salmon in the genus Oncorhynchus, which are true salmon. Would they be affected by the chemical? How about other species of fish? That's the thing about this kind of stuff, it's not necessarily localized. There's a lot we don't know about ecosystems and the long term effects of chemicals like this. Chances are though, if it affects one area in such a negative way, it'll have other negative effects.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    Well start with what we know. We have a problem in the Puget Sound area. I'm not hearing anything about trout in Kentucky. A lot of environmnental regulation got its start with regulation in California that spread from there. It's easier to get something passed locally than to get national support from day one.
    - munificent 6y ago
      > I'm not hearing anything about trout in Kentucky. That probably says more about environment research funding in Kentucky than it does their fish. Washington is one of the most pro-science states in the US, the Puget Sound area has one of the greatest concentration of environmentally focused people, and salmon are historically deeply ingrained in Washington culture. If it took all of that to garner enough resources to discover this problem, imagine all of the other environmental disasters out there that we're simply oblivious to.
  - mattgrice 6y ago
    This research was motivated by the runoff effect being especially acute in coho salmon. It probably affects other species, too. Now that we know the chemical responsible it will be easier to test that.
Iv 6y ago
I am stating it how it is, not as I think it should be.