4 ms·
>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
by 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 agoWell 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 agoThis 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.