More man-made contaminants discovered in Maine’s harbor seals

Seals bask on small rock islands in the sun in the Bay of Fundy between Eastport and Campobello Island in August. Heavy fog this summer off the coast of Maine hampered University of Maine researchers from tracking seals that were equipped with radios earlier this year.
Seals bask on small rock islands in the sun in the Bay of Fundy between Eastport and Campobello Island in August. Heavy fog this summer off the coast of Maine hampered University of Maine researchers from tracking seals that were equipped with radios earlier this year.
Posted Sept. 08, 2011, at 5:39 p.m.
Last modified Sept. 08, 2011, at 6:09 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

LUBEC, Maine — Some of the most endearing and popular sights off Maine’s coast are the harbor seals. These curious but cautious mammals will silently give a boat the eye, and if it veers too close, will slip off tiny rock outcroppings — where they are bulky and clumsy — to reveal their grace and finesse in the water.

Seals may now be tourist attractions and are federally protected, but they were once considered fisherman’s foes. A 300-pound adult female harbor seal will eat 6 percent of her weight each day — that’s 18 pounds of herring, scallops, urchins and nearly all other fish. Up until 1905 in Maine and 1962 in Massachusetts, bounty hunters were paid $1 for every seal nose they turned in.

But, in a major new study, Maine seal researchers have discovered that the seals’ hearty appetite for fish portends a potentially dangerous bite.

Landmark studies at the Blue Hill-based Marine Environmental Research Institute are proving that Maine harbor seals’ bodies are full of man-made toxic compounds — compounds found in cars, homes and schools.

“It is very scary,” MERI’s Director, Dr. Susan Shaw, said this week. “When we start seeing these chemicals in our oceans, we are really in trouble.”

Shaw has been a worldwide leader in this research. In 2000, MERI launched a long-term research project, Seals As Sentinels: Assessing the Impacts of Toxic Contaminants in Northwest Atlantic Seals, which is an ongoing series of studies examining toxic environmental contaminants in pinnipeds — primarily harbor seals — and their prey fish.

Shaw said that research continued this summer and even more chemicals — newly manufactured fire retardants — were found in the seals.

MERI’s research found that levels of toxic chemicals in Maine’s harbor seals are among the highest in the world. Their bodies contain persistent organic pollutants and toxic metals such as mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls , dioxins, DDTs and other pesticides.

Shaw said that many of these toxic compounds are so persistent that once they enter the ocean environment, they can recycle in the food web for decades. “These seals are eating the same fish we eat — herring, hake, flounder, mackerel.”

MERI’s finding of brominated flame retardants, including the widely used flame retardant Deca-BDE, in seal tissues influenced the Maine Legislature’s decision to ban that chemical compound as of 2010.

However, the companies that manufacture such compounds since have switched to elements other than Deca — chemical cousins, Shaw calls them. “These compounds are nearly identical to the banned Deca. They just have new names, such as Firemaster 550. We are now picking up those novel, toxic compounds in the seals and they are building up in the tissues of the seals,” Shaw said.

Shaw said such fire-retardants are found in many items including furniture, sneakers, lumber, bed padding, automobile headliners, carpeting and baby strollers. As the products break down, she added, the chemicals are released as contaminated dust in the air.

“Without such studies,” Shaw said, “we would never know which chemicals are increasing in tissues and which pose the greatest health threat to marine animals and people. Information gained from MERI’s novel compounds study is cutting-edge and will inform and guide future public policies to protect our oceans and human health.”

Shaw said that the toxic soup that is being created in the world’s oceans indicates that these chemicals are not only rising to the top of the ocean’s food chain — seals — but are present in fish meant for human consumption as well.

The presence of flame retardants in seals “points to the weaknesses of our country’s regulation of toxic chemicals,” she said.

In August, Shaw was a speaker at the Brussels Flame Retardant Science and Policy Meeting, which was intended as an exchange of information between academic and government scientists and nongovernmental organizations. “There is a big debate between the scientific and flame retardant industry as to the safety of these chemicals,” she acknowledged.

Chemical companies that opposed the Deca ban in Maine maintained that the chemical is safe, well-researched and extremely effective at stopping or slowing the spread of deadly fires.

Chemtura of Middlebury, Conn., one of the country’s largest manufacturers of fire retardant chemicals, states on its website: “Chemtura is committed to the concept of Sustainable Development, which is to minimize the imprint that our operations and businesses leave on our collective health and safety and that of the environment, both for ourselves and for future generations.” A spokesman for the company refused to comment Thursday.

In a statement on its website, the European Flame Retardant Association states: “Many studies have been carried out and show that modern flame retardants, when appropriately applied, can be used in consumer products without significant risk to human health or the environment.”

The results of this summer’s research by MERI scientists is still being compiled, Shaw said, but once the data is processed, MERI will be asking the Legislature to ban all flame retardants in the state of Maine.

“Maine is an environmental leader and once they are banned here, other states will follow,” Shaw said. “The hope is that will drive the federal government to ban them, as it did with Deca.”

Throughout Down East, other researchers are also looking closely at harbor seals.

Earlier this year, University of Maine scientists attached tiny radio transmitters — each about the size of a roll of pennies — to 24 harbor seals in Rockland and in Chatham, Mass., with a plan to survey the adult population along the coast.

Mother Nature, however, had other ideas. Heavy fog hampered the research and ruined an entire season of work.

Dr. James Gilbert at the University of Maine in Orono said this week that the last seal population survey was conducted in 2001 and this year’s plan was to conduct aerial surveys in May and June, using the radio signals to find the seals, photograph them and count the population. Those counts would then be used to estimate the overall population.

“But we got fogged out,” Gilbert said this week. “We only got one and a half days in the air and we were unable to track any seals at all.” The researchers tried into August to conduct the surveys with no success. Gilbert said it is particularly disappointing since the seals are now shedding their fur during the seasonal molt and they will also shed the radio transmitters.

A survey taken in 2001 indicated there were at least 100,000 harbor seals in North Atlantic waters ranging from Canada to New Jersey, Gilbert said. The greatest numbers are off the coast of Maine, where they can easily be spotted lazing on ledges and small rocky islands. In 1972, a count on Sable Island, Nova Scotia — an important birthing area — showed that 120 pups were born that year. Now, scientists estimate 70,000 pups are born on that protected island every spring, he said.

Gilbert said seals are federally protected by the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 which makes it illegal to chase, shoot, kill or harass seals. The act also mandates a population survey every three to five years. Maine, however, has been unable to complete another since 2001.

Gilbert said it is important to keep track of the seal population because it has a unique life history — seal mothers only nurse their pups for 24 days and then cease all parental support. There is also the interaction between people and seals which needs to be taken into consideration, he said. Gilbert said that the population count could also be important information when considered alongside MERI’s research. The seals’ migration patterns — harbor seals that summer in Maine have been found as far south as South Carolina — are also a topic of study.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • StillRelaxin

    Seals smeals, don’t be worrying one bit.  Paul LePage will take care of this situation right quick.  He’ll get some rootin tooting shootin going on down there in LUBEC and this little seal problem will solved in no time at all.  We wouldn’t want no kind of regulations on businesse’s use of chemicals don’t cha know.  Besides we’ze can’t belive nothin those egghead sceintist tells us, they’s and teachers are alls democrates anyhows.

  • Anonymous

    Good one. I was about to post something about LeLiar, but I can’t top your comment.

  • Anonymous

    Wow.  How’s that big government, centralized bureaucracy known as the EPA working out for you folks?  Sounds like companies simply find new ways to maneuver around the regulations all the time and the EPA continues to hand out permits to massive polluters across the country. Maybe we should change the name to the EPPA:  Environmental Pollution Permission Agency

    Central planning and big government is a horrendous approach to environmental protection…just look at the destruction produced under the USSR!  Anyone want to entertain an approach at REAL environmental protection?  Have a listen to this guy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI    

  • Anonymous

    Wow.  How’s that big government, centralized bureaucracy known as the EPA working out for you folks?  Sounds like companies simply find new ways to maneuver around the regulations all the time and the EPA continues to hand out permits to massive polluters across the country. Maybe we should change the name to the EPPA:  Environmental Pollution Permission Agency

    Central planning and big government is a horrendous approach to environmental protection…just look at the destruction produced under the USSR!  Anyone want to entertain an approach at REAL environmental protection?  Have a listen to this guy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI    

  • Anonymous

    Wow.  How’s that big government, centralized bureaucracy known as the EPA working out for you folks?  Sounds like companies simply find new ways to maneuver around the regulations all the time and the EPA continues to hand out permits to massive polluters across the country. Maybe we should change the name to the EPPA:  Environmental Pollution Permission Agency

    Central planning and big government is a horrendous approach to environmental protection…just look at the destruction produced under the USSR!  Anyone want to entertain an approach at REAL environmental protection?  Have a listen to this guy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI    

  • Guest

    Don’t forget FSC in my cigarettes.

  • Guest

    Don’t forget FSC in my cigarettes.

  • Guest

    Don’t forget FSC in my cigarettes.

  • Anonymous

    I bet they don’t report on the amount of lobsters these garbage disposals eat.  When shedders strike, fish aren’t the only thing they devour.  Hard to believe there was a bounty on em not too long ago.

  • Anonymous

    We’ve had massive federal regulation of industry for 40 years with the CWA and the CAA.  The seals are STILL contaminated with the toxins our regulations allow.  Your supposed “regulations” are a complete outright failure yet you claim we need more, as though they are some kind of success.  If regulations were a success, we would have a clean environment…we don’t!

  • Anonymous

    Yes, but had we not they would have been all dead and we couldn’t get scientific data from dead/extinct seals.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, but had we not they would have been all dead and we couldn’t get scientific data from dead/extinct seals.

  • hasacluemaine

    I would like this data peer reviewed and independently verfied. What was the sample population? Was there a common denominator to the sample set, such as river mouths? Announcing the results of one study with no context or cross analysis is not science. It’s advocacy.

  • hasacluemaine

    I would like this data peer reviewed and independently verfied. What was the sample population? Was there a common denominator to the sample set, such as river mouths? Announcing the results of one study with no context or cross analysis is not science. It’s advocacy.

  • hasacluemaine

    I would like this data peer reviewed and independently verfied. What was the sample population? Was there a common denominator to the sample set, such as river mouths? Announcing the results of one study with no context or cross analysis is not science. It’s advocacy.

  • hasacluemaine

    I would like this data peer reviewed and independently verfied. What was the sample population? Was there a common denominator to the sample set, such as river mouths? Announcing the results of one study with no context or cross analysis is not science. It’s advocacy.

  • Anonymous

    So you think the fishermen of this country would have stood around and watched all the seals die and other sea creatures without thinking that their catch, what would become their private property for exchange on an open market, was at risk?  And after all our regulations, is their catch still not at risk?  I would argue it is.  I would argue that the system of regulation and central control we have adopted is a failure, simply because it has unquestionably eroded private property rights and removed the ability of the individual to petition the court system to address grievances regarding impacts on their ability to provide food for their families.

  • Anonymous

    So you think the fishermen of this country would have stood around and watched all the seals die and other sea creatures without thinking that their catch, what would become their private property for exchange on an open market, was at risk?  And after all our regulations, is their catch still not at risk?  I would argue it is.  I would argue that the system of regulation and central control we have adopted is a failure, simply because it has unquestionably eroded private property rights and removed the ability of the individual to petition the court system to address grievances regarding impacts on their ability to provide food for their families.

  • Anonymous

    So you think the fishermen of this country would have stood around and watched all the seals die and other sea creatures without thinking that their catch, what would become their private property for exchange on an open market, was at risk?  And after all our regulations, is their catch still not at risk?  I would argue it is.  I would argue that the system of regulation and central control we have adopted is a failure, simply because it has unquestionably eroded private property rights and removed the ability of the individual to petition the court system to address grievances regarding impacts on their ability to provide food for their families.

  • Anonymous

    So you think the fishermen of this country would have stood around and watched all the seals die and other sea creatures without thinking that their catch, what would become their private property for exchange on an open market, was at risk?  And after all our regulations, is their catch still not at risk?  I would argue it is.  I would argue that the system of regulation and central control we have adopted is a failure, simply because it has unquestionably eroded private property rights and removed the ability of the individual to petition the court system to address grievances regarding impacts on their ability to provide food for their families.

  • Anonymous

    Well, we could have a study by  BP on fish in the gulf of mexico showing how safe the oil dispersant is.  Ever  notice how those in the know preach a new investment philosphy for the decade and it becomes true?  Currently that is water purification.  The reason is drilling for gas and deep water  wells will have contaminated the aquifers  and water filtration will be big business.  

    The seals are telling us the waters are polluted with carcinogens.  Meanwhile those that are telling the population that it isn’t true are investing in water filtration technologies that will solve the problem they created.  Gotta love capitalism.   

  • Anonymous

    And a corporatist form of centralized government that provides permits for pollution is protecting you how?

  • Guest

    Maybe you could explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

  • A shmidt

    Who cares if lady seals grow little beards?

  • Guest

    Lobsters are bottom feeding creatures that eat excrement and rotted decayed flesh. The only reason people eat them at all is poor people had nothing else to eat, and they developed a taste for them. Killer Whales and some sharks like to snack on Harbor Seals and I’m not in favor of increasing the number of whales and sharks that snack on a creature that looks like a fat scuba diver. I love to swim in the ocean. I know it’s not safe, but I don’t want it to get any worse either.

  • Guest

    He’s a tbagger donchaknow?

  • Guest

    You know, it’s not just me. You still don’t have a clue.

  • Guest

    Please don’t smoke.

  • Guest

    You are clearly against the United States Government. Why anobody would protect you from constructive criticism online is beyond me. If you’ve joined a group or hang out with people that encourage this, and they aren’t advocating for the poor and sick in this country, you’d better take a really close look at what you’re doing. Because, as I just said, it is very obvious that  you are against the United States of America.

  • hasacluemaine

    Yes, rather than refute a position with logic or facts, insult the person. And yes, it is just you.

  • Guest

    OK, your comment was scientifically correct. You’re still a million miles behind me and the comments you’ve smacked me with are far more ignorant than the one I posted here.

  • Anonymous

    the Lepage Plan: shoot the seals, problem solved.

  • Anonymous

    What right is that?  The right to destroy the resource so they can buy a new pickup and sled every year. The ocean is not private property Don Key, it belongs to everyone.

  • Anonymous

    Could be an after effect, due to the thousands of gallons of the hydrogen peroxide dumped in the ocean  by the salmon farmers,(aquaculture industry) used to control sea lice on the salmon. 

  • Anonymous

    This isn’t new information-there have been other studies done in other places as well with the same results. There have also been studies on the oceans themselves-they’ve found everything from pesticides to chemicals from plastics.

  • Anonymous

    “The presence of flame retardants in seals” – no wonder we never see them on fire. How is that a bad thing? :)

  • 525_44

    This is not surprising at all.
    Since I don’t raise fish and other seafood, I don’t consume much of it.
    Times haven’t changed much

  • Anonymous

    Agree, it’s advocacy.

    First, determine the desired outcome of your “study”, then cherry-pick the data to “prove” it’s objectivity.  The proof in this particular case is that they admit the results are still being compiled, yet they want action taken based on incomplete data.  Just like the AGW hoax.

    “The results of this summer’s research by MERI scientists is still being compiled, Shaw said, but once the data is processed, MERI will be asking the Legislature to ban all flame retardants in the state of Maine.”

  • Anonymous

    It is a good indicator that those toxins will show up in the food we eat. We need to start thinking about putting rainwater that washes through our storm drains through the wwtp.

  • Anonymous

     So does this mean I shouldn’t eat them anymore?
    Seal seared on the grill is quite tasty!

  • Anonymous

    Yes, regulations do work. And yes, we do have  cleaner environment than before the clean air, clean water and endangered species acts.

     If you make it illegal to use a harmful chemical, that chemical won’t make it into the food web. Corporations being the wise “people” that they are, may find new and wonderful dangerous chemicals to use instead, so you need new regulations to prevent those from contaminating wildlife and human “people”. 

    The proper response to corporations releasing dangerous chemicals into the environment is not to stop regulating them. What we really need is for the burden of proof to be on corporations to demonstrate that the chemicals they create are not harmful, then we wouldn’t have to waste time and money trying to regulate every last thing.

  • Anonymous

    The USSR was not a democracy in which the people of the country, through their elected representatives, chose to have a Clean Air Act, a Clean Water Act, an Endangered Species Act or any other of the good laws that we have that help minimize the disastrous effects of corporate greed and excess. The corporate rule that you seem to welcome has nothing to do with market forces or old-fashioned good business. This is a new world and like it or not, we need the government to protect us.

  • Anonymous

    The only problem is that some seals will grow little beards.

  • Anonymous

    i don’t see any mention of seals dying in the article, just that their tissues contain these chemicals. test any one of us and what would you find? i’m not advocating anything except let’s be real and not jump to conclusions before our brains are mutated completely.

  • Anonymous

    Did you bother to see if there had been any peer review of the study? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking these questions.  If you have specific faults with the study state them.

  • Anonymous

    said like a true flat earther

  • Anonymous

    You know, you people have pretty much worn that one out.

    Why not unleash all your intellectual firepower and go straight to “poopyhead” to demonstrate your ability to present rational, fact-based arguments?

  • Anonymous

    Companies who design these chemicals don’t care what they are doing to our earth and our people.  All they care about is profit.  And, all the national Republicans care about is allowing these companies to increase their profits year after year.  If our elected officials do not realize the importance of controlling these chemicals then we need to fire each and every one of them both at the federal and state level.

  • Anonymous

    obviously, you aren’t a lobsterfisherman, and don’t care about about them either.  Lobsterfishing is the last stronghold industry in Maine, and it should be protected. What purpose do seals serve anyway.  They’ll be treated just like a whale, and when they start disappearing, you’ll be the first to complain and blame it on the fisherman. Years ago, lobsters were used for fertilizer in people’s gardens, and seals, the state started a bounty on them. One seal, one dollar, (limit 1,000).  Maybe we should convert back to the old ways. Nature has a funny way of taking care of itself.

  • Anonymous

    obviously, you aren’t a lobsterfisherman, and don’t care about about them either.  Lobsterfishing is the last stronghold industry in Maine, and it should be protected. What purpose do seals serve anyway.  They’ll be treated just like a whale, and when they start disappearing, you’ll be the first to complain and blame it on the fisherman. Years ago, lobsters were used for fertilizer in people’s gardens, and seals, the state started a bounty on them. One seal, one dollar, (limit 1,000).  Maybe we should convert back to the old ways. Nature has a funny way of taking care of itself.

  • Anonymous

    obviously, you aren’t a lobsterfisherman, and don’t care about about them either.  Lobsterfishing is the last stronghold industry in Maine, and it should be protected. What purpose do seals serve anyway.  They’ll be treated just like a whale, and when they start disappearing, you’ll be the first to complain and blame it on the fisherman. Years ago, lobsters were used for fertilizer in people’s gardens, and seals, the state started a bounty on them. One seal, one dollar, (limit 1,000).  Maybe we should convert back to the old ways. Nature has a funny way of taking care of itself.

  • Anonymous

    No, no no problem…… just use an industrial strength leeching agent as a maranade for three hours first.  And don’t forget the rubber gloves!

  • Anonymous

    No, no no problem…… just use an industrial strength leeching agent as a maranade for three hours first.  And don’t forget the rubber gloves!

  • Anonymous

    No, no no problem…… just use an industrial strength leeching agent as a maranade for three hours first.  And don’t forget the rubber gloves!

  • Anonymous

    Scientists still haven’t figured out what caused seals in several California areas to disappear a few years ago.  They don’t have anymore clue about it than we do.

  • Anonymous

    Scientists still haven’t figured out what caused seals in several California areas to disappear a few years ago.  They don’t have anymore clue about it than we do.

  • Anonymous

    Scientists still haven’t figured out what caused seals in several California areas to disappear a few years ago.  They don’t have anymore clue about it than we do.

  • Anonymous

    Scientists still haven’t figured out what caused seals in several California areas to disappear a few years ago.  They don’t have anymore clue about it than we do.

  • Anonymous

    Scientists still haven’t figured out what caused seals in several California areas to disappear a few years ago.  They don’t have anymore clue about it than we do.

  • Anonymous

    oh my!! You have swallowed the entire noodle in one long slurp!!!

  • Anonymous

    oh my!! You have swallowed the entire noodle in one long slurp!!!

  • Anonymous

    oh my!! You have swallowed the entire noodle in one long slurp!!!

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, the intellectual capacity of those chosing think there is a vast scientific conspiracy regarding pollution, global warming and other such topics is highly questionable to me.  Better adjust that tin foil fedora, your top seems to be boiling over.

  • ReasonWillTriumph

  • Anonymous

    Did you bother to see if there had been any peer review of the study? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking these questions.  If you have specific faults with the study state them.  Seems this is an ongoing study under US gov contract where the data has been also submitted other scientific orgs. with no word of dubious methodology. seems to get left out way below

  • AionNV

    Ha, companies break the law anyway, so why bother trying to regulate them ?

    And the USSR did not have an equivalent to he EPA.  You just contradicted your own argument, but alas, are too numb to know it.

  • AionNV

    Ha, companies break the law anyway, so why bother trying to regulate them ?

    And the USSR did not have an equivalent to he EPA.  You just contradicted your own argument, but alas, are too numb to know it.

  • AionNV

    Ha, companies break the law anyway, so why bother trying to regulate them ?

    And the USSR did not have an equivalent to he EPA.  You just contradicted your own argument, but alas, are too numb to know it.

  • AionNV

    Ha, companies break the law anyway, so why bother trying to regulate them ?

    And the USSR did not have an equivalent to he EPA.  You just contradicted your own argument, but alas, are too numb to know it.

  • AionNV

    Ha, companies break the law anyway, so why bother trying to regulate them ?

    And the USSR did not have an equivalent to he EPA.  You just contradicted your own argument, but alas, are too numb to know it.

  • Anonymous

    But hydrogen peroxide is not persistent and does not accumulate, it’s too reactive.

  • Anonymous

    But hydrogen peroxide is not persistent and does not accumulate, it’s too reactive.

  • Anonymous

    A lot of frivolous, hyperbolic, and even incorrect responses on this list, from both sides of the issue.  The insulting shots, especially regarding the intelligence of the participants, is especially counterproductive.
     
    Haven’t seen the report, but more data is needed.  With modern analytical methods, the actual amounts of any chemical in any organism are important, and may not be high enough to indeed represent a hazard.  Toxicity is both relative and selective.  For example, DDT is persistent (poorly metabolized) and accumlates in fatty tissue.  However, its toxicity to mammals is quite low.  Dioxins (i.e., TCDD) are another matter, quite toxic, but ubiquitous due to combustion byproducts and once again the hazard depends on the amounts.
     
    It is significant that even though pollutants continue to be found in seals, they per their breeding stats seem to be quite successful.  What has happened to the levels of these pollutants (other than the newer flame retardants) over the years of the study, increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
     
    The article, the authors, and the proponents seem to imply that little or no data is available on this suite of synthetic chemicals.  Not so.  Also, they state, like many other advocates, that nothing should be produced unless they can be proved to be absolutley “safe”.  Ain’t gonna happen.  No substance, “natural” or synthetic, is completely safe, toxicity is both selcetive and realtive.  Bans on flame retardants are especially controversial because more injury from fires would occur if they weren’t used.  In some cases, their use is mandated by safety regs. 

  • Anonymous

    A lot of frivolous, hyperbolic, and even incorrect responses on this list, from both sides of the issue.  The insulting shots, especially regarding the intelligence of the participants, is especially counterproductive.
     
    Haven’t seen the report, but more data is needed.  With modern analytical methods, the actual amounts of any chemical in any organism are important, and may not be high enough to indeed represent a hazard.  Toxicity is both relative and selective.  For example, DDT is persistent (poorly metabolized) and accumlates in fatty tissue.  However, its toxicity to mammals is quite low.  Dioxins (i.e., TCDD) are another matter, quite toxic, but ubiquitous due to combustion byproducts and once again the hazard depends on the amounts.
     
    It is significant that even though pollutants continue to be found in seals, they per their breeding stats seem to be quite successful.  What has happened to the levels of these pollutants (other than the newer flame retardants) over the years of the study, increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
     
    The article, the authors, and the proponents seem to imply that little or no data is available on this suite of synthetic chemicals.  Not so.  Also, they state, like many other advocates, that nothing should be produced unless they can be proved to be absolutley “safe”.  Ain’t gonna happen.  No substance, “natural” or synthetic, is completely safe, toxicity is both selcetive and realtive.  Bans on flame retardants are especially controversial because more injury from fires would occur if they weren’t used.  In some cases, their use is mandated by safety regs. 

  • Anonymous

    Since oceans know no national boundaries, and since there are few enforceable international dumping laws, you are right. Only a world governing body can seriously get a handle on the continued use of the world’s oceans as gigantic town dumps. Even then, regulations would likely be useless in the face of  a rising human population accompanied by popular ignorance, willful and otherwise. Using a coal mine metaphor for the planet, there are far more species than canaries telling us we’re asking for it, and that they too will have to pay the price because too many of us either cannot or will not accept the responsibilities that go along with being the most powerful and dangerous animals on the block. 

  • Anonymous

    It was because of Obama being elected by the illegal voters of our country.

  • Guest

    You’re dead wrong sj, few people are as disturbed as I am about the idiotic gutting of Maines harbor towns. Belfast is an armpit compared to what it was, and it could be a prosperous community. But bad laws were passed by careless politicians that have all but destroyed Maine’s Ocean related industries. The ocean, the rivers, the forests, and the fields are what we have. There’s no reason anyone should have any right to keep us from using them to make a prosperous American living. Quality of life would skyrocket; poverty and welfare roles would dwindle. No, I’m with you.

  • Guest

    That’s the best post, mostly because it’s related to the article and displays common sense. Cheesy, are you letting your kids play with your computer again, or should I go ahead and fall over with surprise right now?

  • Guest

    Do you have to ask?

  • Guest

    What the article says to me is don’t eat seafood. If you do you’re eating polycarbonated byphenols, sneakers, and other crap that’s going to cause an untimely and horrifying death. Did you pick up that too?

  • Anonymous

    Grant junkies who torture data to keep their rice bowl full by  ”studying” the myth of man-made global warming are the problem here. 

    AGW has become the left’s favorite new secular religion, as they shreik about the “consesus” backing their theology. 

    Here’s the problem though.  Consensus may work for politics, but not for science.

    The number of real scientists who dismiss the idea that climate change is caused by man is growing by leaps and bounds, including many who have previously bought into the theory. 

    Try to keep up, OK?

    SPECIAL REPORT:  More than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Al Gore:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

  • Anonymous

    Grant junkies who torture data to keep their rice bowl full by  ”studying” the myth of man-made global warming are the problem here. 

    AGW has become the left’s favorite new secular religion, as they shreik about the “consesus” backing their theology. 

    Here’s the problem though.  Consensus may work for politics, but not for science.

    The number of real scientists who dismiss the idea that climate change is caused by man is growing by leaps and bounds, including many who have previously bought into the theory. 

    Try to keep up, OK?

    SPECIAL REPORT:  More than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Al Gore:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

  • Anonymous

    Grant junkies who torture data to keep their rice bowl full by  ”studying” the myth of man-made global warming are the problem here. 

    AGW has become the left’s favorite new secular religion, as they shreik about the “consesus” backing their theology. 

    Here’s the problem though.  Consensus may work for politics, but not for science.

    The number of real scientists who dismiss the idea that climate change is caused by man is growing by leaps and bounds, including many who have previously bought into the theory. 

    Try to keep up, OK?

    SPECIAL REPORT:  More than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Al Gore:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

  • Anonymous

    Precisely, the poison is in the dose.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe chemicals need to be vetted like medicines and put under the control of them FDA, since every chemical makes into the rest of the world from which we derive our food and drugs.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe chemicals need to be vetted like medicines and put under the control of them FDA, since every chemical makes into the rest of the world from which we derive our food and drugs.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe chemicals need to be vetted like medicines and put under the control of them FDA, since every chemical makes into the rest of the world from which we derive our food and drugs.

  • Anonymous

    I took a look at your reference.  You should be ashamed of yourself for presenting such an agenda-driven collection of unsupportable absurdities and sneaky pseudological tricks for serious consideration.  People like you are one of the reason for peer review.  Why do you think such concatenations of fabrications and misrepresentations as those populating your propaganda site never make into serious on-topic journals?

    Enough now!  Shame on you!

  • Anonymous

    I took a look at your reference.  You should be ashamed of yourself for presenting such an agenda-driven collection of unsupportable absurdities and sneaky pseudological tricks for serious consideration.  People like you are one of the reason for peer review.  Why do you think such concatenations of fabrications and misrepresentations as those populating your propaganda site never make into serious on-topic journals?

    Enough now!  Shame on you!

  • Anonymous

    What do we get when it’s finished reacting with the environment?  Just innocuous oxidation products?  Or poisons that cause cancer or induce people to vote for LePage-type liars? 

  • Anonymous

    What do we get when it’s finished reacting with the environment?  Just innocuous oxidation products?  Or poisons that cause cancer or induce people to vote for LePage-type liars? 

  • Anonymous

    What do we get when it’s finished reacting with the environment?  Just innocuous oxidation products?  Or poisons that cause cancer or induce people to vote for LePage-type liars? 

  • Anonymous

    What do we get when it’s finished reacting with the environment?  Just innocuous oxidation products?  Or poisons that cause cancer or induce people to vote for LePage-type liars? 

  • Anonymous

    Maybe the male seals will lose interest.  No more seals to compete with the fishermen for contaminated fish and shell fish.  Then our females will grow beards.  Bye, bye, population problem.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe the male seals will lose interest.  No more seals to compete with the fishermen for contaminated fish and shell fish.  Then our females will grow beards.  Bye, bye, population problem.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe the male seals will lose interest.  No more seals to compete with the fishermen for contaminated fish and shell fish.  Then our females will grow beards.  Bye, bye, population problem.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe the male seals will lose interest.  No more seals to compete with the fishermen for contaminated fish and shell fish.  Then our females will grow beards.  Bye, bye, population problem.

  • Anonymous

    You warmists are so cute when you get angry.

    Did you know that a judge in England ruled that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth could only be shown in schools there as long as real scientists’ findings were also shown?  He ruled that the cobbled together propaganda film had at least 9 out and out fabrications and that it was a political film, rather than a scientific one.

    Shame on you for swallowing the propaganda.  You’re on the losing side.

  • Anonymous

    You warmists are so cute when you get angry.

    Did you know that a judge in England ruled that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth could only be shown in schools there as long as real scientists’ findings were also shown?  He ruled that the cobbled together propaganda film had at least 9 out and out fabrications and that it was a political film, rather than a scientific one.

    Shame on you for swallowing the propaganda.  You’re on the losing side.

  • Anonymous

    You warmists are so cute when you get angry.

    Did you know that a judge in England ruled that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth could only be shown in schools there as long as real scientists’ findings were also shown?  He ruled that the cobbled together propaganda film had at least 9 out and out fabrications and that it was a political film, rather than a scientific one.

    Shame on you for swallowing the propaganda.  You’re on the losing side.

  • Anonymous

    You warmists are so cute when you get angry.

    Did you know that a judge in England ruled that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth could only be shown in schools there as long as real scientists’ findings were also shown?  He ruled that the cobbled together propaganda film had at least 9 out and out fabrications and that it was a political film, rather than a scientific one.

    Shame on you for swallowing the propaganda.  You’re on the losing side.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business