Do you eat fish from the Connecticut River?
Posted in the Brattleboro Forum
#1 Jul 25, 2012
Some fish in the Connecticut River have been identified as unsafe for human consumption by the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game due to unsafe levels of mercury and PCBs in fish tissue. Although you may not become ill right away from consuming fish with posted advisories, accumulation of the toxins in these fish over a period of time can cause chronic illnesses. The affect of these pollutants increase with the amount you eat, and based on your body weight and size. High risk populations for harmful health effects are children under 12, women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, women of child-bearing age, or breast-feeding women. To learn more about potential health risks and fish consumption advisories, view the following information:
#2 Jul 25, 2012
The Town of Brattleboro should be ashamed for the crap they're dumping in the river. Can't blame VY this time.
#3 Jul 26, 2012
If this was an evil private business, Vermont NIMBY hypocrites would be whining oclse it down.
#8 Jul 26, 2012
exactly what 'crap' is Bratt responsible for putting in the Ct river and from what? Are ewe insinuating Bratt puts mercury and PCB's to go into it?
Documentation not mere BS accusations please
As of 2004, water quality in the Connecticut river in Brattleboro was safe for swimming, according to:
www.crjc DOT org/swimming.htm
Except for ecoli spikes after a rain the only other pollution in the Ct river has been that Tritium and Strontium 90 which we CAN and DO blame VY for
#9 Jul 26, 2012
Every time I think you can't possibly get any more ignorant, you make a post like this and prove me wrong.
#10 Jul 26, 2012
I meant the only other pollution in the Ct. river that we've seen major news articles about
of course one shouldn't eat fish from that river, that's been known for decades
I recall as a boy having to keep from throwing up every time we stopped in Berlin NH when my folks would stop at a relative's house there- cuz the paper mill there then had such a horrendous stench and put a 1-2 foot thick layer of foam on top of the Ct. river there, no doubt it was loaded with PCB's dioxins etc.
That was then, but if PCBs and mercury are in it now as Mass. says, how is it Bratt's fault as claimed by 'Commie Disser' in post #2?
So 'IKMTY' maybe ewe can document what Commie Disser insinuated?
If not then admit it's Bullsh't!
#11 Jul 26, 2012
The Vermont Department of Health recommends that people limit their consumption of some fish caught in Vermont waters
#12 Jul 26, 2012
You may already know that for the past
several years the four states in our watershed
have had health advisories limiting the consumption
of fish from the Connecticut River.
A new study released by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in October
has confirmed those warnings: mercury,
pesticides, PCBs, and dioxin may pose a risk
to people and animals that eat a lot of fish
from the river.
The EPA and state agencies collected fish
samples in eight segments of the Connecticut
River in 2000.
Here are the study’s main conclusions:
• In general, the study found that mercury,
PCBs, and dioxin each pose a risk to anglers
and wildlife that depend on fish. DDT and its
breakdown products pose a risk only to those
who eat a lot of fish and to fish-eating birds.
• Mercury concentrations tended to be
higher in smallmouth bass than in yellow
perch and white suckers.
• There were no significant results for
the cold, uppermost part of the river from
the Connecticut Lakes to the mouth of the
Nulhegan River. Bass and perch are warmwater
fish, and only two white suckers were
collected in this stretch.
• The highest mercury concentrations
were found from the Canaan VT dam to the
Moore dam in Littleton NH, followed by
the section downstream of Moore dam. The...
#13 Jul 26, 2012
river between the Vernon dam
(VT) and Turners Falls dam (MA)
tended to have higher mercury
concentrations than downstream
• Pesticide and PCB concentrations
were generally highest in
the two lowest reaches south of
Holyoke. Dioxins were measured
in only four of the eight reaches
because analysis is very expensive.
Dioxin trends were, therefore,
more difficult to determine.
• Those who depend on Connecticut-
river fish for subsistence
may run risks to their health. We
need additional study and community
involvement to learn how
many people depend on fish for
subsistence and to which cultural
groups they belong.
Where do these toxins come
#14 Jul 26, 2012
1. Mercury is primarily deposited
from the atmosphere as
emissions blown from coal-fired
power plants and incinerators in
the Northeast and Midwest and
returns to earth in rain drops and
dust, settling into river sediments.
Animals at the top of the food
chain, like eagles, loons, and people
are at the highest risk of getting
mercury poisoning. Mercury is a
neurotoxin that can impair motor
and cognitive skills, especially in
2. Dioxins are byproducts of
incineration and combustion processes,
and wind up in fish much
the same way as mercury.
3. PCBs, now banned, were
used for many years in a variety of
products ranging from inks to light
fixtures because of their non-conductive
and fire-resistant qualities.
PCBs in the Connecticut River derive
from old industrial discharges.
4. DDT is a pesticide credited
with eliminating malaria in the
U.S. It entered the river historically
via stormwater runoff and
then became biologically concentrated
up the food chain. DDT has
been banned from the US since
1972 because of harmful effects to
wildlife, especially birds.
#15 Jul 26, 2012
Would you eat any fish from the Connecticut River with all those parasites buried in the flesh of these fish...
So you put the white uncooked flesh up to a light...those dark little spots are parasites.
#16 Jul 26, 2012
The text that I posted was pre-Irene; I can't even imagine what's in the river now! What's on the bottom of that river today that wasn't there before Irene?
#17 Jul 27, 2012
There are people who are fishing and bringing the fish home and eating the fish .
Tragically some of them are poor and have large families with children .
Saint Albans, VT
#18 May 2, 2013
Apparently the pollution can travel up river. These people blame VY for everything. There is an agenda these people have, anti VY 24-7.
#19 May 2, 2013
Yankee hearing leaves unanswered questions
By Susan Smallheer STAFF WRITER | September 17,2009
"Entergy Nuclear refused to say Wednesday how Cobalt 60, a radioactive byproduct of the nuclear fission process, ended up in the Connecticut River in 1997, an issue that surfaced earlier this week during a legislative hearing on radiation monitoring at the Vermont Yankee plant.
Robert Williams said Entergy was preparing a report on the issue for the Committee on Administrative Rules and said it would decline further comment.
Williams said Cobalt 60 had gotten into the storm drains at Vermont Yankee and had ended up in the Connecticut River as a result of a ventilation problem, but he declined to say how the Cobalt 60 got out of the plant itself.
The incident happened when the plant was owned by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., a consortium of New England utilities led by Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and Green Mountain Power.
The Department of Health is rewriting radiation monitoring regulations, which in turn are reviewed by the legislative panel. On Tuesday, the joint panel heard about the latest revisions, in which the Department of Health abandoned plans to loosen the regulations. Entergy Nuclear opposes the latest revision, saying it reduces the amount of radiation it can release by between 30 percent to 40 percent.
William Irwin, the radiological health chief for the Department of Health, said the presence of the Cobalt 60 first surfaced in state monitoring records in 1998. He said the most recent "raw" monitoring data showed that the Cobalt 60 in the Connecticut River had decayed and was now at 170 picocuries.
Irwin said he understood that a piece of equipment, which had been contaminated with radiation, had been put outside the plant where rain water had washed over it, with the water running into storm drains, and thus into the Connecticut River.
"The cause was identified, the cause was eliminated," said Irwin. He said that environmental sampling continues to monitor the radioactive discharge.
Irwin said the Cobalt 60 had ended up in the river sediment.
According to Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer who is a member of the Legislature's Oversight Panel, the release of Cobalt 60 raised serious questions about the monitoring outside the plant, as well as a recent report by a state consultant that never mentioned the Cobalt 60 contamination.
"Cobalt 60 is a fission product that only comes from nuclear fission inside the fuel rod," Gundersen wrote in an e-mail. "The fuel rod would have had to be cracked, allowing the Cobalt 60 into the reactor coolant pipes. A steam or water line would have to be leaking to allow the Cobalt 60 to escape out of the pipes. The ventilation filters are the last line of defense to pick up whatever leaks out."
Williams denied that the Cobalt 60 was a result of faulty nuclear fuel.
Williams said storm drains that carried the Cobalt 60 were not considered underground piping, which is the focus of new scrutiny from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David McElwee, an Entergy engineer, told the legislative panel Tuesday that it was a result of rain washing off radiation from a roof on the turbine building, and getting into the storm drain. The ventilation problem was discovered in 1993, but there was no explanation about why the Cobalt 60 wasn't discovered until 1997.
According to Herald news reports in August 1997, monitoring picked up a "particularly hot" Cobalt 60 particle in the Connecticut River, near a storm-water drain.
The report quoted Williams in 1997 as saying the radioactivity was within federal reporting standards. He was also quoted as saying the 1997 report was not the first time Cobalt 60 had been found in that location."
#20 May 2, 2013
Fishin' hole or fission hole?
#21 May 2, 2013
Scientist: Entergy denial of Strontium-90 releases is “galling”
by Olga Peters | August 11, 2011
"Entergy issued a statement last week saying state officials had “absolutely no evidence” that Strontium-90 found in nine fish in the Connecticut River came from the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
While scientists agree that the origin of the radiation cannot be pinpointed, David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Nuclear Safety Project, called the absolute denial “galling,” in light of Entergy’s own reported emissions of the radionuclide to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“By its [Entergy’s] own admission, it [Vermont Yankee] is releasing strontium-90 into the environment” and therefore cannot rule itself out of the fish equation, Lochbaum said.
According to the company’s 2010 Radioactive Effluent Release Report for Vermont Yankee filed annually with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the plant released 31,800 picocuries of Sr-90 (at ground level not through the exhaust stack) in the first quarter.
The NRC requires all plant owners to file annual effluent release reports, said Lochbaum. The releases can go into the water, into the air, and shipped offsite as solid materials.
Lochbaum said that the Sr-90 released by Vermont Yankee in 2010 fell within federal limits.
But, he said,“For Entergy to omit this known release path and to only mention the monitoring wells is deceitful.”
“They are only telling part of the truth, and by doing so are telling a lie,” Lochbaum said.“Their statement on this matter is a shameless distortion of the facts. It would be unacceptable as an isolated case. Since it’s part of a long pattern of shameless distortions, it’s pathological — the company seems incapable of telling the truth.”
Strontium, in addition to the radioactive forms, occurs naturally in the environment as a non-radioactive element, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency’s fact sheet calls Strontium-90 a “bone seeker” because the isotope mimics calcium and can lodge in the bones and marrow.
Side effects of Strontium-90 exposure include leukemia." ...
#22 May 2, 2013
Plastic bags, tape, broomsticks fix San Onofre leak NRC contemplating restart of nuclear plant
ABC Channel 10 news San Diego
http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/pho... SAN DIEGO - An inside source gave Team 10 a picture snapped inside the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) showing plastic bags, masking tape and broom sticks used to stem a massive leaky pipe.
San Onofre owner Southern California Edison (SCE), confirms the picture was taken inside Unit Three, but did not say when. The anonymous source said the picture was taken in December 2012.
Unit Three is the same unit that leaked radiation in January 2012. SONGS has been shutdown since then as a precaution.
Add your comments below
|Brattleboro: Retreat under investigation by Att...||6 hr||Juliet||2|
|Topix Helping To Destroy This Forum (Jan '15)||Mon||Juliet||10|
|Shumlin Gave Up On Single Payer Health Care (Dec '14)||Mon||Juliet||13|
|True Marriage Is...One Man, One Woman||Mon||Juliet||9|
|Will California Repent So She Can Get Some Water?||Mon||Juliet||4|
|Vermonts new economy (Jun '14)||Aug 26||Diversity Dude||183|
|Stand With Rand - Pillory Hillary||Aug 21||Alex - Infowars d...||8|
Find what you want!
Search Brattleboro Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC