The End of Fish
Got F i s h ?
Few
food products are as controversial as fish. A leading source of heavy
metals and other contaminants, fish is frequently the subject of
government health-risk advisories. However, some people promote fish as
a source of omega-3 fatty acids. Let’s look at the issues.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Washington, DC
Understanding Mercury
Mercury accumulates in aquatic life, concentrating especially in large predatory fish. Of the potential sources of mercury contamination, the consumption of fish and shellfish contributes most to the mercury concentration in humans.1
Nearly all fish contain traces of mercury. Some fish and shellfish tend to contain higher levels, either because they live in more contaminated waters or because they are larger carnivores consuming many contaminated smaller fish. Because mercury is eliminated slowly from the body, it may build to very high levels in the systems of animals—including humans—that consume it.
Levels of contamination vary widely from place to place and even among individual fish. Therefore, even well-informed consumers have no way of knowing whether the fish they have purchased has a high or low level of mercury contamination. Even modest consumption of moderately contaminated and commonly eaten fish can put consumers at risk very quickly.2
Effects of Mercury Contamination
Mercury exposure has been linked to a wide variety of ills, including acute and chronic effects on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. Also, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have designated mercury as a possible human carcinogen.1
Mercury and the Heart
Mercury accumulates in the heart, as well as other tissues, and has been associated with increased blood pressure, irregular and increased heart rate, and increased rates of death from cardiovascular disease in at least 12 scientific studies.1
Consumption of fish and omega-3 fatty acids, including docosahexaenonic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid, has been associated with decreased risk of heart attack in individuals consuming a Western-style diet.3,4 However, three recent studies have shown that mercury exposure may have the opposite effect. In one study, mercury levels were 15 percent higher among those patients who had suffered a first heart attack.5 A second study showed increased risk of cardiovascular mortality with increasing mercury exposure.6 The third study found that a high content of mercury in hair may be a risk factor for acute coronary events, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and all-cause mortality in middleaged men. This study also found that mercury may negate the purported protective effects of fish on heart health.7
Other Pollutants in Fish
There are several other pollutants that accumulate in fish and shellfish. Taken together, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, chlordane, DDT, and mercury account for 98 percent of all fish advisories issued in 2004.8 Many other toxins, including other heavy metals and organochlorine pesticides, find their way into water and aquatic life as well.
These pollutants are toxic to humans, fish, and other animals that consume and bioaccumulate them. Many of these chemicals are especially problematic because they are not readily cleared from the body and accumulate over a lifetime. Thus, even if exposure is limited to a discrete period of time, the potential risks persist.
According to the EPA, PCBs are known carcinogens in some species and probable carcinogens in humans. PCBs also have been shown to disrupt immune function, cause learning disabilities, and disrupt neurological development; they may have endocrine effects as well.
Dioxins, too, are known carcinogens and have also been shown to cause liver damage, weight loss, skin rashes, and reductions in immune function.9 They are especially dangerous during fetal development and early childhood.10
Chlordane and DDT, an organochlorine, are pesticides that have been banned from use in the United States. Nonetheless, appreciable levels of these highly toxic chemicals remain in waterways and bioaccumulate in fish.11
Nutrient Composition of Fish
Like other meats, fish are especially dense in animal protein (15 to 20 grams in a three-ounce cooked portion). People in the United States already consume well above the daily value for protein (50 to 65 grams). Protein intake averages about 15 percent of total calories, for a mean intake of approximately 100 grams per day for men and 70 grams per day for women.12 Much of this protein comes from animal sources.
Diets containing excessive protein are associated with increased risk of impaired renal function,13 osteoporosis,14 and complications of diabetes.15 Promotion of fish products may increase protein intake and aggravate these risks.
Furthermore, increasing fish intake would likely increase total fat and saturated fat intake. Although some of the fat in fish is in the omega-3 form, much of the remaining fat is saturated. Chinook salmon, for example, derives 52 percent of its calories from fat, and swordfish derives 30 percent. About one-quarter of the fat in both types of fish is saturated. Fish and shellfish are also significant sources of cholesterol. Three ounces of shrimp have 166 milligrams of cholesterol, while the same amount of bass has about 80 milligrams; in comparison, a 3-ounce steak has about 80 milligrams.16
Other Health Risks
There may be specific risks to fish consumption as well. For example, a 2004 study looked at diet and prostate cancer in Japanese men. It showed that a high consumption of fish was significantly associated with prostate cancer risk.17
In a comprehensive review, the Center for Science in the Public Interest determined that fish and shellfish dishes caused more foodborne illness outbreaks than any other food between 1990 and 2003.18 Such outbreaks can result from bacterial or viral contamination or from naturally occurring toxins. These naturally occurring toxins are not destroyed by cooking.19
A Healthier Way to Beat Heart Disease
Fish is often touted for its possible benefits relating to heart disease. However, it is already known that vegetarian diets help prevent, and even reverse, heart disease. Animal products are the main source of saturated fat and the only source of cholesterol in the diet. Vegetarians avoid these risky products. Additionally, fiber helps reduce cholesterol levels20 and animal products contain no fiber. When individuals switch to a high-fiber, low-fat diet, their serum cholesterol levels often drop dramatically.21,22 Studies have demonstrated that a low-fat, high-fiber, vegetarian or vegan diet combined with stress reduction techniques, smoking cessation, and exercise, or combined with prudent drug intervention, could actually reverse atherosclerosis—hardening of the arteries.23,24
Safer Sources of Omega-3 Fatty Acids
High levels of toxins, fat, and cholesterol and a lack of fiber make fish a poor dietary choice. Fish oils have been popularized as a panacea against everything from heart problems to arthritis. In fact, fish oil supplementation may increase the risk of cardiac arrhythmias in some patients, specifically those who require a pacemaker for this problem.25 Research has shown that omega-3s are found in a more stable form in vegetables, fruits, and beans.26,27
Alpha-linolenic acid, the only essential omega-3 fatty acid, is found in many vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, and fruits. It is concentrated in flaxseeds and flaxseed oil and also found in oils such as canola, soybean, walnut, and wheat germ. Omega-3 fatty acids can be found in nuts, seeds, and soy products, as well as beans, vegetables, and whole grains.28,29 Corn, safflower, sunflower, and cottonseed oils are generally low in omega-3s. Fish consumption is by no means the only way to ensure adequate intake of omega-3 fatty acids.
Conclusion
Given the clear evidence that fish are commonly contaminated with toxins that have well-known and irreversible damaging effects on children and adults, the consumption of fish should not be encouraged. The risks are known and, especially for infants and women of childbearing age, significant. The other risks associated with the consumption of fish and shellfish, which are high in animal protein and often saturated fat and cholesterol, are also considerable. It is best to avoid the consumption of fish and shellfish. Other, more healthful foods from plant sources offer the full range of essential nutrients without the toxins and other health risks in fish.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/fish_report.html
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: 202-686-2210
Aquacalypse Now
Our oceans have been the victims of a giant Ponzi
scheme, waged with Bernie Madoff–like callousness by the world’s
fisheries. Beginning in the 1950s, as their operations became
increasingly industrialized--with onboard refrigeration, acoustic
fish-finders, and, later, GPS--they first depleted stocks of cod, hake,
flounder, sole, and halibut in the Northern Hemisphere. As those stocks
disappeared, the fleets moved southward, to the coasts of developing
nations and, ultimately, all the way to the shores of Antarctica,
searching for icefishes and rockcods, and, more recently, for small,
shrimplike krill. As the bounty of coastal waters dropped, fisheries
moved further offshore, to deeper waters. And, finally, as the larger
fish began to disappear, boats began to catch fish that were smaller
and uglier--fish never before considered fit for human consumption.
Many were renamed so that they could be marketed: The suspicious
slimehead became the delicious orange roughy, while the worrisome
Patagonian toothfish became the wholesome Chilean seabass. Others, like
the homely hoki, were cut up so they could be sold sight-unseen as fish
sticks and filets in fast-food restaurants and the frozen-food aisle.
The
scheme was carried out by nothing less than a fishing-industrial
complex--an alliance of corporate fishing fleets, lobbyists,
parliamentary representatives, and fisheries economists. By hiding
behind the romantic image of the small-scale, independent fisherman,
they secured political influence and government subsidies far in excess
of what would be expected, given their minuscule contribution to the
GDP of advanced economies--in the United States, even less than that of
the hair salon industry. In Japan, for example, huge, vertically
integrated conglomerates, such as Taiyo or the better-known Mitsubishi,
lobby their friends in the Japanese Fisheries Agency and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs to help them gain access to the few remaining
plentiful stocks of tuna, like those in the waters surrounding South
Pacific countries. Beginning in the early 1980s, the United States,
which had not traditionally been much of a fishing country, began
heavily subsidizing U.S. fleets, producing its own fishing-industrial
complex, dominated by large processors and retail chains. Today,
governments provide nearly $30 billion in subsidies each year--about
one-third of the value of the global catch--that keep fisheries going,
even when they have overexploited their resource base. As a result,
there are between two and four times as many boats as the annual catch
requires, and yet, the funds to “build capacity” keep coming.
The
jig, however, is nearly up. In 1950, the newly constituted Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimated that,
globally, we were catching about 20 million metric tons of fish (cod,
mackerel, tuna, etc.) and invertebrates (lobster, squid, clams, etc.).
That catch peaked at 90 million tons per year in the late 1980s, and it
has been declining ever since. Much like Madoff’s infamous operation,
which required a constant influx of new investments to generate
“revenue” for past investors, the global fishing-industrial complex has
required a constant influx of new stocks to continue operation. Instead
of restricting its catches so that fish can reproduce and maintain
their populations, the industry has simply fished until a stock is
depleted and then moved on to new or deeper waters, and to smaller and
stranger fish. And, just as a Ponzi scheme will collapse once the pool
of potential investors has been drained, so too will the fishing
industry collapse as the oceans are drained of life.
Unfortunately,
it is not just the future of the fishing industry that is at stake, but
also the continued health of the world’s largest ecosystem. While the
climate crisis gathers front-page attention on a regular basis,
people--even those who profess great environmental
consciousness--continue to eat fish as if it were a sustainable
practice. But eating a tuna roll at a sushi restaurant should be
considered no more environmentally benign than driving a Hummer or
harpooning a manatee. In the past 50 years, we have reduced the
populations of large commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, cod, and
other favorites, by a staggering 90 percent. One study, published in
the prestigious journal Science, forecast that, by 2048, all commercial
fish stocks will have “collapsed,” meaning that they will be generating
10 percent or less of their peak catches. Whether or not that
particular year, or even decade, is correct, one thing is clear: Fish
are in dire peril, and, if they are, then so are we.
The extent
of the fisheries’ Ponzi scheme eluded government scientists for many
years. They had long studied the health of fish populations, of course,
but typically, laboratories would focus only on the species in their
nation’s waters. And those studying a particular species in one country
would communicate only with those studying that same species in
another. Thus, they failed to notice an important pattern: Popular
species were sequentially replacing each other in the catches that
fisheries were reporting, and, when a species faded, scientific
attention shifted to the replacement species. At any given moment,
scientists might acknowledge that one-half or two-thirds of fisheries
were being overfished, but, when the stock of a particular fish was
used up, it was simply removed from the denominator of the fraction.
For example, the Hudson River sturgeon wasn’t counted as an overfished
stock once it disappeared from New York waters; it simply became an
anecdote in the historical record. The baselines just kept shifting,
allowing us to continue blithely damaging marine ecosystems.
It
was not until the 1990s that a series of high-profile scientific papers
demonstrated that we needed to study, and mitigate, fish depletions at
the global level. They showed that phenomena previously observed at
local levels--for example, the disappearance of large species from
fisheries’ catches and their replacement by smaller species--were also
occurring globally. It was a realization akin to understanding that the
financial meltdown was due not to the failure of a single bank, but,
rather, to the failure of the entire banking system--and it drew a lot
of controversy.
The notion that fish are globally imperiled has
been challenged in many ways--perhaps most notably by fisheries
biologists, who have questioned the facts, the tone, and even the
integrity of those making such allegations. Fisheries biologists are
different than marine ecologists like myself. Marine ecologists are
concerned mainly with threats to the diversity of the ecosystems that
they study, and so, they frequently work in concert with environmental
NGOs and are often funded by philanthropic foundations. By contrast,
fisheries biologists traditionally work for government agencies, like
the National Marine Fisheries Service at the Commerce Department, or as
consultants to the fishing industry, and their chief goal is to protect
fisheries and the fishermen they employ. I myself was trained as a
fisheries biologist in Germany, and, while they would dispute this, the
agencies for which many of my former classmates work clearly have been
captured by the industry they are supposed to regulate. Thus, there are
fisheries scientists who, for example, write that cod have “recovered”
or even “doubled” their numbers when, in fact, they have increased
merely from 1 percent to 2 percent of their original abundance in the
1950s.
Yet, despite their different interests and
priorities--and despite their disagreements on the “end of
fish”--marine ecologists and fisheries scientists both want there to be
more fish in the oceans. Partly, this is because both are scientists,
who are expected to concede when confronted with strong evidence. And,
in the case of fisheries, as with global warming, the evidence is
overwhelming: Stocks are declining in most parts of the world. And,
ultimately, the important rift is not between these two groups of
scientists, but between the public, which owns the sea’s resources, and
the fishing-industrial complex, which needs fresh capital for its Ponzi
scheme. The difficulty lies in forcing the fishing-industrial complex
to catch fewer fish so that populations can rebuild.
It is
essential that we do so as quickly as possible because the consequences
of an end to fish are frightful. To some Western nations, an end to
fish might simply seem like a culinary catastrophe, but for 400 million
people in developing nations, particularly in poor African and South
Asian countries, fish are the main source of animal protein. What’s
more, fisheries are a major source of livelihood for hundreds of
million of people. A recent World Bank report found that the income of
the world’s 30 million small-scale fisheries is shrinking. The decrease
in catch has also dealt a blow to a prime source of foreign-exchange
earnings, on which impoverished countries, ranging from Senegal in West
Africa to the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific, rely to support
their imports of staples such as rice.
And, of course, the end
of fish would disrupt marine ecosystems to an extent that we are only
now beginning to appreciate. Thus, the removal of small fish in the
Mediterranean to fatten bluefin tuna in pens is causing the “common”
dolphin to become exceedingly rare in some areas, with local extinction
probable. Other marine mammals and seabirds are similarly affected in
various parts of the world. Moreover, the removal of top predators from
marine ecosystems has effects that cascade down, leading to the
increase of jellyfish and other gelatinous zooplankton and to the
gradual erosion of the food web within which fish populations are
embedded. This is what happened off the coast of southwestern Africa,
where an upwelling ecosystem similar to that off California, previously
dominated by fish such as hake and sardines, has become overrun by
millions of tons of jellyfish.
Jellyfish population outbursts
are also becoming more frequent in the northern Gulf of Mexico, where
the fertilizer-laden runoff from the Mississippi River fuels
uncontrolled algae blooms. The dead algae then fall to a sea bottom
from which shrimp trawling has raked all animals capable of feeding on
them, and so they rot, causing Massachusetts-sized “dead zones.”
Similar phenomena--which only jellyfish seem to enjoy--are occurring
throughout the world, from the Baltic Sea to the Chesapeake Bay, and
from the Black Sea in southeastern Europe to the Bohai Sea in
northeastern China. Our oceans, having nourished us since the beginning
of the human species some 150,000 years ago, are now turning against
us, becoming angry opponents.
That dynamic will only grow more
antagonistic as the oceans become warmer and more acidic because of
climate change. Fish are expected to suffer mightily from global
warming, making it essential that we preserve as great a number of fish
and of fish species as possible, so that those which are able to adapt
are around to evolve and propagate the next incarnations of marine
life. In fact, new evidence tentatively suggests that large quantities
of fish biomass could actually help attenuate ocean acidification. In
other words, fish could help save us from the worst consequences of our
own folly--yet we are killing them off. The jellyfish-ridden waters
we’re seeing now may be only the first scene in a watery horror show.
To
halt this slide toward a marine dystopia, government intervention is
required. Regulatory agencies must impose quotas on the amount of fish
caught in any given year, and the way they structure such quotas is
very important. For example, simply permitting all fisheries to catch a
given aggregate number of fish annually results in a wasteful build-up
of fleets and vessels as fisheries race to grab as large a share of the
quota as possible before their competitors do. Such a system may
protect the fish, but it is economically disastrous: The entire annual
quota is usually landed in a short period, leading to temporary
oversupply, which, in turn, leads to low prices. The alternative is to
limit the number of fishermen, with those retaining “access privileges”
being able to catch their assigned fraction of the overall quota
whenever they want, without competing against other fishermen. Such
individual quotas lead to less overall fishing effort and, hence,
bigger profit in the fishery.
Unfortunately, most fisheries
economists, fixated solely on corporate short-term profits, argue that,
for such a system to work, access privileges must (a) be handed out for
free, (b) be held in perpetuity, and (c) be transferrable (i.e.,
sellable and buyable like any other commodity). They call this
construct “fishing rights” or “individual transferable quotas.”
However, there is no reason why a government should not auction off
quotas with access privileges. The highest bidder would secure the
right to a certain percentage of the quota, with society as a whole
benefiting from providing private access to a public resource. This
would be similar to ranchers paying--as they do--for the privilege to
graze their cattle on federal lands. Grazing “rights” on the other
hand, would simply give ownership of public land to ranchers, which is
something few would consider.
Some Pollyannas believe that
aquaculture, or fish farming, can ensure the health of stocks without
government action--a notion supposedly buttressed by FAO statistics
showing such rapid growth in aquaculture that more than 40 percent of
all “seafood” consumed now comes from farms. The problem with this
argument is that China reports about 68 percent of the world’s
aquaculture production, and the FAO, which has been burned by inflated
Chinese statistics before, expresses doubt about its stated production
and growth rates. Outside of China--where most farmed fish are
freshwater vegetarians, such as carp--aquaculture produces
predominately carnivorous marine fish, like salmon, which are fed not
only vegetal ingredients, but also fishmeal and fish oil, which are
obtained by grinding up herring, mackerel, and sardines caught by
“reduction fisheries.” Carnivore farming, which requires three to four
pounds of smaller fish to produce one pound of a larger one, thus robs
Peter to pay Paul. Aquaculture in the West produces a luxury product in
global terms. To expect aquaculture to ensure that fish remain
available--or, at least, to expect carnivore farming to solve the
problem posed by diminishing catches from fisheries--would be akin to
expecting that Enzo Ferrari’s cars can solve gridlock in Los Angeles.
Others
believe that fish populations can be rebuilt through consumer awareness
campaigns that encourage buyers to make prudent choices. One such
approach is to label seafood from fisheries deemed sustainable. In
Europe, for example, consumers can look for the logo of the Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC), a nonprofit started by the World Wildlife
Fund and Unilever, which has a large fish-trading division. At first,
the MSC certified only small-scale fisheries, but lately, it has given
its seal of approval to large, controversial companies. Indeed, it has
begun to measure its success by the percentage of the world catch that
it certifies. Encouraged by a Walton Foundation grant and Wal-Mart’s
goal of selling only certified fish, the MSC is actually considering
certifying reduction fisheries, with the consequence that Wal-Mart, for
example, will be able to sell farmed salmon shining with the ersatz
glow of sustainability. (Given the devastating pollution, diseases, and
parasite infestations that have plagued salmon farms in Chile, Canada,
and other countries, this “Wal-Mart strategy” will, in the long term,
make the MSC complicit to a giant scam.)
The other market-based
initiative, prevalent in the United States, distributes wallet-size
cards designed to steer consumers toward fish that the group issuing
the cards deems to have been caught sustainably. Their success is
considerable if measured by the millions of cards given away, for
example, by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, but assessing the impact on the
fisheries is difficult. For one thing, the multitude of such cards
leads to contradictions and confusion, as the same fish are assessed
differently by different organizations. For example, ahi tuna is rated
as “safe,” “questionable,” and “avoid” on the wallet cards issued by
three U.S. nonprofits. A bigger issue, however, is that these cards
generate only “horizontal” pressure--that is, a group of
restaurant-goers might chide each other for ordering the cod filet or
might ask the overworked student who served them where the fish came
from, but this pressure does not reach wholesalers, fleet operators, or
supermarket chains. “Vertical” pressure exerted by environmental NGOs
on such decision-makers is far more effective. But, if that’s true, why
not directly pressure the government and legislators, since they are
the ones who regulate the fisheries?
The truth is that
governments are the only entities that can prevent the end of fish. For
one thing, once freed from their allegiance to the fishing-industrial
complex, they are the ones with the research infrastructure capable of
prudently managing fisheries. For another, it is they who provide the
billions of dollars in annual subsidies that allow the fisheries to
persist despite the lousy economics of the industry. Reducing these
subsidies would allow fish populations to rebuild, and nearly all
fisheries scientists agree that the billions of dollars in harmful,
capacityenhancing subsidies must be phased out. Finally, only
governments can zone the marine environment, identifying certain areas
where fishing will be tolerated and others where it will not. In fact,
all maritime countries will have to regulate their exclusive economic
zones (the 200-mile boundary areas established by the U.N. Law of the
Sea Treaty within which a nation has the sole right to fish). The
United States has the largest exclusive economic zone in the world, and
it has taken important first steps in protecting its resources, notably
in the northwest Hawaiian islands. Creating, or re-creating, un-fished
areas within which fish populations can regenerate is the only
opportunity we have to repair the damage done to them.
There is
no need for an end to fish, or to fishing for that matter. But there is
an urgent need for governments to free themselves from the
fishing-industrial complex and its Ponzi scheme, to stop subsidizing
the fishing-industrial complex and awarding it fishing rights, when it
should in fact pay for the privilege to fish. If we can do this, then
we will have fish forever.
Daniel Pauly is a professor
at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia and the
principal investigator of its Sea Around Us Project.
http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=5014
http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/aquacalypse-now?page=0,0
Sea Food Safety Chart
Join our cause... force manufactures to "Take It Back" ... tell
them YOU made YOUR Chemicals, and YOU know best how to RECYCLE them...
not us!... so STOP dumping YOUR byproducts into OUR Oceans NOW! and
take back what you have already dumped when it is returned to you by
the EPA or the Army Corp Of Engineers or whatever salvage company has
enough skills to safely transport it back to it's origin... http://EcoDelMar.org/TakeItBack
If this sounds impossible... think about it this way... if you
painted antique cars in your garage... could you legally dump the old
paint thinner/cleaners down the drain?... of course not! So why are
manufacturers allowed to do this on a massive mega-tonnage scale...
They are killing our Oceans and Planet Earth and this has to stop.
Please sign the petition to tell the US Congress to stop allowing
profiteers to destroy our planet for their profit. This is the cause of
widespread cancer and children with autism... if you truly want to
fight cancer... stop industrial pollution... http://EcoDelMar.org/TakeItBack
GE USA and the American Paper Industry Giants
Filed Lawsuit to block Standard Measures
previously established to protect the
American Public from toxic PCBs
General Electric Company and the American Forest and Paper Association (a trade group representing the paper industry), joined forces to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block new PCB water quality criteria designed to protect human health.
The EPA settled with industrial giants and yet another corporate action accomplished it's profitable goal:
Hazardous PCB rulings were delayed once again so that highly
profitable American Industries were allowed to continue dumping known
Toxic PCBs into
American Public Waterways leading to the only living Oceans in the
entire universe.
http://FoxRiverWatch.com/industry_sues_to_block_safety_standards
Insurance and public health costs are expected to skyrocket as the
ocean's food chain is contaminated, more children are diagnosed with
ADD and autism, and more adults are diagnosed with cancer. Immune
system suppression is expected to result in incurable infections, again
severely impacting corporate insurance investments and dividends.
Mafia Also Solves Age Old Nuclear Waste Problem
Giant US Industries sue their EPA to continue
dumping Toxic leftovers into Earth's Oceans
LINK: Wyland Wall Key Largo
(that's me, in the bottom middle,
dark blue t-shirt and Wyland cap...
taking a picture of Wyland!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Three Critical Numbers
-------------------------------
0.0005 -- 50 -- 1000
------------------------------
Connecting the dots...
---------------------------------
The EPA says public drinking water
must be under 0.0005 PPM in PCB's
The EPA classifies DIRT at higher
than 50 PPM as a TOXIC WASTE SITE
BEACHED WHALES NOW TEST AT
OVER 1000 PPM IN PCBs !!!
------------------------------------
Clearly this PCB industrial waste was
PIPE-LINED into our once clean Oceans...
I think this is a major reason we are
seeing a GLOBAL die off of coral reefs...
This problem started in the late 70's....
coinciding with the time industrial
giants were dumping tons of PCB into
the Ocean.
Ocean + Plastic + PCB = children with Autism
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sign the "Ocean Petition" at"
Open Door World.com / petition
Ocean Dalirium
created by Leandro Blanco
(The Ocean Video)
EcoDelMar.org
Inspiring video full screen...
