"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:15:01 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

But like Captain Ahab or perhaps Wile E. Coyote, the state has not
let
a little adversity stop it.
This is the best line in the article.

And here's the real reason for the poisoning.

"After the poisoning is complete - and all the dead fish are scooped
out of the water - the lake will be tested for toxicity, and will
remain closed for two months, Mr. Martarano said. After that,
restocking will begin, with a goal of one million trout in Lake Davis
by 2010."

I've fired off a letter to Trout Unlimited to see if they are
involved
with this in any way. I give them a fair amount of money every year
and this better not have been on the national agenda.

I can understand their concern about an invasive fish, upsetting the
ecosystem, but they really do seem like Wile E.Coyote.

I did check up on Rotenone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone. I
don't believe I would get back in the lake for a LONG time.


Yeah, but so many morons have been hypnotized (or bribed) by the
chemical industry. I'm sure the state will be lying to people about the
safety of rotenone as soon as the lake is opened.


Is a short lived poison only toxic to gilled animals. Plus they
Rotenoned the lake a couple of years ago. Seems as if we did not create
any Blobs.


Yet.

Since chemicals like that have not and cannot be PROPERLY tested on
humans, we will NEVER know if they are safe. According to the chemical
industry, animal tests are not a valid method for predicting the effects
on humans, so that argument is no longer permissible.



Sure it is. You may not like it. But is a permissible argument. And
since it has been used lots of places without any noticable impact on
humans since, we can assume it is not that affecting to humans. We live
with a lot more chemicals that are a lot worse for us and we are required
to use them. Where are your arguments against their use?

In a laboratory, a scientist can exercise quite a bit of control to be sure
a rat is not being exposed to dioxin, so when they are testing the toxicity
of some other thing, they know it wasn't dioxin that caused a problem. It's
practically impossible to set up the same situation for human testing, which
is why any scientist worth his salt will tell you it's futile.

As far as animal tests, the antics surrounding their validity have been
going on since the late 1960s. Environmental groups would point to tests
which indicated a certain chemical caused cancer in rats, and companies like
Dow would respons by saying animals react differently than humans, so it's
risky to extrapolate from those results. But, when convenient, they would
point to animal tests which did NOT result in illness, and say those WERE
valid results.

Then, there's the issue of children's exposure. You know why that's a whole
different thing, right?



For one example is the fire protectants that all childrens pajamas and
bedding are required to use. Blood analysis of children show up
frightening amounts of these chemicals, but no rotenone.

Silly. Were the pajamas being tested for rotenone?