"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"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?


You are an idiot. Rant about poisoning one lake with a killer of gilled
animals, and not worry about all the chemicals your children are exposed
to daily. Sad.


Read the message again, billy bob.