Conference wahoo::fishing-v2

    Did the article go into more detail than that?
    
    Did it suggest that the advisory was for fish found in certain types of
    waterways or even specific waterways?
    
    I'd also be curious about whether there were any mention of the kind of
    fish tested. Were mussels evaluated as well?
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

The article was pretty vague.  It only stated "inland waters" but did not
specify which ones were tested nor which species were affected.

It's a real sad note that NH ain't as clean as it used to be, but then
again, what place is?!?

-Joe-

    Yah Joe, they have had that sign on the Wachusetts reseviour in Mass 
    for a couple of years now, the scary thing is that this is a water
    supply for much of boston.
    
    Oats

<    Yah Joe, they have had that sign on the Wachusetts reseviour in Mass 
<    for a couple of years now, the scary thing is that this is a water
<    supply for much of boston.
    
   The theory is that the heavy metals are not in solution, but rather settle
to the bottom, get absorbed into the plant material at the bottom of the food
chain, little fish eat the plants, big fish eat little fish etc. So the water
is not contaminated, but the vegetation and fish are. Of course isn't mercury
poisoning supposed to make you muddle-headed (i.e. the Mad-Hatter)? Maybe that
explains Beacon Hill is so screwed up.  It's the water inside Rt 128;-);-);-)


Al
who use to be a resident of the PRM (People's Republic of Massachusetts)

    Folks on beacon hill dont drink water...
    

<    Folks on beacon hill dont drink water...

      At least not until the ice-cubes melt in the "rocks" glass...

				OR

      you count the slush in the Margureita
    

No... but that certainly is a good reason for the Legend's behavior.

    ...might be a dumb question but How does the Mercury get in the water??
    It can't be blamed on Acid Rain,,,Global Warming,,,or split-shot
    sinkers.....and only rivers have had factories dumping waste in them
    for years so how does it get in Lakes.??
    
    Would a good guess say it's in the ground from past dumpings and is
    making its way into streams which dump into lakes.?? But if that were
    the case,,,all our well water would also have Mercury in it also..??
    MAybe we can get our deep pocket goverment to spend $5 billion on
    a research program after they print some more money....
    
    
                                          -Sorry but mad
    

    Has anybody called NH Inland Fish & Game to get more information on
    this yet?
    
    It's unusual for a statewide warning on mercury contamination
    on all fish in all freshwater systems to be issued by an agency
    that derives its revenues from the activity such a warning would
    clearly curtail.
    
    John H-C

    In addition to the Sunday News article, there was a follow-up in the
    M.U.L. on Tuesday I believe.  I didn't read it, but the headline seemed
    to imply that this shouldn't be blown out of proportion.  I'll try to
    dig up both articles and post.  The Sunday paper did list the areas
    tested, which included Horseshoe Pond and Stumpfield.  [Hmmm, you might
    have something here with the LEGEND connection.]
    
    Moe

    
    Hi Folks,
    
    I saw news on Mercury in NH fresh water fish on fox two days ago.  I fish
    and eat N.Y.lake Ontario fish for over 5 years.  They did a study up
    there and found Mercury in their fish as well but it is in the grey
    meat area.  A proper filet job will yield perfectly good meat which
    meets the government standard.  In fact, lake Mich steelhead and salmon
    are sold in supermarket or fish stores.  All great lake are connected.
    So, it does not make sense why N.Y fish can not commercialized.  But,
    it is good for fisherman that N.Y state only keep Lake Ontario fish as game
    fish.  Ten years ago, lake Ontario was one of the most dirty fresh body
    of water around the northeast.  Today, clean-up effort has helped to
    bring the water quality up.
    
    I believe you better off eat fish than red meat.  Because, you probably
    will leave longer by eating fish with Mercury in them than eating red
    meat and have a heart-attack.

    There was an article in this past Sunday's _Boston Globe_ "New
    Hampshire Weekly" section on mercury in NH's inland waters and
    environmentalists' complaints that the state bureacracy was downplaying
    it by not making more of an effort to warn tourists and others who fish
    casually not to eat the fish.
    
    If there's interest, I'll rekey the sidebar, which delineates the
    warnings that *have* been publicized pretty clearly.
    
    
    John H-C

From _Lakeside, A Quarterly Publication of the New Hampshire Lakes
Association_, in an article written by Robert Estabrook and Jody Conner
of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Biology
Bureau:



"Recently, the NH Division of Public Health Services (DPHS) issued
an advisory for small children and women of childbearing age to limit 
their consumption of of freshwater fish to not more than one meal per
month. All other people are urged to limit their consumption to no more
four meals per month."
.
.
.
.
"Last year, a total of 88 fish were submitted, representing 28 lakes and
one river, consisting of 10 different species. The VLAP [Volunteer Lake
Assessment Program] data was added to the fish data collected by the 
DPHS over the previous three years. Although the amount of data for any 
one species is too small at this time to make any conclusive statements, 
preliminary trends are evident.
	o Bass tend to be high in mercury
	o Trout species tend to be low
	o Older, bigger fish contain higher levels of mercury (except
		for yellow perch)
	o Acidic, tea-colored ponds tend to contribute higher mercury
		levels to fish populations (except for largemouth bass)"



		 Mercury Levels by Species of Fish
----------------------------------------------------------------
High		Moderate		Low		Very Low
	
LM, SM bass	yellow perch		salmon		white perch
		pickerel		horned pout	brown trout
					lake trout	rainbow trout
					brook trout



FWIW

John H-C

<		 Mercury Levels by Species of Fish
<----------------------------------------------------------------
<High		Moderate		Low		Very Low
<	
<LM, SM bass	yellow perch		salmon		white perch
<		pickerel		horned pout	brown trout
<					lake trout	rainbow trout
<					brook trout
<

    Any speculations as to why this separation of mercury level? Can't be
where the fish is on the food chain as both Bass and Browns are at the top.
Might be warm/shallow/still water vs cold/deep/flowing water...

Al

    I believe that the lifespan of the fish is mostly responsible for the
    differences, combined with their preferred food forms.
    
    That, of course, is pure speculation on my part.
    
    John H-C

      One point I would like to discuss is that the fish in the med/low
    levels are either cold water species or bottom feeding species. I
    believe that the cold water species reside lower in the lake longer
    during the year before ice in and ice out. What's puzzling is the fact
    that white perch and catfish do a lot of bottom feeding and mercury is 
    heavy and should sink to the bottom. Do these fish have some sort of 
    filtering system that removes the mercury? 
    
     My other theory would be that mercury seeps into the lake from
    (shorelines and the air) and these fish with high levels tend to feed 
    heavily in shallow water. They also tend to migrate toward incoming water
    (river/stream) that may be bringing in higher levels of mercury into
    the lake besides fish that inhabit them. 
    
     I also assume that a lot of the mercury in the air that lands in the
    lakes, may not sink right away and the wave action moves it to shore
    where it is deposited. Has there been any studies to determine the 
    density of mercury in different levels of the lake. Could it be that
    after a certain depth mercury suspends and does not sink to the bottom?
    
     I guess this is enough to ponder for one note.
    
     Regards
    
     DonB,
     

    "The major pathway of mercury to lakes is rain. This means that fish
    from remote lakes may contain mercury levels that are similar to fish
    from lakes in industrialized areas. The mercury can accumulate in the
    organic matter of lake sediments. In time, bacteria in the sediments
    convert the mercury into a form which can enter the food chain. It is
    then consumed by progressively higher life forms and eventually by
    full-sized fish where it bioaccumulates in their tissues. It is likely
    that mercury now detected in New Hampshire fish is more reflective of
    past emissions, which may now be reduced or not active, rather than
    current emissions."