It has been found to break down into dioxins in surface waters they can be highly toxic at tiny concentrations.Īntidepressants were commonly found in lakes, streams and rivers at concentrations that can change fish reproductive and predator-response behaviors. †Triclosan, a common disinfectant often found in antibacterial hand soaps, in 14 percent of the lakes.†The hormone androstenedione, a precursor to estrogen and testosterone that is sometimes taken as a hormone supplement known as “andro,” in 30 percent of the lakes.†Nonylphenol, a byproduct of commonly used surfactants that acts like estrogen on lab animals, in 10 percent of the lakes.It was originally developed as an estrogen. BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles. †Bisphenol A (BPA), a component of plastic, in 43 percent of the lakes.Potential endocrine disruptors found in Minnesota waters included: “Whether this indicates that carbadox is being used for off-label purposes or if it is transported to lakes through unknown mechanisms is not clear,” the report said, adding that carbadox, a carcinogen, is banned in Canada and the European Union. (Wisconsin ranks 18th.)īut many of the carbadox detections were nowhere near swine or other livestock facilities, which the report called “perplexing.” Minnesota has plenty of pigs, ranking third in hog production nationwide, according to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. That was expected and similar to earlier, smaller studies.ĭEET’s effects on the environment at the concentrations found are “not known,” the report said.Ĭarbadox, an antibiotic approved for use only on swine, was in 28 percent of the lakes. The most commonly detected chemical was the insect repellent DEET, found in 76 percent of the lakes. Geological Survey helped fund previous studies. The Pollution Control Agency has spent $1.8 million on endocrine disruptors research since 2008. Minnesota’s work, which cost $250,000 just for the tests, was funded in part by the EPA as well as a voter-approved sales tax that pours millions into a Clean Water Fund each year. “This is very concerning, and it shows that in fact the state has moved away from being a very proactive state in ensuring that our waterways and our fish and our citizens are being protected,” Meyer said. Environmental Protection Agency to fund such work, as Minnesota did. She added: “The question is, if we find it, what do we do with that information? We need to have a plan for what to do with it.”īut Meyer asked why, if Wisconsin lacked the funding, the DNR had not asked the U.S. “But I don’t have a budget for monitoring for these chemicals right now.” “We think it’s out there,” Sylvester said. And she agreed with Meyer that contamination in Wisconsin’s waters was likely similar. Susan Sylvester, head of the DNR’s surface water bureau, said Monday she was “impressed” with the Minnesota report.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |