Save Our Elk - Examining antler deformities, lungworms, copper deficiencies, etc

[Mudman]

Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent.

That's a bit misleading. There were not adequate subjects to draw any conclusion. This is the executive summary from that study:

No offense Bob but sounds like an excuse to me.  What did they want? An apartment building of people?

[Bob33]

Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent.

That's a bit misleading. There were not adequate subjects to draw any conclusion. This is the executive summary from that study:

No offense Bob but sounds like an excuse to me.  What did they want? An apartment building of people?

I assume what they wanted was a statistically valid population to sample from.

[Mudman]

Ya I get that but if there is only 99 people living in affected area and they can only find say ?65 people to study and 30 of em are sick for example does that make it a statistically invalid study we should just ignore?

[Knocker of rocks]

I've been reading a great book about the Columbia River and just happened upon this amazing passage:

"Dr. Lowell Sever, an epidemiologist in Seattle who works for Battelle Laboratories and is one of the country's leading researchers on the relationship between environment and birth defects, said there are no solid studies anywhere in the world that suggest an association between birth defects and low-level radiation exposure of the kind that occurred downwind of Hanford.  Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent.  But he and his colleagues attributed the cluster of birth defects to intensive use of pesticides by farmers."

Pesticides: Worse than plutonium

Here's the link to the study: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect

Oh the irony kills me...you complain about Fairbrother's association with chemical companies...but when a scientist who works for Battelle, which operates Hanford, says there is no link between radiation and birth defects and blames the farmers and their pesticides...well that is just good science!   

And I'm not suggesting the Battelle scientist is wrong...but if you are going to invalidate one scientist because of her association with chemical companies, I don't think you can then turn around and praise the scientist on a nuclear site for saying there is no relationship between birth defects and radiation.   

Hanford is not operated by Batelle

[Mudman]

I am just a dumb country boy but I do know none of this stuff is good for any of us or animals.  Its a calculated risk we decide as a people.  What sucks is when big corporations take the peoples voice/choice over by manipulating people laws and science.  I just want the world a better place when I leave it to the children. 

[idahohuntr]

I've been reading a great book about the Columbia River and just happened upon this amazing passage:

"Dr. Lowell Sever, an epidemiologist in Seattle who works for Battelle Laboratories and is one of the country's leading researchers on the relationship between environment and birth defects, said there are no solid studies anywhere in the world that suggest an association between birth defects and low-level radiation exposure of the kind that occurred downwind of Hanford.  Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent.  But he and his colleagues attributed the cluster of birth defects to intensive use of pesticides by farmers."

Pesticides: Worse than plutonium

Here's the link to the study: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect

Oh the irony kills me...you complain about Fairbrother's association with chemical companies...but when a scientist who works for Battelle, which operates Hanford, says there is no link between radiation and birth defects and blames the farmers and their pesticides...well that is just good science!   

And I'm not suggesting the Battelle scientist is wrong...but if you are going to invalidate one scientist because of her association with chemical companies, I don't think you can then turn around and praise the scientist on a nuclear site for saying there is no relationship between birth defects and radiation.   

Hanford is not operated by Batelle

Could have fooled me    It does not change the point I was making though

[idahohuntr]

I have to wonder what you get out attempts to discredit those that would question the use of these chemicals or their effect on WA?

I've said many times reducing herbicides and chemicals in the environment is probably a good thing for human health.  I have no interest in discrediting anyone; however, I will speak up when I see people twisting half-truths to try and fit their wild conspiracies or desires to discredit hard working public servants.  If you guys cared about elk and not publicity I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem.  Unfortunately, several folks have caused wdfw staff working this issue to respond to their drivel and it is counterproductive and harmful to the elk in WA...and that irritates me and I think it is an injustice to our wildlife resources and the staff who manages them in the public's interest and so I'm not going to just follow these publicity stunts willingly over a cliff like a lot of lemmings do. 

[t6]

What do you think that I get out of this publicly?   I don't need credit but I'll demand the truth.

As far as "Hard working public servants."   That's got to be a joke right?   20 Years and they still don't have more than a guess.   

If I did such a crap job or so little... I'd have been fired.   

[jasnt]

I have to wonder what you get out attempts to discredit those that would question the use of these chemicals or their effect on WA?

I've said many times reducing herbicides and chemicals in the environment is probably a good thing for human health.  I have no interest in discrediting anyone; however, I will speak up when I see people twisting half-truths to try and fit their wild conspiracies or desires to discredit hard working public servants.  If you guys cared about elk and not publicity I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem.  Unfortunately, several folks have caused wdfw staff working this issue to respond to their drivel and it is counterproductive and harmful to the elk in WA...and that irritates me and I think it is an injustice to our wildlife resources and the staff who manages them in the public's interest and so I'm not going to just follow these publicity stunts willingly over a cliff like a lot of lemmings do. 

You say you have no interest in discrediting anyone yet that seems to be your goal in the majority of your posts, its always a conspiracy theory.  Any time anyone mentions anything about DFW not doing their job or not focusing on the problems we are concerned with you are often quick to try and discredit.
If wfdw cared about elk I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem.  I dont understand your motives your so quick to bad mouth anyone speaking out against DFW its hard to believe your not associated with them in some way.  I understand they will never be able to make us all happy.  But in 20 years they haven't gotten anywhere,they seem to disregard anything we bring up. If this was my job I would be exploring every possible options at this point!

[pianoman9701]

Jasnt and T6, you're peeing in the wind with him. He defends the WDFW no matter the discussion. We could find out that Nate Pamplin has been bottle-feeding the elk in the St. Helens farm with atrazine and glyphosate-laced elk milk and he'd defend his actions. Don't waste your breath.

[idahohuntr]

I have to wonder what you get out attempts to discredit those that would question the use of these chemicals or their effect on WA?

I've said many times reducing herbicides and chemicals in the environment is probably a good thing for human health.  I have no interest in discrediting anyone; however, I will speak up when I see people twisting half-truths to try and fit their wild conspiracies or desires to discredit hard working public servants.  If you guys cared about elk and not publicity I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem.  Unfortunately, several folks have caused wdfw staff working this issue to respond to their drivel and it is counterproductive and harmful to the elk in WA...and that irritates me and I think it is an injustice to our wildlife resources and the staff who manages them in the public's interest and so I'm not going to just follow these publicity stunts willingly over a cliff like a lot of lemmings do. 

You say you have no interest in discrediting anyone yet that seems to be your goal in the majority of your posts, its always a conspiracy theory.  Any time anyone mentions anything about DFW not doing their job or not focusing on the problems we are concerned with you are often quick to try and discredit.
If wfdw cared about elk I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem.  I dont understand your motives your so quick to bad mouth anyone speaking out against DFW its hard to believe your not associated with them in some way.  I understand they will never be able to make us all happy.  But in 20 years they haven't gotten anywhere,they seem to disregard anything we bring up. If this was my job I would be exploring every possible options at this point!

First, I have no goal to discredit anyone.  Second, I don't "badmouth" people...I do point out where I think they are wrong or misguided.  Third, I have many, many times described frustrations with wdfw and ways I think they could improve...don't get me started on the private lands access program or just about anything to do with their LE program.   

At the end of the day though, these state wildlife agencies are sportsmens biggest allies and we need to keep that in sight.  If i think there is an issue that sportsmen are complaining about that is unfair to WDFW I'm going to call them on it.  Stuff like "wdfw hasn't figured out anything in 20 years" is just not true and it is very spiteful towards a whole host of people that have actually made tremendous progress on a complex problem.  Believe me...I know bashing the state game agency is a popular activity on this forum and if I wanted to be popular I could join the chorus...sometimes I do, but more often I find the bashing to be unwarranted and usually arising from folks who are not fully aware of the issues.  Blaming WDFW for "allowing" private enterprises to spray herbicides is ridiculous...folks need to take their case to the EPA...probably the same folks who complain about too many federal regulations and beauracracies in most other threads     

Jasnt and T6, you're peeing in the wind with him. He defends the WDFW no matter the discussion.

Piano...don't you and I agree that WDFW's requested legislation on the hunting under the influence bill is garbage that does not solve any problems and infringes on the rights of sportsmen? 

[pianoman9701]

 

[jasnt]

Jasnt and T6, you're peeing in the wind with him. He defends the WDFW no matter the discussion. We could find out that Nate Pamplin has been bottle-feeding the elk in the St. Helens farm with atrazine and glyphosate-laced elk milk and he'd defend his actions. Don't waste your breath.

Luckly it was just a little data. 

And I didn't get any pee on me this time

[Northway]

I've been reading a great book about the Columbia River and just happened upon this amazing passage:

"Dr. Lowell Sever, an epidemiologist in Seattle who works for Battelle Laboratories and is one of the country's leading researchers on the relationship between environment and birth defects, said there are no solid studies anywhere in the world that suggest an association between birth defects and low-level radiation exposure of the kind that occurred downwind of Hanford.  Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent.  But he and his colleagues attributed the cluster of birth defects to intensive use of pesticides by farmers."

Pesticides: Worse than plutonium

Here's the link to the study: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect

Intuitively, one would think looking at the effects of radiation on animals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone would be a good piece of due diligence?

[t6]

Idaho.... you failed to answer my question....  "What do you think I get from this publicly?"     NOTHING.... I get NOTHING.    Yet you insinuate that I along with others are in disagreement with WDFW for some kind of profit or as you put it "Grandstanding" for our fifteen minuets of fame.

I can tell you it wouldn't be worth it.  I have far more than fifteen minuets into my research.

I'm only interested in having a healthy elk population with the hope that some day I might be able to pursue them with my Grandchildren.