Toxins question...

Discussion in 'SOUTH CAROLINA LAKES / RESERVOIRS' started by takeaction, Oct 13, 2008.

  1. takeaction

    takeaction New Member

    Messages:
    427
    State:
    Ware Shoals, SC
    Here's a question that is just tearing away at my brain...

    I went to the DHEC site to look at all the polluted waters... There's a bunch of "GOOD?" information there? If we are supposed to trust that site, why am I seeing the following?

    Look closely at the river that is feeding Lake Murray... It's highly polluted and they say not to eat any fish... Now look at the river coming OUT of Lake Murray... It is also highly polluted and don't eat any fish...

    the water feeding the lake is polluted... the water coming out of the lake is polluted, yet they expect me to believe that the lake is "No toxins, eat as many as desired"????

    UM.... NO.... :eek:oooh:

    If you look at it close enough, you'll see the northwest corner is the same thing... everything surrounding that lake is toxic, the feeding rivers... but yet the lake itself is clean?

    I don't get it...
     
  2. Patmansc

    Patmansc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    State:
    Cordova, TN
    Wayne, that is an excellent question!!! Perhaps one possible response for the "OK" to eat Murray lake fish is that the toxins are not concentrated sufficiently in the lake proper, as they are coming into the lake and leaving the lake. I'm curious as to the toxin levels immediately below the lake, as opposed to miles downstream? Maybe Blackwaterkatz can help us find out?
     

  3. takeaction

    takeaction New Member

    Messages:
    427
    State:
    Ware Shoals, SC
    Pat, I thought about that myself. Maybe I could accept that reason if I hadn't always watched the scdhec site. 3-4 years ago, Murray was in the list of toxic waters and you were limited to the amount of fish you could eat from the lake. I know this because my father-in-law fishes there. The warnings were public and posted all over Columbia and Lexington.

    If this is to be their reason, then my new question comes in... how can a lake that is toxic 3 years ago, being fed by a toxic river, and giving off a toxic river, have gone down in toxins? The math and the science just doesn't work...

    You can't keep dumping more and more toxins into a toxic place, and then it somehow no longer be toxic... It just doesn't work like that... If the feeding river were cleaned out, yes... But the river has always been listed, and is actually worse now than it was three years ago... Have I caught something that we're not supposed to know about?

    I could be totally wrong, and I HOPE I am... Maybe they created a magic anti-toxin fairy dust and poored it in the lake? But if that were the case, the lake wouldn't be sending OUT toxins?

    I am totally confused. :sad2::confused2:
     
  4. psychomekanik

    psychomekanik New Member

    Messages:
    2,534
    State:
    Illinois
    Maybe it has something to do with the depth of the lake. and, the settling of the sediment. The river constantly churns up the bottom. the lake allows it to settle. Still I would think that a bottom feeding catfish would be toxic...
     
  5. Arkansascatman777

    Arkansascatman777 New Member

    Messages:
    7,782
    State:
    AR
    Wayne, this is called stream assimilation capacity. The larger the body of water the more toxins it can handle without killing the body of water. We deal with this in waste water. You can look up stream assimilation capacity and you will find out why the smaller streams coming in and going out may be labeled as toxic but the lake may be labeled as O.K. It will explain it better than I can.
     
  6. takeaction

    takeaction New Member

    Messages:
    427
    State:
    Ware Shoals, SC
    Johnny,

    Looked up several sites and articles on "stream assimilation capacity"... The only thing they do for me is make a giant circle back to the same questions without any answers to the main question.

    I guess I'll just chock it up as one of those things I'm not meant to understand. :smile2:

    I'll just stay clear of it. If you don't understand it, leave it alone. hehe:wink:
     
  7. pop pop

    pop pop New Member

    Messages:
    972
    State:
    Lake Green
    Toxins in the water:eek:oooh:. Now I know why I'm bald headed!:eek:oooh: All these years I thought it was because I raised 3 children to adulthood:smile2:.
     
  8. takeaction

    takeaction New Member

    Messages:
    427
    State:
    Ware Shoals, SC
    Mine is receding rapidly. Between Karen and I, we have 5 kids, 2 grandkids... My forehead now covers 1/4 of the top of my head... LOL