The article addresses the possible future causes of more endocrine disrupting chemicals in the environment, but does not address the possible solutions. Many developing nations resort to the burning of waste as it has few regulations and the need for waste space persuades them to do so. Tanabe states that the open air burning of the waste produces dioxins and related compounds that contaminate the soil. As he further states, “this suggests potential for adverse effects on the health of humans and wildlife in developing countries” (Tanabe). Once again, however, no solutions are given to resolve this problem. Since these are developing nations, few regulations exist on the expelling of chemical pollutants. Few regulations are a result of competition
…show more content…
Without solving the feminization problem, huge effects are rising from the built up problem. In his article "The Canary in The River”, Eric Hagerman argues that bass fishermen could potentially see huge drops in bass populations. Shenandoah experienced a huge loss in their smallmouth bass population in 2004 and 2005. Researchers believe that “a connection between the intersex findings and another health crisis among bass (shows) weakened immune systems, suspected of killing 80 percent of the smallmouth bass” (Hagerman). As seen in the mammals of Southeast Asia, disease from weakened immune systems is already a common occurrence amongst species affected by endocrine disrupting chemicals. What’s potentially scary is the effect that this could have on the $5.5 billion bass industry that employs thousands of people in the United States (Hagerman). Although the effects we have the environment are extremely important, the reality of the situation often does not affect the opinion of the public until real figures are presented. The potential harm to a $5.5 billion industry is exactly the type of information needed to persuade the general public that feminization of fish due to the unregulated release of endocrine disrupting chemicals is an important environmental problem that needs to be solved before the ramifications of our actions become …show more content…
In her article “Side Effects”, Bethany Halford examines studies of feminization that could lead to further knowledge on the solution to the problem. Since the topic has been debated, many critics ponder the ability of our watersheds to return back to normal after the toxins are flushed out. Skepticism has formed over the ability for a long term impact to be made. This skepticism is addressed by a study done in Canada’s Experimental Lakes Area where the endocrine disrupting chemical, 17α-ethinylestradiol, was introduced (Halford). After three summers of the toxin, there was “delayed sperm cell development in male fathead minnows” and their main predator, the lake trout, saw a population drop of 30% as a result of the food shortage (Halford). But even after the population had all but disappeared, three years of no endocrine disrupting chemicals resulted in the population booming back (Halford). All hope is not lost. By eliminating the chemicals from the environment, the marine ecosystems could theoretically flush out the toxins within three years and revert back to their natural states. Stopping the flow from it source is not only a feasible option with this information, but a theoretically successful
Without solving the feminization problem, huge effects are rising from the built up problem. In his article "The Canary in The River”, Eric Hagerman argues that bass fishermen could potentially see huge drops in bass populations. Shenandoah experienced a huge loss in their smallmouth bass population in 2004 and 2005. Researchers believe that “a connection between the intersex findings and another health crisis among bass (shows) weakened immune systems, suspected of killing 80 percent of the smallmouth bass” (Hagerman). As seen in the mammals of Southeast Asia, disease from weakened immune systems is already a common occurrence amongst species affected by endocrine disrupting chemicals. What’s potentially scary is the effect that this could have on the $5.5 billion bass industry that employs thousands of people in the United States (Hagerman). Although the effects we have the environment are extremely important, the reality of the situation often does not affect the opinion of the public until real figures are presented. The potential harm to a $5.5 billion industry is exactly the type of information needed to persuade the general public that feminization of fish due to the unregulated release of endocrine disrupting chemicals is an important environmental problem that needs to be solved before the ramifications of our actions become …show more content…
In her article “Side Effects”, Bethany Halford examines studies of feminization that could lead to further knowledge on the solution to the problem. Since the topic has been debated, many critics ponder the ability of our watersheds to return back to normal after the toxins are flushed out. Skepticism has formed over the ability for a long term impact to be made. This skepticism is addressed by a study done in Canada’s Experimental Lakes Area where the endocrine disrupting chemical, 17α-ethinylestradiol, was introduced (Halford). After three summers of the toxin, there was “delayed sperm cell development in male fathead minnows” and their main predator, the lake trout, saw a population drop of 30% as a result of the food shortage (Halford). But even after the population had all but disappeared, three years of no endocrine disrupting chemicals resulted in the population booming back (Halford). All hope is not lost. By eliminating the chemicals from the environment, the marine ecosystems could theoretically flush out the toxins within three years and revert back to their natural states. Stopping the flow from it source is not only a feasible option with this information, but a theoretically successful