The Chemical Manufacturers Association, CMA, has published a review of the
literature about NPE's and contains a summary of the findings as well as
complete references to the original studies. The report is 14 pages thick,
I would be happy to fax to any and all if you E-mail your fax number off of
this list. However, for those who would perter the executive summary, here
goes:
In 30 rivers that receive industrial or municipal waste water, NPE
levels were below detection limits in 60-75% of the rivers, and was
1 - 17 ppb for the others.
In another study, the lower Fox River in southern Wisconsin which
receives waste from 20 paper mills that use NPE's in their
process was studied. This waste is treated in publicly owned treatment
facilities before discharge in the Fox river. Again, the level
of NPE's in the water were "generally non-detectable". This
confirms an earlier study where 30 rivers were tested, with the same results.
There have been numerous laboratory bench scale testing that proves
beyond doubt that NPE's are biodegraded in sewage treatment
plants.
Given the reported environmental concentrations and
bio-concentrations factors of NPE's, the potential for these
compounds to produce estrogenic effects in the environment are low.
As in all gloom and doom press stories, there is often another side. The
debate around NPE's originally started concerning the biodegradation of
NPE's. The theory was that since these compounds contained a phenyl group,
they would not readily biodegrade. Studies were commissioned looking at
rivers around paper mills, where NPE's have been used for ever in very
large amounts. The result of the study was that they couldn't find any.
The surfactant industry is a very large and competitive market and
competition is very keen. Since petroleum is the source for most of these
compounds, these surfactants come from very large oil companies. Imagine
what happens if one or two of these companies do not make NPE's. If
something were to happen to cause NPE's to be banned, well, you would have
to use another surfactant, and find instant riches.
As a scientist and one who determines and approves what chemicals are used
by this company in the detergents it manufactures, I have absolutely no
concerns with using these compounds. While there are other surfactants
(that's what NPE's are) available, they do not offer the performance or
the cost effectiveness of NPE's. Also, as a hobbyist that maintains over
100 aquariums, I would never allow this company to knowingly damage our
environment or the water we drink, and need to keep our fish alive in.
As a dedicated lurker on this list, I felt compelled to come out of hiding
and comment on this posting. Let's all keep an open mind about NPE's and
let science determine what the effects, not the television.
At 07:01 PM 3/2/98 +1000, you wrote:
>There was an interesting science program called "Assault on the Male" on
>Foxtel's lifestyle channel the other day. It went into great detail about
>the effects of synthetic oestrogens and oestrogenic substances on human and
>wildlife populations. This was an excellent medical / scientific program
>which documented work of scientists and medical researchers in trying to
>explain the increasing incidences of deformaties that having been occuring
>in fish/aquatic animal and humans over the last 30 years or so.
>
>There have been several studies in UK and the US about various deformaties
>in wildlife living in and around streams / creeks etc that have effulent
>pumped into it. In the US there are studies being undertaken in fish and
>allegator populations - Lake Apoka in Florida is a particular area of study.
>In the UK there are studies on trout living near sewage works. One
>oestrogenic substance that was mentioned as having a major effect on fish
>was nonyl phenols - a substance used in detergents and plastics. This
>substance is very widely used in the plastic industry and is persistant in
>the environment. A very small quantity can caused major genetic
>disruptions.
>
>Although the program is called "Assault on the Male" there were a range of
>different deformaties in wild life. For instance unhatched birds having
>full adult plumage etc.
>Perhaps if you contact Foxtel you may be able to get some further info that
>you could chase up.
>
>Regards
>
>Yolonde
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rob Wager <raintree at mail.cth.com.au>
>To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
>Date: Monday, 2 March 1998 9:07
>Subject: Re: [RML] Deformed fish.
>
>
>:Thanks Nick, that is something I had overlooked. Given the high
>temperatures
>:we experienced over December to February I guess it is possible.
>:Unfortunately there are not any long term temperature records for the site.
>:
>:I forgot to mention that sea mullet and tandanus catfish from the same site
>:had ulcers and fungus infections. Certainly these indicate some
>:physiological stress, maybe temperature. The temp at the site was 28.5
>:degrees celcius mid morning. Certainly warmish compared to other small
>:southeast Queensland streams with good riparian vegetation, but not
>compared
>:to larger rivers.
>:
>:Thanks again.
>:
>:-----Original Message-----
>:From: Nick Thorne <nick at nativefish.asn.au>
>:To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
>:Date: Friday, 27 February 1998 12:28
>:Subject: Re: [RML] Deformed fish.
>:
>:
>:>I'm not sure about published work, but I do know from NFA's experience
>:>with breeding native fish, that excessive temperature while the eggs are
>:>incubating often produces a high proportion of deformed fish, in the
>:>order of magnitude that you describe. In the case of our hatchery when
>:>breeding trout cod this can be caused by abnormally high temperatures in
>:>October and by the fact that our hatchery is not a purpose built
>:>structure and suffers from heat at times, despite our best efforts to
>:>prevent the problem. I see no reason why such things might not happen
>:>in the wild, especially if the water in question has had a significant
>:>amount of the stream side vegetation removed, allowing for higher water
>:>temperature. I suppose unseasonably hot weather could do it in a
>:>particular stream in any case.
>:>
>:>Cheers,
>:>
>:>Nick
>:>
>:>------------------------------------------------
>:>Nick Thorne nick at nativefish.asn.au
>:>
>:>Native Fish Australia
>:>http://www.nativefish.asn.au
>:>
>:>
>:>-----Original Message-----
>:>From: Rob Wager <raintree at mail.cth.com.au>
>:>To: RML <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
>:>Date: Friday, 27 February 1998 12:52
>:>Subject: [RML] Deformed fish.
>:>
>:>
>:>>I've just finished some aquatic survey work in a Brisbane Creek. Water
>:>flow
>:>>in the creek is maintained by sewage effluent - yuk. Amazingly enough
>:>there
>:>>are native fish in the creek. But a significant proportion (about 15%)
>:>of
>:>>the firetail gudgeons have deformities like missing vertebrate, bent
>:>spines,
>:>>cleft upper jaw and missing gill covers and fins.
>:>>
>:>>I suppose the deformiries could be caused by toxins or heavy metals,
>:>but it
>:>>could be poor diet, inbreeding (unlikely) or some other environmental
>:>>stress. Does anybody know of any work anywhere on fish deformities?
>:>>
>:>>Thanks in advance
>:>>
>:>>Rob Wager
>:>>Raintree Aquatics Pty Ltd
>:>>Aquatic Environment and Aquaculture Specialists
>:>>1002 Caboolture River Road
>:>>Rocksberg QLD 4510
>:>>AUSTRALIA
>:>>Phone: 07 5496 7939 Facsimile: 07 5497 0022
>:>>Email: raintree at mail.cth.com.au
>:>>
>:>
>:
>:
>
>
Phil Benes
phil at mail.netquest.com
Michigan Cichlid Association http://www.ole.net/mca/