I hope you all have your PETA membersips updated. A few fish killed at the water treatment facility is much better then wipeing out the fish in the river bacause they missed something in the water.
Grrrr
- Thread starter iamchris
- Start date
I agree with you blinky, they already KNOW the water is contaminated........why wait and see if it kills the fish...........Water that is contaminated such as THAT doesnt & SHOULDNT be dumped anywhere.. 
They need to spend the money on cleanin up the water, not spend it on silly experiments like that... This is crazy and really P*sses me off.
They need to spend the money on cleanin up the water, not spend it on silly experiments like that... This is crazy and really P*sses me off.
Phycha said:
Why on earth would you want to put CONTAMINATED water or something that has the RISK to be contaminated into a river anyways?
So if the fish live for only several months, then they think that they will be ok for life? No way!
So you say they should spend the money to clean the water. How? which contaminets are at a level that will affect wildlife? There is alot more to it then just pumping it thought a filter.
Phycha said:
We're not complaining so much about the fact that a few fish will die. It's much more that the scientists KNOW that the contaminated water is harmful and they've got to be complete f-tards if they don't think it's going to harm anything. Just as blinky said; it's a wasted experiment and the money could be much better spent elsewhere.
I have no problem with them using those fish to determine water quality. It's immeasurably better than just introducing questionable elements into the environment.
But, if all they're doing is observing the effects that living in the water for 6 months has on some goldfish, then the whole thing seems tragically flawed.
This does not take into account the river system as a whole. How does this contaminated water effect plant life? How to the concentrations manifest themselves in higher trophic levels? How does it effect microfauna? Invertebrates? Reproductive ability? Longterm exposure? etc....
I seriously hope that this isn't the whole story.
But, if all they're doing is observing the effects that living in the water for 6 months has on some goldfish, then the whole thing seems tragically flawed.
This does not take into account the river system as a whole. How does this contaminated water effect plant life? How to the concentrations manifest themselves in higher trophic levels? How does it effect microfauna? Invertebrates? Reproductive ability? Longterm exposure? etc....
I seriously hope that this isn't the whole story.
This experament is to give them a place to start. Nothing was mention that this is the only test thats going to be performed. If you make the exparament too broad you loose the the ability to see the trees from the forest. Add in too meny veriables.
I am in shock. I live about 10 minutes outside of edmonton, and i had no idea this was happening until yesterday. A coworker of mine told me the story, and i didnt beleive it because everything coming out of her mouth is questionable... But now seeing it here. I can't beleive it. Goldfish are my all-time favorite fish. this makes me mad. hmmm.... im close enough to go protest *grabs sign, and marker, and leaves*... 
jenny cookie said:I am in shock. I live about 10 minutes outside of edmonton, and i had no idea this was happening until yesterday. A coworker of mine told me the story, and i didnt beleive it because everything coming out of her mouth is questionable... But now seeing it here. I can't beleive it. Goldfish are my all-time favorite fish. this makes me mad. hmmm.... im close enough to go protest *grabs sign, and marker, and leaves*...
So if they where doing this with another fish you wouldent care?
