Letter to the Editor of the Gray Bay Times
Dear Editor,
In response to the article written on Wednesday, February 21, 2001, there are a few errors that I would like to point out. The letter shows reasons why Don Juan Tunó is responsible for the fish dying. This proof is incorrect for many reasons. In this letter I will be telling you why Don Juan Tunó is not responsible for the fish dying.
The first thing that I would like to point out is that the letter says that it was proven to be untrue that the water slide is killing the fish when the chemist tested the water below the water slide and found no chlorine. This is incorrect because Juan Tuno found no water fleas in the water near the water slide. Water fleas are bioindicators that work as indicators for scientists to know weather an environment is healthy. Water fleas cannot live in chlorine, meaning that there is chlorine in the water. If this was true, then there would be water fleas in the water, meaning that the Fo river would not have chlorine.
I would like to point out that the cattle ranch upstream from James Pond has not leaked phosphates into the pond. We did experiments from the drainage into the pond from three locations. The cattle ranch, the golf course, and the small town. From our experiment, we figured out that the phosphate levels are high from the golf course drainage into the pond. These phosphates are coming from over watering and using fertilizer. If phosphates were coming from the cattle ranch upstream, we would see fish dying more in the Fo river rather than in James Pond.
The letter states that phosphates poison fish. This is incorrect because phosphates do not poison fish. Phosphates create algae in the water, and when these water plants die, the bacteria use up all of the oxygen, so that there is not enough oxygen for the fish to survive. Some fish need more oxygen that others, but with more and more phosphates, it can be hard even for the fish that don't need as much oxygen. We also found out that a few phosphates are important for fish. If phosphates do kill fish, we would see a lot more fish dead all the time because there are always a few phosphates in the pond.
The letter also states that fish autopsies found oil from Don Juan Tunó refinery in the dead fish that were examined. This is incorrect because Oil is coming from car exhaust In the Gray Bay. In our tests, we found out that oil in the Gray Bay is coming from car exhaust rather than from tankers or refineries. if oil was coming from the oil refinery, we would have seen a lot more oil in the gray bay because the oil refinery is right next to it.
In the letter, it says that sediments from logging operations have made the rivers dirty. This is incorrect because the logging operations are far from all of the rivers and lakes. In our tests, we found out that the rivers with too much dirt in the water for fish eggs are the Upper and Lower Missterssippi river, which are far from the logging operations. Furthermore, If there was sediment coming from the logging operations, it would be in the Upper Rafta river, which would be killing the fish in a different area.
I also noticed that the letter says that dirt in the water makes the rivers too cold for the fish. This is incorrect and does not make sense because heat would be attracted to rivers with sediment because it is darker. Furthermore, this does not make sense because sediment in the water would make the rivers and lakes warmer, so that it cannot hold as much more oxygen. If this was correct, then the rivers would colder, making it a little bit easier for the fish because cold water can hold more oxygen that warm water.
The letter states that the oil refinery is causing pH 8 acid rain in the nearby rivers. This is incorrect for two reasons. pH 8 rain is not acidic, it is okay for fish. Acid rain has a pH of 5 or less. It is also wrong because the oil refinery is near the Fo river, which is okay for fish. In our tests, we found that the rivers and lakes that have acidic water are the Upper and Lower Rafta river, Lake Adysicle, the Gray Bay, and the Rafta River area Soil Run-off. If there was pH 8 rain in the nearby rivers, that would mean that they are OK for fish and the fish would not be dying.
In conclusion, Don Juan Tunó is not responsible for the fish dying because of many reasons. His cattle ranch did not leak phosphates, oil from his refinery did not get spilled, and sediments from his logging operations did not make the rivers too cold for fish. This means that somebody else is responsible for the fish problem, not Don Juan Tunó.
In response to the article written on Wednesday, February 21, 2001, there are a few errors that I would like to point out. The letter shows reasons why Don Juan Tunó is responsible for the fish dying. This proof is incorrect for many reasons. In this letter I will be telling you why Don Juan Tunó is not responsible for the fish dying.
The first thing that I would like to point out is that the letter says that it was proven to be untrue that the water slide is killing the fish when the chemist tested the water below the water slide and found no chlorine. This is incorrect because Juan Tuno found no water fleas in the water near the water slide. Water fleas are bioindicators that work as indicators for scientists to know weather an environment is healthy. Water fleas cannot live in chlorine, meaning that there is chlorine in the water. If this was true, then there would be water fleas in the water, meaning that the Fo river would not have chlorine.
I would like to point out that the cattle ranch upstream from James Pond has not leaked phosphates into the pond. We did experiments from the drainage into the pond from three locations. The cattle ranch, the golf course, and the small town. From our experiment, we figured out that the phosphate levels are high from the golf course drainage into the pond. These phosphates are coming from over watering and using fertilizer. If phosphates were coming from the cattle ranch upstream, we would see fish dying more in the Fo river rather than in James Pond.
The letter states that phosphates poison fish. This is incorrect because phosphates do not poison fish. Phosphates create algae in the water, and when these water plants die, the bacteria use up all of the oxygen, so that there is not enough oxygen for the fish to survive. Some fish need more oxygen that others, but with more and more phosphates, it can be hard even for the fish that don't need as much oxygen. We also found out that a few phosphates are important for fish. If phosphates do kill fish, we would see a lot more fish dead all the time because there are always a few phosphates in the pond.
The letter also states that fish autopsies found oil from Don Juan Tunó refinery in the dead fish that were examined. This is incorrect because Oil is coming from car exhaust In the Gray Bay. In our tests, we found out that oil in the Gray Bay is coming from car exhaust rather than from tankers or refineries. if oil was coming from the oil refinery, we would have seen a lot more oil in the gray bay because the oil refinery is right next to it.
In the letter, it says that sediments from logging operations have made the rivers dirty. This is incorrect because the logging operations are far from all of the rivers and lakes. In our tests, we found out that the rivers with too much dirt in the water for fish eggs are the Upper and Lower Missterssippi river, which are far from the logging operations. Furthermore, If there was sediment coming from the logging operations, it would be in the Upper Rafta river, which would be killing the fish in a different area.
I also noticed that the letter says that dirt in the water makes the rivers too cold for the fish. This is incorrect and does not make sense because heat would be attracted to rivers with sediment because it is darker. Furthermore, this does not make sense because sediment in the water would make the rivers and lakes warmer, so that it cannot hold as much more oxygen. If this was correct, then the rivers would colder, making it a little bit easier for the fish because cold water can hold more oxygen that warm water.
The letter states that the oil refinery is causing pH 8 acid rain in the nearby rivers. This is incorrect for two reasons. pH 8 rain is not acidic, it is okay for fish. Acid rain has a pH of 5 or less. It is also wrong because the oil refinery is near the Fo river, which is okay for fish. In our tests, we found that the rivers and lakes that have acidic water are the Upper and Lower Rafta river, Lake Adysicle, the Gray Bay, and the Rafta River area Soil Run-off. If there was pH 8 rain in the nearby rivers, that would mean that they are OK for fish and the fish would not be dying.
In conclusion, Don Juan Tunó is not responsible for the fish dying because of many reasons. His cattle ranch did not leak phosphates, oil from his refinery did not get spilled, and sediments from his logging operations did not make the rivers too cold for fish. This means that somebody else is responsible for the fish problem, not Don Juan Tunó.
Sincerely, Mira
Comments
Post a Comment