In reply to my note about dissolved lead hydroxide being a significant
contaminant, Jon Anderson wrote:

> It would seem that this would be true IF the pond or marsh etc were
> constantly stirred up whereby the suspended lead salts were brought into
> solution with the rest of the water. Also, many of the ponds/marshes in
> question are not closed systems - the toxins are flushed along with the
> organics and other materials with each rainfall event and end up
> downstream or in the aquifers.

Good points, especially the last point about this material being flushed
out. As to the lack of stirring, well, I have great faith in diffusion.
Certainly the concentration of lead hydroxide would be highest down in the
bottom gunk (sorry for using such an obscure technical term!), but there
ought to be a significant amount throughout the water, whether it's
stirred up or not. I wonder whether anyone has ever taken the question of
dissolved lead seriously and measured its concentration in a typical pond
or marsh water.

As to the flushing of lead out of the original reservoir, what does this
imply about the dangers to those of us who are getting our drinking water
from a downstream river or from the aquifer? My general point is that we
may not have taken the threat of dissolved lead seriously enough in the
past and we ought to think about broader implications of all that lead
lying in the marshes out in the boonies.

My personal theory is that this is all part of a long-term conspiracy on
the part of hunters to make the little ducky-poos and goosey-ganders so
stupid and crazy with lead poisoning that they fly down into the blinds
and can be clubbed to death. If any of you want to join in my conspiracy
theory, we are meeting in the sub-subcellar at midnight. Wear your
camouflage outfit. The password is "plumbum."

Burt Guttman guttmanb at elwha.evergreen.edu
The Evergreen State College Voice: 360-866-6000, x. 6755
Olympia, WA 98505 FAX: 360-866-6794