Teresa,

An excellent treatise on contaminants. Thanks for your posting!

On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, Michelsen, Teresa wrote:

> Funny you should mention Elliott and Commencement Bays. In fact, you are in
> danger if you eat seafood from these areas, although the dangers are more
> related to bioaccumulative contaminants like PCBs than to metals. Fish from
> these areas contain high levels of these contaminants and we are concerned
> with what it's doing to aquatic birds and their ability to reproduce.

Are bioassays being done on any of the birds? Wintering scoters, grebes,
etc. would probably be worth looking at...

> NOAA
> recently published a report on salmon in these urban bays, showing damage to
> enzymatic and immune systems from these chemicals

I am surprised that salmon would show effects of chemicals, given their
life history of spending such a small amount of time feeding in the
estuary. Chinook and coho can spend a year in freshwater prior to
smolting, sockeye spend a year in Lake Washington (among other places),
and chum and pink smolt soon after hatching. The estuary is a vital
feeding area for all of these species, but they then head for the open
seas (or at least out into Puget Sound for those that 'residualize').

With the limited amount of time spent in the Elliott Bay situation, I
wonder that the salmon can get enough toxins to so greatly affect them. If
Elliott/Commencement Bays are in such bad shape, I'll never eat *any* Puget
Sound bottomfish or mollusks again... I would certainly expect the
benthic critters and bottom feeders to accumulate the crud.

I used to eat a few meals of sole/flounder and of clams from the Seattle
to Tacoma area every year. No more... :-(

Could you please send me the citation of the NOAA report? Thanks.

Jon. Anderson
Olympia, WA
anderjda at dfw.wa.gov