Неужели можно серьёзно полагать, находясь в здравом уме и твёрдой памяти, что подобный документ, если это не полная лабуда, может быть создан?
Why not?
You can read more about the program on page 14 of
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/publications/590b14-intro.pdf
see section The Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program Selection of locations and species for testing. I included part of that text, together with my comments below.
They issue a new edition every two years. The 2009-2010 edition is the 25th edition. I guess this means that they have been doing this since about 1960. It is a bizarre thought that during these 50 years, they have been Pretending to be doing this, while not really doing anything. Besides, it sounds like less than 50 people are involved in this undertaking. And clearly their salary is not wasted. The people of Ontario are healthier. They are also more likely to buy the fishing license. So it would seem that this program pays for itself. Why did you doubt it??
"With more than 250,000 lakes, innumerable rivers and streams and many local areas in the Great Lakes, it would not be practical or economical to test fish from every water body.
A location may be selected for testing for one or more of the following reasons:
• It is a popular angling area
• There is a known or suspected source of pollution nearby
It is a major source of food for local inhabitants (usually lakes in the vicinity of First Nations’ communities)
• It is being opened for recreational development
• It is part of a monitoring program for
long-term studies of contaminants in fish
The selection of testing sites is an ongoing process and public input is welcomed."
I found the most obscure lakes in the guide. The lakes and rivers that can't be found in the guide, are far from Ontario's road system.
"Most lakes and rivers contain a variety of fish species. When selecting appropriate species for contaminant testing, the fact that not all species accumulate a particular contaminant at the same rate has to be taken into account. One kind of fish of a certain size may have a much lower contaminant concentration than another species of the same size. This is due to the fact that different fish feed on different things, prefer different habitats, grow at different rates and are physiologically different.
For example, walleye (yellow pickerel) and northern pike are likely to contain higher levels of mercury than whitefish of the same size since walleye and pike are top predators, and feed on smaller fish which may also contain elevated mercury levels. Whitefish on the other hand, feed lower down in the food chain, on aquatic insects and invertebrates which contain less mercury than do small fish.
When testing fish for mercury in a specific area, the practice is to initially select those species which are top predators, as they likely indicate the highest mercury levels. If low levels of mercury are found in predators, the testing of other species may not be necessary.
In testing for organic contaminants such as PCBs and mirex, species with high fat levels, such as salmon, trout, carp and catfish, are selected since organic chemicals tend to accumulate in fatty tissue.
Again, if these species do not contain excessive levels of organic contaminants, then species with less fat from the same location may not have to be tested.
Collection of fish for testing
The fish are collected by staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment using various methods. Whenever possible, the selection includes 10 or more fish of each species with lengths and weights representative of the size range of that species in the locations being tested. The length, weight and sex of each fish collected are recorded.
A boneless, skinless fillet of dorsal muscle flesh is removed from the fish (see illustration), packaged and frozen for shipment to the Ministry of the Environment laboratory in Toronto.
Retesting of locations
Since the mid-1970s the Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program has continued to add new locations each year, as well as retesting many lakes and rivers when necessary. In areas remote from human activity, where fish are relatively unaffected by pollution, any consumption restrictions are usually limited to elevated mercury levels in the larger and older predatory species such as walleye and northern pike. The source of mercury in these areas can be natural or from long-range transport. Consequently, concentrations in fish do not change substantially over time.
However, in areas directly affected by human sources of pollution, the number of possible contaminants may be much larger and the levels found in fish can be significantly affected by changes in the levels of pollution.
Retesting locations are divided into three general groups:
• Areas where contaminant levels for one or more pollutants are either unusually elevated or change substantially. These locations are retested every one to three years, depending on their angling popularity or whether they are a major food source for local inhabitants.
• Areas that show no signs of substantial changes in contaminant levels but are very popular angling areas. These locations are retested at least every five years.
• All other areas – usually relatively remote locations with no major sources of pollution nearby and no indication of changing contaminant levels in fish. These locations are retested approximately every 10-15 years.
Testing of fish
A boneless, skinless dorsal fillet sample not only provides the most consistent test results, but is also the most edible portion of the majority of sport fish. The fish tissue is analyzed for contaminants at the Ministry of the Environment laboratory using a variety of methods depending on the contaminant."
Do you still think that this program should not be trusted, Nikola?
Моё сообщение на английском, потому что мне легче и быстрее печатать на английском.
