(no subject)

[pantryslut]

SFGate headline today: "Mercury cleanup plan adopted by state would make SF bay's seafood safe enough to eat in 70 years."

Which is great, except that it reminded me of a recent Science News headline: " Worthless Waters: By midcentury, seas' value may be drained." (11/4/2006, online via subscription only.) In other words, it's questionable whether there will be any seafood left to eat by 2077, mercury-free or not...

Comments

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

I really can't imagine that there will be no ocean life in 70 years. In any event, I'd like to see the bay cleaned up so that the new species which replace us have a cleaner place to live.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

The article wasn't contending that there would be no ocean life at all, just no commercially harvestable seafood stocks. And I don't consider that at all unlikely, unfortunately.

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

No, neither do I. At least if "no" means "hardly any." I still think mercury clean-up is a good idea, however.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

I do, too. I think the plan the article discusses is worthwhile and important (and newsworthy). If there *are* any fish left to commercially harvest by 2077, I would like them to be low-mercury, please.