Re: bay pollution

From: Ed Scott (
Date: Fri Nov 13 1998 - 16:41:56 PST

Received: from ( by with ESMTP ( 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA192414365; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:46:09 -0800
Return-Path: <>
Received: from by with ESMTP ( 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA004044363; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:46:03 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.6/8.8.6 HPLabs Relay) with ESMTP id QAA04820 for <>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA10260 for <>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:38:29 -0800
Received: from ( by ( - SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id <> for <>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:37:34 -0800
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28532 for <>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:37:32 -0800
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: bay pollution
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:41:56 -0800
X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Ed Scott <>
To: "Wind Talk" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

>There was a news item on TV yesterday about pollution in the SF
>Bay and levels of dioxin. Something about a crackdown on polluters.

I'll see if I can drum up a URL, but my understanding was that the Bay
has fairly high dioxin levels and it was recommended that you not eat
fish caught from the Bay. My understanding is that they are trying to
raise awareness with anglers who eat a lot of fish from the Bay,
especially children. Of course, this also raised the issue in my mind of
prolonged exposure due to water contact sports, but I suspect, this is
low on their priority list and may not be as much of a problem since
you're not ingesting it.

The article that I read/saw said that dioxin was a component of diesel
fuel which explains the fairly high level of contamination that was
reported. Believe me, I was thinking about this when I sailed behind a
tug at Third the other day and saw a sheen being discharged behind it.

I don't recall hearing of any specific measures to combat the pollution,
though. I'll try to get a URL and send it to the list.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2013 - 02:03:09 PST