Raptor Tales
Odd Falcon Behavior May be Linked to Chemicals Used to Fight Wildfires
By Robert Struckman, 5-23-08
 |
|
 | |
| Rocky Nest: Researcher Byron Crow chronicled the life of this falcon, which killed its first clutch, in first-of-its-kind video footage of its aerie. Photo credit: Byron Crow | |
|
New research on wild falcons has uncovered strange behavior which may be linked to chemicals used in wildfire suppression.
Last year a digital video camera mounted in a remote area of western Montana by wildlife biologist Byron Crow captured an established peregrine falcon pair nesting in an cliff aerie, Crow said. It was rare footage because of its intimacy and volume—weeks of 24-hour-a-day recordings from a few feet away.
Rob Domenech of the Missoula-based Raptor View Research Institute said, “I’m not aware of anybody who has put Web cameras on a natural peregrine aerie.” Peregrine falcons in urban areas have been closely studied.
Crow’s camera recorded the mother falcon lay its first clutch—four eggs. At first, the camera captured what might be termed “awesome but regular” falcon doings. The wild peregrine falcons ate fish, for instance, which was new to researchers of the bird. More interestingly, the peregrines allowed pack rats to clean out their nests. The rats actually collected bones and other stuff under the beaks of the birds.
“Then the first egg starts hatching. The mother looks at the chick, and as soon as it moves, she destroys it and eats it. Pardon my language, but we were, like, s---!” Crow said. “Then she destroys the other eggs and eats the material.”
The pair then moved to another ledge on the same cliff, just a few feet away, and laid a new clutch of eggs, which eventually produced two fledging falcons, Crow said.
In times of heavy stress, as when the predators are malnourished or can find no prey, a raptor might destroy her eggs or kill her chicks, Crow said, but not under normal conditions such as those he recorded.
“We were scratching our heads,” he said. Crow, whose work has been done with the assistance of Denver Holt and under the umbrella of his nonprofit Owl Research Institute in Moiese, Mont., contacted other researchers: “Hey, has anyone else seen this?”
As it turns out, Crow found a few leads. A few chemicals may be implicated in similar instances. One of those chemicals is brominated diphenyl ether, one form of which is used in flame retardant used on wildfires. A 1999 Swedish study found that eggs of peregrine falcons contained high levels of the chemical, which had previously not been known in wildlife, Crow said. The findings have added to mounting concern among scientists that the world’s most widely used brominated flame-retardant is not as harmless as previously thought.
Biologists had thought the molecules of BDE were too large to pass through shell membranes. It would be worrisome if BDEs did accumulate in animals in the wild, in part because there has been some evidence that exposure to BDEs can produce neurobehavioral problems in laboratory animals, Crow said.
The issue of the environmental impacts of retardants used to fight wildfires has been a subject of lawsuits and controversy in recent years. Two times environmental groups have sued the U.S. Forest Service, claiming the federal service is in violation of the Endangered Species Act and other laws over the use of chemical retardants. Undersecretary of the Interior Mark Rey, who oversees the Forest Service, was threatened with contempt this year by a federal judge in Missoula after the agency missed the judge’s deadline to finish a study on the environmental impacts of the chemical fire retardants commonly used in slurry drops.
An adult slate gray peregrine falcon stands between 14 and 17 inches tall and can dive on its pray at speeds up to 200 miles-per-hour. The raptor came to the brink of extinction after World War II, their decline mostly blamed on the pesticide DDT, which was linked to thin-shelled eggs that broke during incubation.
At this point, the meanings of Crow’s findings remains an open question. Crow, whose unconventional education includes about eight years of falcon research and a bachelor’s decree in environmental studies from Salish Kootenai College in Pablo, Mont., plans to share his findings with other falcon researchers across the country. He also intends to investigate the chemicals present in blood and other samples from the birds and eggs.
“It’s hard to say what’s triggering these events,” Domenech said about the behavior of the peregrine falcons. “It definitely warrants further investigation.”
Also, Crow has continued to film peregrines in the wild. His cameras are again filming the peregrine pair from last year. “She’s on four eggs again. We’re holding our breath. We hope we’re going to find out how many hatch,” he said.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
through shell membranes, then perhaps it does cause problems for birds. Who knows? But as our environment accumulates industrial chemicals, the effects are becoming obvious. DDT is of course the most common example, but The Economist recently published a story, "Dead Water," on the dead zones caused by agricultural run-off:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11367884
I'll wait before falling for this angle.
Clue this old man into what the source of BDE is, and if forest fire retardant is its only use.
There aren't a lot of oceanic top-of-chain predators in Montana.
Bunnies in Yellowstone.
As Crow says in the article, "it's hard to say what's triggering these events." He refrains from putting the blame on BDE, just says it's worth looking into, based on the Swedish study. His opinion is news, but it's just an opinion which he admits is unsubstantiated. I wonder how long it take BDE to bio-degrade?
Dave -
I guess you've never heard the saying, "Everything goes somewhere." In Montana's case, that somewhere is likely to be either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans, depending on which side of the Divide you're on.
I poked around the web to see what I could scrounge on BDEs. Aside from some discussions about possible neuropathies, and poop-thru rates on mice, and fat storage in seals, there was little or nothing conclusive...although a hellacious amount of speculation.
Further, the vast-vast bulk of BDE use is in electronic board fire suppressant, as well as foam cushions in furniture. Wildfire retardant use is probably a small part of the total environmental load.
And I must also crank up my "suspicio-meter" when the BDE discussion is also linked with "possible endocrine disruptors." Again, in the context that Momma Peregrine successfully whelped two more chicks shortly after her cannibalism, the BDE angle strikes me as a bunch of additive specious bull$h!+ that detracts from the other neat stuff learned.
Robert, it seems to me you have more work cut out for you, at a minimum in terms of how much BDE is actually being thrown at wildfires in context of other sources.
Well, BDE is new to me and probably to others who read NewWest, so I don't think it's tangential to present an overview. The article on peregrine behaviour has a larger context - the effect of some chemicals on wildlife, and humans too of course.
But I simply do NOT see a causal link from BDE to avian cannibalism and even if it exists, it appears that whatever use of these ethers in forest fire suppression is likely an incredibly small proportion of the total exposure, exposure which is not clearly shown to have clearly causative pathologies.
My point stands. Robert needs to get after this in a more thorough and credible manner, including calling BS if that is the case.
For whatever reason there seems to be a push to outlaw everything used to fight wildfires, and I am not sure where this is coming from. Surely these folks do not want to see every forest burned down.
Dave, why did you mention global warming? But since you did, not only has the EU endorsed the existence of global warming, but also the USA, Canada, all the non-EU European countries, Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, ... it's a very long list. Not conclusive, of course; they could all be wrong. What countries do not believe in global warming? I dunno... North Korea? Iran? Kyrgyzstan? Can you perhaps provide a list?
Fire retardant is mostly ammonium sulfate or similar compound, commonly used as fertilizer, which interrupts the combustion process enough to stall fire somewhat. There are chemicals added to the caustic nitrates to combat corrosion of aircraft slurry tanks. I have a great picture of a red retardant line down from a rim rock to the valley floor, and on one side is black, and the other blue green intact sage grouse and mule deer habitat. The fire stopped at the retardant line.
The FSEEE issue is that anytime you dump retardant in a creek or a lake, you kill aquatic life. All of it until dilution. Accidents happen. Collateral damage. Evidently not allowed by the perfect back fire setters and their ilk. Wildland fire fighters are being directed to set backfires so far away from the fire, that in many instances, the backfire never gets to the fire front. Then overhead sends in Hotshot crews to "burn out islands of fuel." And there goes that advertised fire benefit, "a mosaic of fire effects, and islands of untouched vegetation." What they tell us and what you ground truth are sometimes not even close to being the same description of the same place.
The most important issue with wildland fire is this: it is a HUGE contributor to green house gases. Oregon's governor is administratively pushing to have his appointed Environmental Quality Commission rubber stamp his Green House Gas Mandatory Reporting Rules, and the DEQ had a public hearing May 15. They did not account for wildland fire in their constructed pie charts for GHG sourcing. So the Western Institute for the Study of the Environment called that to their attention, that last year's 775,000 acres of wildland fire in Oregon produced as much GHG to the atmosphere as all reported DEQ sources. So man made is half. If you cut wildland fire by 50%, last year, you would have cut GHG emissions by 25%. Think about that on a world wide platform. Think about that just in the West. The first, greatest impact we could have is to reduce wildland fire by half to gain the most immediate, meaningful reduction in green house gases.
My point is that the USFS is going ahead with their WFU option without a NEPA or EIS process to account for those emissions and follow the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. You can't run around demanding civilization halt energy use, and then burn forests by plan, with all the WFU fire escapement that happens annually, which goes on to burn until winter storms put them out. That is a proactive process of using fire, and not being accountable to the air and water as the law says you must. The enviros must think that not enough of the heritage forests, the ESA habitat, has burned, and the retardant issue is another wedge issue to force more fire on more private land, and burn considerably more public lands.
Power politics. Who is in charge? Who is running the show? The Wilderness Society is being paid by Chief Kimball to consult on WFU, which makes them a tax free, government paid, special interest. An NGO Halliburton, if you will. Certainly no large timberland owning companies are sitting in on the WFU decision making process, and who has more experience burning slash, thinning trees, preventing wildfire from becoming stand replacement fire than private industry? They only need judicious restraints to obtain the desired results, which has mostly happened by rule and regulation. The USFS WFU plan is without, beyond, the laws and rules set out by Congress. I guess if you contribute enough money to the liberal side, which is the enviro side, you don't have to go through the hoops, and a liberal Congress will look the other way. Business as usual, just with a different label.
The Camera, and the human presence to check the camera, etc. could very well have been the stress factor, and the chemical had nothing to do with it. Especially since they 'moved' the nest down the 'hall'. Maybe far enough that the hum from the camera was no longer heard? or the reflection off the camera was no longer visible?
I do think that there is always room for improvement, i.e. better fire fighting products etc. But to make an assumption, or even state the possibility of the BDE (Maybe) being the cause, seems like a paranoid jump to an awful lot of what if's.
For all anyone knows, maybe the pair knew there was something completely wrong with the chicks that had nothing to do with chemicals. Dogs etc. are famous for 'killing' their young if they sense the young is 'just not right'. (I know this because I raise Rottweilers, and I've revived puppies that the mother smothered. When they got older, it was found they had heart defects, not all but some, among other problems, that were not known or seen at the time.)
Too many times when something like this happens we have all the 'chicken-littles' running around screaming the 'Sky is falling' when it really isn't.
It does raise some interesting questions, that should be answered. But I think those questions should have been investigated a little deeper before putting Cannibalism falcons, and BDE in the same piece. Reminds me of the story in the Billings Gazette that there were no more jack rabbits in Yellowstone. After a little investigating that was found to be untrue.
Joel Berger withdrew his study/paper after a fair amount of in-house criticism (in house meaning criticisms circulated within the academic network, some of which I got sent by spies). I had a rather interesting talk about academic integrity with the biologist who first called BS on the whole thing.
A Masters paper on the spotted owl and one on the marbled murrelet drove the ESA process on both those ESA listings, and neither listed species, with draconian reductions in logging, has shown the slightest inclination to prosper and grow in population. Barred owls are moving in, and spotted owls are moving out. The overabundance of phytoplankton in shallow water, driven by ocean upwelling, diurnal cycle, and northerly winds, causes dead zones along the coast impacting the food supply for a vast array of island nesting sea birds dependent upon near shore prey, and the murrelets feed in the same place, and their young starve the same way the birds on the rocks where trees never grew starve and die. Science and the end of logging have not saved either species. Meanwhile, fires consume the very landscape protected from logging, and is encouraged. That insanity bewilders me. But tens of millions of research dollars, and thousands of graduate and under graduate students benefitted while tens of thousands of lumber industry families went without. Evidently, the money for research now comes to prove firing all the forests, old growth and young, is a good deal, and salvage logging is a bad deal, and the academic foresters are out there collecting data to prove that thesis, and any who disagree are slandered with anti-academic freedom labels.
So, 25 years later, what do we really know about spotted owls and marbled murrelets, or even wolves, for that matter? The best science has not provided the answers, but has driven the political process with abandon.
So if we see BDE injected into the FSEEE lawsuit process, you will know that knowing nothing is a reason to not use retardant because until we do know if BDE is harmless or not, a hen falcon killed and ate her children and a claim was made that BDE could maybe possible might be the reason she acted so unreasonably. And none of can say without reasonable doubt that it could not happen. Or, for matter of conjecture, she ate birds that spent their lives feeding on MacDonald's parking lot scraps, and the deep fry grease drove her insane. Either way, if BDE was present in the baby birds, it is all in her now, and somehow she built another family that year that she did not eat. I am surprised the Texas Child Protective Agency did not come and take the second clutch of eggs.
The title to this column should have been, 'Mother falcon eats young, cause unknown'
Stress from a variety of sources has been the cause in a various bird populations. Until that is ruled out as the most likely cause, going do the "may be, might be" route is a waste.
Should we frown upon, however, speculation? Should we not be aware of the possible effects of these chemicals on wildlife and ourselves? Notice I used the word POSSIBLE. I am not going to continue using a product (say it's shampoo or something totally unrelated) if there is some speculation that the chemicals in it will harm me in the future. I'm not going to wait for conclusive scientific reports to come out ten or twenty years later to stop using the shampoo if there have been several cases in which it has affected others. I'm going to stop using it when I see the potential for harm.
Yes, there are those out there that will yell "the sky is falling" at every potential problem. I am not one of them. However, I do wonder, should we really frown upon them as we do? Are they not those who are simply looking to plan for the future and desiring to be prepared for it? Is it so wrong to be cautious?
I applaud all those who gave us their analyses of the situation, and I believe all sides of this issue need to be examined. However, I believe all sides should encourage all other sides to research.
Let's stop bickering and push to find the truth. But in the mean time, can't we operate by the Precautionary Principle:
-Try to solve problems before they become too big to solve; done by assessing your risks before you take any action.
-This assessment of risk should happen before that technology economically and politically entrenched in a society and is hard to change.
-It’s only after we see a negative effect that we know what the limit is, so we need to make sure we’re steering clear of that limit in the first place.
-Use indication of harm, rather than proof of harm, to guide our actions, especially if delay would cause irreparable harm. Man is all about progress! And progress doesn’t allow for mishaps. We have to be willing to step aside and admit that bad things can happen from our actions.
It will be interesting to see what Crow's research turns up. Until then all theories are just that--possible answers to explain what is potentially troublesome behavior.
A multivariable system like birds who have never been observed in a particular fashion (a hidden camera) absolutely demands more "baseline" and observable behavioral data. Who is to say that this described behavior is normal or not normal without more data?
Feeding habits
The Peregrine Falcon feeds almost exclusively on medium sized birds such as doves, waterfowl and songbirds. Very rarely will it hunt small mammals, including bats, rats, voles, hares, mice and squirrels; the coastal populations of the large subspecies pealei feed almost exclusively on seabirds. Insects and reptiles make up a small proportion of the diet, which varies greatly depending on what prey is availableU.S. National Park Service: American Peregrine Falcon. Version of 2001-APR-09. Retrieved 2007-AUG-13.. In urban areas, the Peregrine Falcon catches common city birds such as pigeons and Common Starlings. In many cities, it has been credited with controlling the numbers of such birds which are often considered pests, alleviating the need for controversial methods such as poisoning or hunting. Faced with starvation, the Peregrine Falcon may resort to cannibalism, eating its own chicks.
http://www.mundoandino.com/Chile/Peregrine-Falcon
Cannibalism is apparently observed in many raptors, yet not studied specifically.
Now, why was this hutch family possibly on the verge? Last year was a drought, bony drought, and probably not real productive for gophers....never mind that most birdies are insectivores and I would guess the pickings were pretty slim because the vegetables the bugs eat (except trees) were slim in turn. So the prey birdies left town too.
Too many multivariates. Come on, Robert. Follow up.
First-BDE IS NOT FROM SLURRY (wildfire retardant), it is a by-product of plastic production. It is an additive that raises the point of combustion in house-hold / industrial products. BDE is introduced into the environment through production or destruction (fires or leaching in land fills). It enters the environment as is -it does not bio-degrade, it bio-accumulates (that is the problem). It attaches to water molecules, and then returns to the surface in rain where it enters the food web (system), animals and ours.
BDE has been found in breast milk of humans (breast feeding mothers, and as such is found in children (in higher concentrations due to bio-accumulation [various international studies]). In humans it replicated hormones. It is linked to various health issues, and NO LONG term studies (as of yet THAT I KNOW have been conducted on OUR children, but they have accumulated it so what nuero-disorders may we be looking for? That is why we conduct research over time and do not jump at the “flavor of the week”.
We do have more questions than answers-This has never been done before. Human disturbance has been removed from the wild behavior (methods and materials guidelines) otherwise why conduct (wild behavior) study? Your actions have already biased your desired outcome. That is why, for two years in a row (14 years total) the falcons use the same eyrie (I can provide you with a complete (and boring) project document if you desire.
Peregrine Falcons are a Trans-boarder indicator species (the environmental “canary in the coal mine”. What we are seeing in Montana is being discovered in other areas-That is why I am looking into it here. Greater and better people than myself have discovered this problem, I am only researching one piece to an enormous puzzle. What really happens in a wild, secluded eyrie? If we knew, this would not be “NEW” research. I ask you, since you all seem like educated, web savvy, individuals. Could you please look (surf) and see if you can find another reference to long term behavior studies in an isolated, natural peregrine falcon eyrie? I, and my assistance, have not. Maybe one of you could help us to find this. If not- this is the ONLY one, and so all this is new to all of us.
I appreciate all your questions and concerns, and I’ll be the first to say-believe half of what you see and none of what you hear- look into it yourself. The more subjects like this are discussed in a (rational, appropriate) dialogue; we may discover that either there is/is not a concern. As it stands now, BDE is something that should raise your eyebrows, and since it is being discussed-that is the first step.
Any question or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Byron Crow, Ex. Dir.
Montana Raptor Institute for Research & Education
It obthers me that only one possibility seems to be considered here, and that seems strange in an unexpected situation.
I appreciate and understand your concern.
First I will (in brief) describe our original study intent;
-behavior ecology (Peregrine Falcon predator prey interaction in the wild) Wild activity at an eyrie where falcons had naturally established and propogated had never been observed before over a breeding cycle).
Second, Methodology;
-six years in developing a self contained, long-term remote system that could withstand the enviroment of the Montana back-country. Had to be runninmg 24/7 for 7 months. 1700 lbs. of equipment (man-hauled) placed on a remote cliff top section which would allow biologist to move to and from the recording equipment without disturbance to the enviroment or the falcons. Placed approx 500ft. from the cliff face which then 200ft. of cable to a micro-cam placed in the roof of the eyrie. This does not disturb the birds as we see in video, they do not even know it is there. They take off- and land right below it.
We have worked on this to remove as much human interferance as possible, as it would null or study of behavior (the original research project).
The chemical question (BDE) came up as an afterthought as to why she (the falcon) detroyed the clutch (4 eggs).
Predator stress was not observed at anytime from distance observations outside the territory (and GHO activity at night was not caught on the night cams).
Prey availability in that area is abundant. The cliff is on the east side of the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi. We observed the falcon and tercel eating columbia ground squirrels, various birds, and after fledging (in October) we discovered the remains of fish (possible klepto parasitism from an Osprey nest, unknown at this time). Thus, prey stress was discounted.
Human disturbance discounted by the fact that they did move from the eyrie (typical when falcons recycle-lay a second clutch) but not the cliff. And they returned this year to the primary eyrie.
The falcons actions notes there may be a chemical burden. BDE is the only chemical that fits the evidence that we were presented (no egg crushing, lack of incubation (female lack of interest, lack of aggression, and territory protection (lethargic activity)
BDE issue- we are going down this road first since it seems to be a problem in other areas. Due to the bio-accumulation of such chemical we will try to DISPROVE this theory first. That is what science is about, trying to disprove what you believe. This is only a first step in a long journey (one that should have been started long ago). We do not have the slightest idea of what the trigger load of the chemicals are in our enviroment. Mercury warning in fish for preg. women, shell fish warings in Chesapeak bay, well water testing for rural communities. Some of this “stuff” does not break down, but builds up. BDE is one of these chems. tat (in research time) we are just starting to get an idea about.
I thank you for your comments, I hope that I addressed them clearly.
I wouldn't call East Shore wild Montana backcountry, although I understand you don't necessarily want to reveal your site and find a fleet of yuppie yachts down on the water.
And given that you have only one year of observations, you can't possibly know what behavior is anomalous and what is normal. So I think too much was put into the story.
Good luck this cycle.
The location of the eyrie is not secret, it is in an isolated (which makes it a good research location) area. I worry more about planes than boats, but I appreciate your concern. As for "knowing" what is normal vs. abnormal behavior- I would have to throw out a lot of "recognized" observations of behavior if that was the case. You are correct in that everything we see is an "Oh-Geez" moment since we are not watching the falcons eat pigeons all day long or flights over Holiday Inn signs, but as for territory protection, incubation periods (taking thermal regulation into account), and predatory trigger (not going after a Pack- rat (Bushy-tailed Wood Rat) that crossed right in front of her on eggs (maternal instinct, the rat will go after eggs) does seem to be an anomaly.
This is only the second year at this site and next year, as we establish other site, we will be able to compare and learn what shared behavior is, what is site specific, and what (just maybe) is abnormal. That is why it is called research instead of “Findings”, a hypothesis instead of a “proof”. 21 eyries were not productive last year (MT. state data), was it the same thing? That is what we are going to be looking into, but we have to have a starting point since there was not one until now (last year).
I’ll let you know if we have chicks in the next couple of days. I’ll contact Robert Struckman
BDEs & Falcons-
Since being removed from the Endangered Species List in 1999, peregrine falcons could be facing a new threat. A Swedish study found that eggs of peregrine falcons contain high levels of the flame retardant, Deca-Brominated Diphenyl Ether (dBDE), which it had been long thought could not get into wildlife. Falcons in North America are starting to show an accumulation and behavioral effects of such accumulation.
Bird eggs contained some of the highest levels of BDEs ever found in any kind of wildlife, and the Swedish study was the first time that the deca formulation of BDE had been found in a living organism. The findings add to mounting concern among scientists that deca-BDE — the world's most widely used brominated flame-retardant — is not as harmless as previously believed.
Peregrine falcons which can power-dive on their prey at speeds up to 200 mph, and approached the brink of extinction after World War II, ( their decline was blamed mostly on organochlorine pesticides like DDT, which was linked to thin-shelled eggs that broke during incubation). BDEs do not produce the eggshell thinning, most commonly associated with DDT, there has been some evidence of neurobehavioral problems from exposure to the chemicals in laboratory animals (this is what makes our research so valuable, we have video documentation of unusual behavior that will be supported by chemical analysis) *Neuro problems are a potential concern for a bird that relies on surprising its prey and diving on it to catch it in flight (on the wing). Think of trying to fly a plane on mushrooms, or with advance ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease).
Finding the deca form of BDE in the falcons in past studies was a surprise since the formulation (chemical make-up) had long been considered too big a molecule to cross cell membranes in the egg and has been seen to be taken up by wildlife and humans.
The fact that deca- brominated diphenyl ethers is found in peregrine falcon eggs means that it is in their food, our ecosystem thus it seems to cross cell membranes. In Humans-
Some compounds in the BDE molecules, are similar in structure to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), these are industrial chemicals which are classified as probable carcinogens. PCBs are known to cause birth defects, neurological damage and thyroid imbalances. Their use was banned in the U.S. in 1976 but Brominated Diphenyl Ethers are still produced, and showing up all over the place.
As I had said, BDEs are persistent and bioaccumulative, they do not readily break down in the environment, and they accumulate in the tissues of animals (and in humans, mostly in the fat areas). Like other persistent organic pollutants (POPs), BDEs get into falcons and humans through food (consider how many people eat the fish they catch while fishing around Missoula, or people who should have their water wells checked).
Levels of BDEs in the breast milk of North American women has increased exponentially, from two to 200 parts per billion (from various studies you can check this on-line), over the last decade. One of the major concerns about BDEs in breast milk is the exposure of infants and the long term effect in adolescent brain development.
I am not trying to down-play this research, you see how important this is- just Tuesday the news talked about something we (a few of us raptor biologist) have been following in the shadows for awhile now, and it is just coming into the light of the general public. It is like being in the space race in the early days of the mid 50’s-who knew what the future was to bring. We do not want to ring the alarm of fear, but we do have an issue that needs to be addressed. So far, We are the only ones in Montana looking into this.
>>>>>>>>>
Furthermore, reports on PBDEs can potentially be misleading. Penta-BDE is one flame retardant and should not be confused with others such as Deca-BDE. The EU has recently closed a ten year scientific assessment of Deca-BDE which concluded that it poses no risk to the environment or health and can be used in all applications.
<<<<<<<<<<
I think I better go change that throwout bearing now.
Now, bear with me as I will try to answer your questions clearly. We understand cannibalism in falcons, they are raptors, but we are looking at filicide, the most severe activity of the break down of maternal instinct (to protect the young), which does happen, at times, in the wild.
How do falcons obtain BDE into their systems? I will let the State of Illinois, EPA explain this part to you so I am not confusing;
A Report to the General Assembly and the Governor
In Response to Public Act 94-100
2.1 Presence of DecaBDE in Environmental Media
The physical properties of decaBDE determine its partitioning into environmental media. Based upon decaBDE’s organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) of 1.67E+12 it is expected to attach strongly to soil and sediment, which are both high in organic carbon. Modeled environmental partitioning of decaBDE predicts binding of 57% to sediment, 42% to soil, 1.0% to water and 0.1% to air (BSEF, 2005). Evidence of the accumulation of decaBDE is abundant. Many studies include examination of media within or that are important to the State of Illinois.
“The concentrations of decaBDE in sewage sludges from these communities were very similar to those of the other less brominated BDEs, which were about 30-50 times greater than the most abundant polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congener. Application of sewage sludges to agricultural fields creates the potential for contamination of - 3 – plants destined to become animal or human foodstuffs. This is a possible explanation for the presence of PBDEs (including decaBDE) in infant soy formula (Schecter et al., 2004).”
Two recent studies show that decaBDE is bioavailable to birds and that it can be taken up by peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and transferred to their eggs (Lindberg et al., 2004; Vorkamp et al., 2005). The latter study showed a statistically significant temporal trend toward - 5 - increased decaBDE concentrations. Unhatched eggs were collected between 1986 and 2003 from a South Greenland study area. Peregrine falcons are top predators that, during breeding, prey on medium-sized birds that feed in terrestrial environments. Peregrine falcons do migrate to Central and South America during the winter and thus they are exposed to unknown food sources.
You are absolutely correct, there may be a witches brew of chemicals, that is why we refer to it as a chemical burden (unknown, unidentified), but we have to start with something, and BDE is that starting point. Until we look at the analysis we do not know what is present in the system (if anything) of the falcon.
As for mate stress, it is a non-issue with the tercel bringing in food and sharing in the incubation cycle with out aggressive posturing or activity observed either through video or field observations, but a good question none the less.
p-BDE vs. d-BDE? This subject is confusing and that is why we cannot sit back and rely on a quick “web-search” of the definitions, or look to Wikapedia (where anyone can add to the definitions) for help. We have collected scientific publications, research materials, and methodology profiles, and do a lot of talking with other biologist / chemist to guide our research. I have added a brief definition;
Decabromodiphenyl Ether (Deca-BDE) is a highly effective brominated flame retardant which is used to prevent fires in plastics for electrical and electronic equipment as well as in textiles.
As for the difference (and please do not confuse p-BDE with d-BDE) and in reference to your suggestion that the EU is freely using d-BDE, and “considers” it harmless.
If you found that statement please reference such statement so we all can share in the finding. I would like to read the document. Please look this document up (in its entirety) and compare it with the document that you based your comment on. See how close they are. I do know that the Brominated Sciences Center, had released their findings, which would be like a Democrat releasing their opinion of a Republican.
Press Release 015/2007
Flame retardant DecaBDE has no place in electrical and electronic appliances. Federal Environment Agency (UBA) pleas for ban on use throughout Europe
The European Union originally wanted to ban the use of the flame retardant deca-bromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) in electrical and electronic appliances such as computers and TVs as of July 2006. This is with good reason, says the UBA, for DecaBDE is persistent and accumulates in living organisms. Traces have already been found in human breast milk and in numerous other animal species. However, the planned ban did not come to pass, for the European Commission overrode the regulation against the will of the European Parliament in the autumn of 2005; that is, before it could even enter into force. In January 2006 the EU Parliament and Denmark filed suit against this decision with the European Court of Justice. The UBA also supports a ban on use and has for many years recommended avoiding the use of DecaBDE on grounds that there are other less harmful alternatives that can be used without compromising on safety, e.g. halogen free organic phosphorus compounds or magnesium hydroxide.
Deca-bromodiphenyl ether is, second to tetrabromo bisphenol A (TBBPA), the most common brominated flame retardant produced worldwide, with a 56,000 tonnes/year production volume. Some 80 percent end up in the plastics used in electrical and electronic equipment. DecaBDE has already been subject to human health and environmental risk assessment as regulated by the EU Existing Substances Regulation since 1994....
Widespread traces in the environment provide the evidence, for traces of the flame retardant have been found in a number of living organisms, for example in birds of prey and their eggs, in polar bears, seals, foxes, and in human breast milk. It has not as of yet been proven beyond doubt how DecaBDE gets there. UBA believes that substances which are either persistent in the environment or have high accumulation potential in organisms should generally not be discharged to the environment.
As concerns risk assessment, some questions about the health and environment impact of DecaBDE have been left unanswered. In an experiment on mice, certain neurotoxic effects of the flame retardant were determined which a follow-up study aims to clarify.
There are further indications that DecaBDE does partially biodegrade in the environment to the lesser brominated and more toxic chemicals penta or octabromodiphenyl ether. On account of their harmful effects, the sale and use of these substances have been banned in the EU since 2004. What is more, the UBA believes that a ban on the use of DecaBDE in electrical and electronic appliances is called for due to the fact that unchecked disposal of electronic waste can lead to the formation of highly toxic substances such as dioxins and furans. In the name of precautionary and sustainable chemicals policy, the UBA recommends not using DecaBDE.
The use of DecaBDE in electronic and electrical appliances was supposed to be banned as of 1 July 2006, as originally determined by EU Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive), which applied to decaBDE and other brominated flame retardants. However, the European Commission can allow certain exceptions to this prohibition on use should substitution not be technically or scientifically possible, or should the substitute be even more toxic than the original substance. Neither case applies to DecaBDE, however, which is why Denmark and the EU Parliament believe the EU Commission’s revocation of the prohibition on use is unlawful.
As for Mr. Skinner, Byron never say, BDE sucketh. Byron did say that spraying BDE loaded treated fecal waste on plants that are sent to our stores for us to purchase and have with our brots and beer sucketh. As for the chemistry which one lives by, I do ask myself why so many children (and adults) are on so much.
You will find many references such as:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VK1-4HWXDTB-R&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=153eabb105fbfa6020d4b681913e3a1b
http://www.azom.com/News.asp?NewsID=10854
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207100485
Copyright © 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Environment, Health and Safety
EU declares safety of deca-BDE, TBBPA risk assessment continues
Available online 27 December 2005.
I was not able to view the above abstract nor the paper, but I do see that things have evoloved since this paper was released.
http://www.eetimes.com article;
"The Court has found that the Commission used an incorrect criterion, an EU risk assessment, as the basis for exemption since that is not one of the criteria provided for by the RoHS Directive. The Court did not question, nor was it asked to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the risk assessment for Deca-BDE, and that risk assessment is unaffected by the judgment. It is the RoHS Directive exemption, and only that exemption, which has been annulled and not the risk assessment. This means that flaws in the previous exemption process can be reviewed and corrected. It is important to stress that the exemption remains in force in order to allow this review to be carried out as a matter of urgency," stated former ECJ Judge Sir David Edward, in a comment on the ruling.
“However, the use of Deca-BDE has shrunk significantly over the past several years, and has been replaced by other brominated flame retardants, said Mike Goode, president of GoodeStart, a chemical and regulatory compliance consultancy (West Lafayette, Ind.). At the same time the use of phosphorus flame retardants in electronics has grown substantially mostly for TVs in Europe, which weren't using flame retardants, he added.”
I enjoyed reading this, and of course each will extrapolate what one wants to. As in my past post, you will see, as in most cases, this is going to an appeals court. This does not say anywhere, and they stress it in the article, which BDE was found “healthy”, it was overturned on a technicality of status. The product exemption remains, the court just gave a ruling that clearly defines the manner in which BDE is to be studied and categorized as.
As for http://www.azom.com, which is a good reference point, especially when you take a look at their current knowledge team’s backgrounds and their mission? When the petroleum commission reviewed the Bhopal India accident, they found no impropriety with Dow Chemical Inc. as per international guidelines (which are why they were not producing the chemicals in that manner within the boarders of the United States. Just as the President keeps telling us that a recession is not taking place, we can look at the data and decide for ourselves. You may look at the article and believe it; I will look at the study findings and go from there. I do not take sides. I conduct research based upon evidence provided by a triggering activity or observation, publish the findings, and then allow those who make the decisions to do with them as they may. On a personal level, I may wish to conduct activities that reduce my exposure to some material that may be a subject of review, but that is my own choice. I have added a few items that you may be interested in as you are delving into this issue. I appreciate your follow-up and attention to detail, that is what keeps research honest. Heck, I am starting to believe that this (this format on a study) would be a great tool for upper class students in college. I thank you for your time.
Swedish study
"We found high concentrations of all the different BDEs in both wild populations," says Cynthia de Wit, Ph.D., an associate professor at Stockholm University's Institute of Applied Environmental Research and lead author of the study. "The total concentrations of all the BDEs in the wild falcons are some of the highest seen in any wildlife globally."
BRI study; (link to findings published…follow)
[The average level of deca in the eight falcon eggs tested was 991 parts per billion (ppb), and ranged from a low of 313 ppb to a high of 2,020 ppb. The eggs were collected between 2001 and 2005 from six locations in the two states.
By comparison, analysis of 15 Peregrine falcon eggs from Sweden showed an average level of Deca of 120 ppb, with a range less than 20 ppb to a high of 430 ppb. The Swedish results were reported in the journal Environmental Science and Technology in 2004 by Peter Lindberg and scientists at Stockholm University. Other studies of peregrine falcon eggs from Norway and the United Kingdom Deca levels similar to those reported in Sweden.] Released 2007
http://Www.briloon.org/contaminants
“Perfectionism is a slow death”, Hugh Prather
“Men who wish to know about the world must first learn about its particular details”, Herakleitos
There is a reason that research is based upon scientific publications and not news stories or periodicals. I have yet to find a reference to Newsweek in the back of the AUK when reading about a research project or it’s findings.
I had no intention to slip political speak into our discussion. If I had made a reference that you feel as though I had, disregard such. I have, I thought, differentiated between, and had shown the BDEs, their breakdown, and their known effects. I could go on and post the entire reference list to support our research. It would be just as easy to post the entire project description. I doubt that the news agency would be appreciative of that, nor do I think that it would really go on to help in changing your belief, and that is something that I do not want. To have everyone agree would make this an awfully boring world.
The research is recognized. Our hypothesis is sound. Other organizations are watching our work closely, and we have gone through a vetting process which has established the scientific relevance of our work.
Just as we (as a community) do not agree on the Autism and childhood immunization connection, we are all not going to agree on certain facets of biology, but persistent organic pollutants (POPs), bio-accumulative compounds, and air-born particulates know no boundaries, and thus we all are neighbors whether we like it or not. One country’s expelled pollution is another countries received material (look into ocean currents and ship breaking on India’s coast). This is the way it has been and the way it will be to a certain extent.
Thankfully some people do not accept the “flavor of the week” (such as yourself on this issue) and keep pushing to find out “why”. Hence, we no longer use DDT as a pesticide, why we no longer use lead based paints in our homes, and why we no longer have leaded fuels in our private vehicles.
I’ll be away from a computer for the next few days, so if you post something and I cannot get to it, please do not feel as though I am ignoring this banter. I’ll reply upon my return. Please keep up the questions.
Cheers
Again, most Americans are naive and believe that our government would not allow the use of chemicals that are not proven safe, but that is absolutely not the case. In fact, chemical companies conduct their own research on safety, which is not challenged or seriously reviewed by the US government. New chemicals are presumed to be safe until evidence shows otherwise--the reverse of the precautionary principle.
Which brings me to wonder if all this charismatic wildlife ever becomes resistant to the myriad chemicals in their lives? I have yet to witness anything that has been eliminated in the wild except smallpox, and we keep some of that around because we can? Or because Russia does, and we might need some to make a vaccine? whatever....Try as we might, on the farm we are never rid of the pests. They come with the seasons, on the winds, from cold storage in the soil, and they are with us, and many have become resistant to the chemicals designed to kill them. Is there any indication of resistance in other animals? Or is every discovered chemical a species eliminator?
>>>>>>>>>>
May 16, 2008
On 8 May 2008, faced with a legal challenge from the European Union, the Swedish government decided to lift its national ban on the use of the flame retardant Deca-BDE in textiles, furniture and some electronic cables.
In doing so, the Swedish government eliminated the inconsistency between its restriction and a positive 10-year EU risk
assessment of Deca-BDE[1], which did not identify any significant risks justifying restrictions on the flame retardant. Swedish Government's unilateral imposition of a limited ban in late 2006 had no scientific basis and was subject to a legal challenge by the EU authorities.
The official 10-year EU risk assessment for Deca-BDE, conducted by the European Commission and representatives of the EU member states – including Sweden – has been completed and its conclusions are to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Following a European Court of Justice ruling on the Deca-BDE exemption on 1 April 2008, the European Commission is now evaluating how to resolve the resulting contradiction between the RoHS Directive's restriction on Deca-BDE and the positive outcome of the scientific assessment of Deca-BDE.
"The EU has established that Deca-BDE is safe for continued use in all its applications, so there is no scientific basis whatsoever for any national or EU-wide restriction on Deca-BDE" said Veronique Steukers, chair of the European Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Panel (EBFRIP).
"EBFRIP firmly believes that Deca-BDE meets the criteria for an exemption from RoHS and that it should therefore either be exempted or deleted from the RoHS Directive. We are working with the European Commission to ensure that this restriction is lifted."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Thanks Craig!!
One of the "charismatic" species effected by environmental pollution is humanity. Species do not have to be "eliminated" to suffer from pollution. Animals that live with diseases or disabilities caused by industrial pollution, such as humans suffering from lead, asbestos or mercury poisoning for example, are certainly victims of poor regulation and a failure to properly investigate the harmful effects of a product. While you may be locked in a struggle with agricultural pests, other creatures, perhaps including us, may be struggling with the harmful effects of the accumulation of pesticides and herbicides in the environment.
This from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency "Report on Alternatives to the Flame Retardant DecaBDE: ..."
"# Regarding the health effects of the PBDEs, we now have additional evidence that DecaBDE, certain DecaBDE breakdown products, and other PBDEs can cause thyroid, reproductive/developmental, and neurological effects; although there is still uncertainty about DecaBDE’s role in these effects, our level of uncertainty has decreased from the 2006 report, and further justifies an in-depth evaluation of potential alternative flame retardants for products still using DecaBDE."
For more, go to: http://www.epa.state.il.us/reports/decabde-study/index.html
But we do use fungicides, and I don't use those that threaten non-target species. The fungicides we use are those with the shortest pre-harvest interval and field pre-entry interval as per the label and EPA rules and regulations. We use some organic sprays, but do use the chemistry that is proven for certain target fungus pests.
To lessen fungicide use, promoting friendly bacteria is a useful method. Just as in human health management, bacteria limit fungus development. If a human has a fungus or develops a fungus in the hospital (like thrush in babies), it is because antibiotics have limited the bacteria levels to where fungus can flourish. The same can happen in ag. So using organic bacterial sprays, and phosphorus and nitrates in a spray, can maintain bacteria levels and kinds to fight the common fungus responswible for plant and fruit problems.
Nevertheless, resistance still is a huge problem, and my question was why, because we do see resistance to staph treatment as the biggest threat to health in a hospital, we don't see resistance to other chemistries in nature. Or do we? I have not read anything that addresses resistance to threatening or dangerous chemicals in the wild.
-What, if any, chemicals and their levels are in Flathead area falcons.
-The cannibalism was by the mother. To what extent of other falcon cannibalism episodes are by the mother. What about the males.
-Why was the cannibalism selective.
-What is the causal linkage between a single chemical or combination and the observed behavior.
-What forms of stress may have the mother encountered to explain her behavior that is consistent with other mother birds committing the same act.
In my opinion, all chemicals should be subject to rigorous testing both by themselves and in likely combinations. What I object to is "guess and by gosh" science that is used to thinly disguise emotional, knee-jerk advocacy that needs a boutique species, like polar bears, for the poster.
Risk assessment, such as has been done in Europe, looks not only at frequency and severity, but also risk and reward. It examines alternatives and evaluates comparative risk from doing nothing to replacement agents. That's why I object to the title of this article and its implied significance. "Falcon mother eats young, cause unknown" would have been more accurate. The Flathead area is exploding with development thereby providing many sources for stress and chemicals. Not the least of which is the heavy smoke that hangs in the area during the fall, winter, and early spring months. The thick summer fire smoke doesn't help either.
Neither am I aware of any cases of resistance to pollutants among wildlife. I do know that one reason insects, viruses and assorted bacteria develop resistance is because they multiply so quickly, with so many more generations in a given period than larger creatures. Thus there is much more opportunity for mutation. Plus there are so many more individuals in the population, whereas with, say, falcons or musk-ox, the numbers are relatively few, the opportunities for favourable mutation or adaptation thus less, and the consequences for their survival more dire.
Craig - Considering the verified downstream results of some pollutants and their severe effects, I think articles like this one on BDE are valuable and justifiable in keeping the issue in the public mind and on the government agenda.
See http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/
Sorry, but I am getting sceptical when folks go out and try to find something related to a specific chemical (in this case) or animal, or whatever......and they always find a connection that fits their preconceived notions.
For a link to the European Risk Assessment go here and click on the Official Journal of the European Union pdf link. http://www.evertiq.com/news/read.do?news=11320&cat=6
Why are you being such an apologist for the chemical industry?
Leave the birds alone!
Read the official EU report at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:131:0007:0012:EN:PDF
Here is my COMPLETE statement that you took out of context:
"By Craig Moore, 5-30-08
Byron, what are your thoughts on this? http://www.bsef.com/env_health/env_research/index.php?/env_health/env_research/env_research.php
>>>>>>>>>
Furthermore, reports on PBDEs can potentially be misleading. Penta-BDE is one flame retardant and should not be confused with others such as Deca-BDE. The EU has recently closed a ten year scientific assessment of Deca-BDE which concluded that it poses no risk to the environment or health and can be used in all applications.
<<<<<<<<<< "
I asked for Byron's thoughts on this quote. This is a discussion area. He is the expert on falcons.
This article is about falcons and a recorded instance of cannibalism. The title suggests a cause which has neither causation or even correlation demonstrated for these Flathead birds. Speculation only! As I wrote above:
"There is so much we don't know here:
-What, if any, chemicals and their levels are in Flathead area falcons.
-The cannibalism was by the mother. To what extent of other falcon cannibalism episodes are by the mother. What about the males.
-Why was the cannibalism selective.
-What is the causal linkage between a single chemical or combination and the observed behavior.
-What forms of stress may have the mother encountered to explain her behavior that is consistent with other mother birds committing the same act.
In my opinion, all chemicals should be subject to rigorous testing both by themselves and in likely combinations. What I object to is "guess and by gosh" science that is used to thinly disguise emotional, knee-jerk advocacy that needs a boutique species, like polar bears, for the poster.
Risk assessment, such as has been done in Europe, looks not only at frequency and severity, but also risk and reward. It examines alternatives and evaluates comparative risk from doing nothing to replacement agents. That's why I object to the title of this article and its implied significance. "Falcon mother eats young, cause unknown" would have been more accurate. The Flathead area is exploding with development thereby providing many sources for stress and chemicals. Not the least of which is the heavy smoke that hangs in the area during the fall, winter, and early spring months. The thick summer fire smoke doesn't help either."
------
This article fails to include any of the recent developments such as Sweden's ban reversal regarding Deca-BDE which calls into question the basis for the speculation.
YOU are misrepresenting the facts. As Byron pointed out above, Sweden's reversal of its unilateral NATIONAL ban is in response to a legal appeal by the chemical industry. The EU risk assessment cites several studies that show that deca-BDE may be a carcinogen, may cause developmental defects, and may cause developmental neurotoxicity.The EU report concludes that more testing is needed before deca-BDE can be deemed safe.
The reversal does NOT "call into question" the validity of the research hypothesis that is the subject of this discussion.
just want to introduce myself on http://www.newwest.net, hope this is the right category for that purpose.
Regards,
Max