The Brockovich Report

You know the old test for mine safety--sending a
canary down into the tunnels. If the canary died, the
air wasn't safe. The canary is just one indicator
that people have observed to check the habitability of
the environment.

So in the old days, we watched the canaries. Now we
watch the mussels.

I'm not talking about Hollywood muscles like those of
the esteemed governor of California. I'm talking
about the 300 different species of prolific little
freshwater bivalves that live in lakes and streams all
over the USA. At least, not too long ago, they were
prolific. And delicious. Maybe they're still
delicious, but there aren't as many of them.

Not any more.

35 of 300 known species of native mussels are extinct.

Mussels, like frogs, are indicators of environmental
health, because of where they are located on the food
chain, and because they are sensitive to environmental
contamination. Mussels are particularly susceptible
to ammonia, copper and especially to pesticide runoff.
Any presence of these items will reduce or eliminate
the mussel population. And think of all of the other
animals who feed on the mussels. That forces out not
just the mussel population, but those animals higher
on the food chain. As far as those higher animals go,
they either they find an alternate food source or they
die out.

Like mussels, animals which are sensitive to the
environment are environmental indicators, barometers
if you will, of the ecological health of a particular
ecosystem. You do have to look closely at what is
going on; some species which have disappeared are
local populations of established species which exist
elsewhere which may have lost their environment
through development. Some species have been supplanted
in their natural environment by the establishment of
some other non-native (foreign) species. But most of
them were lost because they are sensitive to the
presence of ammonia and copper in their watery
habitat.

It is not merely mussels which are endangered.

You know, there's a saying, "Frogs have it easy. They
eat what bugs them."

It's just a saying. Frogs are also on the serious hit
list. I know about dying frogs; they were dying in
Hinkley, sensitive to the Chromium 6 there. Frogs are
in trouble, but not just in Hinkley, and not just from
Chromium 6.

Across the country, frog populations are becoming
deformed. Scientists have been arguing about more
than one hypothesis for this odd development: whether
the deformities result from a parasite "TREMATODE"
which burrows into frogs when they are tadpoles and
corrupts development; or if the cause is a pesticide
called METHOPRENE.

Methoprene is a biopesticide which prevent insect
larvae from developing. It mimics a hormone that tells
frogs where their limbs should grow. (It's a serious
enough issue that the EPA's literature on this
chemical is continually being overhauled because they
too are very nervous about the science behind it. )
Frogs are also sensitive to environmental changes;
and--like I saw in Hinkley--when they go wrong, they
indicate something bigger. So if you're somewhere,
particularly near farmland, and you see a bunch of
frogs with extra legs, they either have the Trematode
parasite--or they've been exposed to Methoprene.

Actually, I'm going to talk about one more kind of
habitat endangerment. Up to now I've been talking
about chemicals and metals that intrude into an
ecosystem. But people intrude too. Physically.
Specifically, I am mentioning this because of an email
I received from a reader who is fighting to save
Mountain View Park from Mountain Bikes and two
wheelers.

I'm talking about physical intrusion. We're talking
about riding two/three/four wheelers in a protected
green area. Tire tracks are not green, people. Do
you really think that lobbying to keep a bike path is
protecting the sensitive ecosystem?

NOT.

Four wheeling sounds like fun...but it tears up the
land. Even mountain bikes. Tires cause all kinds of
erosion, and habitat destruction. Why should tires be
allowed in this park area where within a couple of
miles there is private property dedicated exclusively
to bikers? If you've already bought your vehicle of
choice and paid for the gas, and/or schlepped it to
the park, or if you've already carted your bike to the
area, why not pay a couple dollars to ride it in an
area dedicated to riders--instead of tearing up our
frail parklands? After all, we humans are only there
to enjoy nature. But nature itself is struggling to
survive.

Between dwindling undeveloped areas (let's face it,
nothing is untouched), chemicals poisoning our
forests, and outdoor adventurers who probably don't
even realize they're doing harm, how much chance for
survival do our indigenous species have? Isn't it up
to us to better their odds of survival?