BS: Pig Blood In Texas River

Subject: BS: Pig Blood In Dallas River
From: Skivee
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 08:31 PM

A guy flying a small RC plane with a digital camera has spotted a pipe from a packing plant dumping lots of blood into the Trinity river in Dallas.
I found the plant on Google earth, Columbia Packing 211 E. 11th st. Dallas.
Look carefully at the stream and see where blood is entering the stream, then mixing as it joins the Trinity river
link to article
I don't know how you are expected to dispose of body fluids, but I'm pretty sure this ain't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 09:46 PM

Nasty! I hope this is stopped immediately, and a fine imposed. Then a top-to-bottom inspection of that plant.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Skivee
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 12:37 AM

Once I found the area I didn't have trouble finding the stream on GE. Nasty indeed

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 09:13 AM

It appears that the authorities and media are on it: report.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 09:30 AM

I suspect that even in Texas this is going to get the company in trouble. But then again, it's Texas.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 11:38 AM

Are we certain it's pig blood, or might they be recycling Texas rednecks?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 03:10 PM

Could be a sausage plant processing damnyankees.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 03:47 PM

I do not understand how people can use the term redneck in a thought like that. But anyway, someone will undoubtedly rewrite Rivers of Texas. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 03:48 PM

Blood meal can be used as fertilizer, and in some cases, as animal feed.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 04:00 PM

Ya trying to tell us there's no rednecks in Texas, Mary?

They grow 'em as a staple crop for export.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Bettynh
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 04:11 PM

Jim, that's the problem with any kind of sewage dumping. Too many nutrients lead to slimy algal growth, then low oxygen levels, and finally death of every oxygen-breathing animal. It's especially bad when there's a drought, since the nutrients will be concentrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 04:23 PM

Just think of the blutwurst and black puddings going to waste!

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 08:24 AM

I guess they're recycling the last bunch of health inspectors.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: GUEST,Skivee, Guesting in
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 12:39 PM

Google Earth images show blood in the stream as far back as 2004, assuming correct dates and proper photo-interpretation on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 06:46 AM

Excuse my deplorable ignorance, but what kind of animals live in Texas rivers? Would the blood attract anything interesting? (I'm imagining swarms of alligators or carniverous fish or the like!)

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:08 PM

I guess they're recycling the last bunch of health inspectors.

What makes you think Texas had any health inspectors to begin with? In the Land Of Rick Perry & George W. Bush? Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Bettynh
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:17 PM

Lots about the Trinity River here.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 06:13 PM

Proper photo interpretation......... A long pipette to verify?




(More likely other things being released as well)

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Crowhugger
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 02:57 PM

Eliza, re: "what kind of animals live in Texas rivers"
I'm sure there are Texans who can name species but generally (taking animal to mean creatures of the phylum "animalia"):

The aquatic animals that would become oxygen starved and die as a direct result of algae overgrowth caused by excessive blood (or any nitrogen-rich nutrient) include fish, eels, tadpoles, crawdads and the larvae of thousands of species of insects and insect-like things.
And there are air breathing animals that rely heavily on the water for their livelihoods and will be unable to function properly in algae-clogged and -suffocated river: Muskrat, mink, beaver, otter, water snakes, turtles, frogs, wading birds, ducks, geese, diving land birds like osprey and kingfishers, and especially in its delta, shore birds. Not to mention the many smaller birds and land animals of every stripe that rely on the insects that won't hatch.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:11 PM

Anybody mention all the animals that would be affected by bacteria from the bloody water?

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:52 PM

Thank you Crowhugger. I can see that this pollution is going to cause an absolute disaster to all the aquatic life in the river. What a terrible thing! Surely it should be stopped immediately and investigated. Prosecution and stiff fines should follow. We here in Norfolk UK have had several cases of blue-green algae blooming on over-rich Broads and rivers. The pollution of nitrates can leach down from the farmers' fields and contaminate the water. I hope Texan laws wil be invoked in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Crowhugger
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 10:50 PM

Interesting question, gnu. Yes there would certainly be increased bacterial growth when animals die. I assume those are the same bacteria that make the blood dumping a problem, because as they break it down and they multiply thanks to the plentiful food, and compete with fish and other creatures for available oxygen. Among the waste products of such bacteria is nitrogen in a form available to algae, nitrogen that was originally stored in proteins as muscle, organs etc.

I have no idea if the those bacteria are, in themselves, toxic to things that might try to eat them, or if they would create toxic waste products that directly kill aquatic animals. In oceans that kind of thing results from certain algae blooms like red tide but I don't know if the same happens in fresh water. So there you have the grand sum of my knowledge with a little educated guessing thrown into the bargain.

FWIW I haven't yet found anything online to specifically connect bacteria with fish kills beyond the fact that bacteria can contribute to them by competing for the available oxygen in the water. I hope someone who knows about that microcosm of ecology can post about it.

Until then, what better read on a Saturday evening than this rather slow-loading web page (and no wonder it's slow, it's an entire lengthy text book) Darn near everything you wanted to know about algae but were afraid to ask. If that's not enough to satisfy your curiosity (a) the book recommends all sorts of reference material and (b) just possibly you should get a life. As apparently should I.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:06 PM

The Trinity River flows through the Dallas-Fort Worth area, hence picks up a lot of city pollution. On its way to the Gulf, it passes through agricultural areas where it picks up fertilizer salts. It rates as highly polluted, and fish from it (catfish, etc.) should not be eaten.
It is home to alligator gar, which gets up to 200 pounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:16 PM

"Yes there would certainly be increased bacterial growth when animals die."

Well, yes, but initially, ALL animals affected by bacteria from the bacterial growth in the water and blood... birds, mammals, fish, amphbians, even certain Mudcatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Skivee
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:55 PM

Thanks for the info, Q. It seems to suggest that, though gross, the blood doesn't change things all that much.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Crowhugger
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 08:00 PM

The air-breathing water animals may sicken or suffer immune system stress from higher bacterial levels, but they can still breathe. Fish and other animals that "breathe" oxygen dissolved in the water are vulnerable to suffocation when unusually large numbers of bacteria develop and use up unusually large amounts of oxygen, which suffocation deaths contribute to those same growing bacterial colonies which use up oxygen.

Somewhere in that web site I linked to last night they talked about how certain species are more vulnerable to this phase of river deterioration. The suffocation effect is less in fast rivers and streams, where more oxygen gets churned into the water than in slow moving or still water. It's a fascinating web of interactions that becomes mind-boggling very quickly upon trying to follow the effects on different species and the spin-offs from each of those!

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 11:45 AM

Speaking of animals in the Trinity River I've personally seen beaver.

And NOT allowing pig blood in the river is just a liberal ploy to stifle the "job creators". Just more of those regulations from big government to try to bring an end to capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Pig Blood In Texas River
From: Crowhugger
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:18 PM

»»Thanks for the info, Q. It seems to suggest that, though gross, the blood doesn't change things all that much.««

IMO Q wasn't even close to suggesting that. Aquatic environments do safely break down and absorb a certain amount of non-customary organic material. Whether the waste blood is actually a problem or just gross depends on the rate at which it enters the river, the water's chemical conditions (dissolved oxygen, pH, toxins), and the ability of area animal and plant populations to endure the changes while the blood is being broken down. We've no info about that in Q's post or on this thread yet.

More about Skivee's post--please do correct me, but do I understand you to say it's fine, or probably fine, to keep dumping because it's just gross? In that remark I see something parallel to the notion that a person already sick with multiple diseases and covered with bruises can safely take continued hits or toxin exposures because it's only gross, not harmful or fatal.

I'd say that as long as one doesn't know what health & equilibrium look like, and as long as one doesn't know the extent of damage from the diseases and prior beatings plus the rate of recovery from them, to keep hitting or feeding toxins is a choice that risks the health of every wild, domestic and corporate entity that relies on the body for a living. I'm saying it's reckless to assume it's fine without good evidence. "What is good evidence?" probably needs a whole 'nother thread!