Experiencing Interference

One of the key negative elements in wetlands is bioaccumulation through exposure to man's shallower side. Those wetlands unlucky enough to lie beside burgeoning development pay full price, namely near new roadways, highways, and especially in Florida, condominiums and "marts", another Floridian slang term that perhaps describes discounted indoor markets. And let us not forget the coastally blocking, mangove filtration removing malbenefits of the ever-increasing shallow enterprise of high-rise units unfit for tropical sunset views and clean waters.

Bioaccumulation is the accumulation of a toxic chemical in various tissues of a living organism (this subject is of great interest to me due to the fact that I am majoring in the functional anatomy of the vertebrates). For instance, if wild shrimp are exposed to mercury, any animals preying on those shrimp, such as orniths (birds), will accumulate this chemical in possibly harmful doses over time, even though the presence of the chemical in the contaminated shrimp is small, due to an accumulation in the biological material of the greater predator in the food chain. If mercury is so toxic it causes fetal deformation, what is it and other toxic substances (even if toxic only in higher doses) doing to our indigenous wildlife out there? Some of which we humans happen to prey upon ourselves? And why are we removing the natural filtration mechanisms of wetlands in record numbers? Actually, many scientists studying amphibians and orniths, for instance, have discovered how bioaccumulation of certain substances do effect and inhibit normal function, growth and reproduction. If we are supposed to protect our waters, why are we continuing to let these potentially threatening substances enter them? In the case of mercury, there are ways to reduce emissions of mercurial contaminants by over 90%. If you walk around the neighborhoods of Pinellas Park or Clearwater and other city entities in Florida, many post signs that warn of dumping toxic materials down the storm drain, even with a little fish representation as a reminder, perhaps, to those in fishing industries. To me however, that is not enough. The drain should not exist, or it should connect to a facility that never connects to natural waterways, wetlands, or any lands whatsoever. This is an atrocity, and it is potentially dangerous.

It has been found that Florida has the highest mercury contamination in the country. I guess that study suggests that if you are pregnant, nursing, elderly, or planning to visit Florida, don't eat anything that comes from the water or preys on aquatic life, and definitely don't swim in the water. Beaches and estuaries seem to hold the greatest bioaccumulation due to raw sewage and runoff being diverted through channels directly into the Gulf on the west coast of the peninsula, which is where most of Florida's fish is derived by the local fishing industry. This practice of runoff and sewage release is also prevalent on the east coast and throughout the state. It seems that rather than do the right thing in filtering this wastewater before even reclaiming it, authorities long ago decided it was okay to swim in your own feces and runoff and eat the creatures that live in your feces and runoff every day of their lives as long as authoritative entities don't have to pay to clean up their act (a similar case study of such a problem is during the Civil War, where soldiers drank and bathed in the same water in which they used as a toilet and a dump. We know more people died from dysentery and disease than did bullet.). There are laws such as the Clean Water Act (ammended, of course, let's hope not again) of 1972, which have been enacted to not only protect people but protect natural wetlands. Those channels used to divert such runoff and waste into our economical and ecological treasures run through some of the worst industrial zones, picking up their often illegally dumped, unfiltered refuse as well. Would you bathe in or drink that? Then something is wrong. And I'm tired of it. Why are my tax dollars going "down the drain", as it were?

So why do such laws protect "navigable" waterways, whilst some would consider dense wetlands not deserving of the same regulations, as if the supposedly unnavigable ones would deserve less (I'll tell you few Americans could navigate anything in this life if they didn't know how)? And who is out there enforcing this? Why are my tax dollars not going towards the purpose of maintaining, intact, virgin, pristine wetlands without being under a pretense by those who cut the checks from my tax dollars or utilizing it as a park? Allowing wetlands to be thoroughfared like a scenic parkland, then overdeveloping the tourist trap hell out of it is not in the public's best interest, say we the people. It's not a complex task, it's common sense: deny the permits, provide the funding, fund the research, greatly reduce growth to more acceptable levels. You don't let growth overburden your resources, any of them. That is the real meaning behind the word mitigation.

But before you start by saying I have no documentation to prove such things occur, if you are not a resident of Florida year-round like myself, you had better start doing some research of your own, counter-documentation, if you will. You may wish to start your research on this matter by clicking the links at the above right under the heading Links, or can ask for an archival copy of the headline articles (front page news) of the St Petersburg Times for Sunday, May 22 and Monday, May 23, 2005, in which all parts of the segment hold remarkable journalistic insights of documentation. Here, I did a search for "vanishing wetlands" between those dates for the archives in the database for you: vanishing wetlands. All links shown for those dates are relevant, as are other predated archives in the Times database. This is merely one region among many in Florida.