Hunting in cancer alley

[mschultz373]

I’m sure many will be familiar with the stretch of southeast Louisiana along the Mississippi known as ‘cancer alley’. The corridor is lined with refineries and petrochemical plants - and incidentally, a good chunk of public hunting land. I’ve not spent much time on these tracts, but I was considering hitting them hard in my post-season scouting because they are really close drives for me. But, as someone passionate about venison and the quality of what I eat, I wonder if eating the animals that live in areas so close to these carcinogenic plants is a bad idea.

on the other hand, it’s air pollution that is cited as main driver for elevated cancer rates, which would presumably affect the local habitat to some extent… but is it necessarily more harmful than Ag fields doused in glyphosate ?

 

[casts_by_fly]

I can’t speak to the oil chemicals, but glyphosate has a 2-day elimination period. It’s not bioaccumulative. The only health harm on glyphosate is inhaling it directly without PPE.

 

[NMSbowhunter]

I'd go out and check the land out. If you like the looks of it and want to hunt the area, make a call to the local state biologist and have a conversation with them about your concerns. I would think that venison would be OK. A deer that is only 2 or 3 years old hasn't had too long to soak things up, but I'm no biologist.

I seem to remember watching a video of Jeremy Wade's River Monsters where he fishes the cooling lagoon at Chernobyl.

 

[elk yinzer]

Do they have a lot of nontypicals running around?

 

[mschultz373]

Do they have a lot of nontypicals running around?

I’ll report back before end of season with my radioactive Godzilla deer

 

[neonomad]

If I set up a large section of grazing cattle somewhere in there, would I be your first pick for beef? It seems the more we test the more problematic stuff we find, PFAs in freshwater fish and our own tissue comes to mind. I hunt fairly close to a property that was used as a national guard shooting range back in the day, it’s now great bedding, I’m working on figuring out a way to get the meat tested for lead.

 

[mschultz373]

If I set up a large section of grazing cattle somewhere in there, would I be your first pick for beef? It seems the more we test the more problematic stuff we find, PFAs in freshwater fish and our own tissue comes to mind. I hunt fairly close to a property that was used as a national guard shooting range back in the day, it’s now great bedding, I’m working on figuring out a way to get the meat tested for lead.

This is exactly my thought process.

The rub here is that we’re talking about air pollution being linked to higher cancer risk in patients that live near these plants. Presumably that involves decades of exposure and not just a few years akin to deer’s lifespan. But that pollution probably has some impact on the habitat and plants the deer eat nearby, which may then mean: residents, if they ate browse and mast from trees nearby, would have any even greater risk of cancer.

But deer are also ruminants and because of their complex digestive system, maybe there is a way that they are able to break down and filter out some of the harmful chemicals present in the habitat? I know that cows are able to hold more nutrients in their meat on low-quality diets as compared with chicken/pork because of digestive rumination.

If I let my mind really go on this, it makes me sad to consider how trashed the habitat in my state likely is. I’ve seen bulletins at the NWR I took two deer from telling anglers to be cautious about consuming fish due to elevated levels of mercury in the main boundary river.

The basic answer may be that free-range ruminant deer from anywhere are still more nutritious than a lot of store bought low quality fed meat like chicken/pork.

 

[Exhumis]

I’ll report back before end of season with my radioactive Godzilla deer

We expect shaky cam Blair witch project style footage

 

[Nutterbuster]

You're not going to get an answer on here, or from your state's DNR. They have a vested interest in there being perceived value to recreational hunting land. I have never seen Alabama DNR publicize information about the states many fish consumption advisories, or weigh-in on the release of arsenic, mercury, or PCBs from coal ash plants or industrial facilities.

I'm not sure that you'll find much, if any, research done on the topic. But you'd be better off checking with any local waterkeeper or conservation groups in the area.

Reading up on it just a little, it's sad that it seems par-for-the-course with a lot of what we have her. Rural, predominately black community getting the shaft. The Kingston Plant Spill in Tennessee got dumped just outside of Uniontown. 90% black, $20k average household income. The ash was tested to be emitting double the radiation allowed by Alabama's DPH. Dumped it anyway.

 

[MattMan81]

I will agree with @neonomad The more you look the more you find. They have said Michigan waters are loaded with PFAS all over, and now they say micro plastic particles are in the wells. My sister tested water samples in NY and told me years ago plastic particles are all over. Deer gotta breath and eat. Not a biologist. But I stayed at a Holliday INN express before. For me to think some how the meat from the store is magically safer to eat than a wild deer from a place like that because the FDA says it meets some regulations. Not sure. But if you eat one deer spaced out over a year from an area like that I would take my chances. Expecially if it was booner.

 

[mschultz373]

For me to think some how the meat from the store is magically safer to eat than a wild deer from a place like that because the FDA says it meets some regulations. Not sure. But if you eat one deer spaced out over a year from an area like that I would take my chances. Expecially if it was booner.

I find this compelling. Just remember that my main motivation in possibly hunting these lands is simply their proximity to me. I don’t have to hunt them. I can sack up and drive an hour-fifteen and be far from these plants. But that drive gets old really fast….

 

[The_Fit_Ness_Monster]

I’d be faaarrr more worried about living there period rather than what I’m eating from the area.

 

[NMSbowhunter]

I’d be faaarrr more worried about living there period rather than what I’m eating from the area.

I was thinking the same thing... eating one deer a year, not so much.

 

[The_Fit_Ness_Monster]

I was thinking the same thing... eating one deer a year, not so much.

I talk about cancer alley all the time, had to do a report on it in school. Compared to the entire world those 2 maybe 3 parishes are highest cancer and there’s not even a close 2nd. And people chose to live there. I’ll never wrap my head around it. What’s crazy is Ascension parish is the wealthiest in the state but they have slum level air quality. And there’s no amount of money in the world that could get me to live anywhere near BR.

 

[MattMan81]

I find this compelling. But remember that my main motivation in possibly hunting these lands is simply their proximity to me. I can sack up and drive an hour-fifteen and be far from these plants. But that drive gets old really fast….

I don't know all the details so I'm just asking here as my thoughts and debates. I'm just sitting her holding my daughter so I got time to think..
But the little bit I looked says it was a low income area. Which means a large majority of people spent time working those crappy jobs. Bad diets and usually joined with other un healthy life styles. Tobacco and heavy alcohol use generally followed this by statistics.
Now I follow that by what is the affective range of the off gases generated that cause a lasting effect on living things. Which doesn't affect all things the same. Not all animals function the same as humans. So it may not even be an issue potentially.
This is all just my theory and may not stack up. But if you are that close to those areas means your all ready exposed to the air chemicals. I don't believe their is some kinda magic line where all pollutants stop. Seems research has hinted lots of cancers are caused by exposure of the same thing continually over time. Build up.
I personally would link the high cancer rates to the jobs them selfs and over all conditions. Hunting and taking a deer from that area which is probably less than 5 years old would mean minimum exposure to nano particles which accumulate. I see almost more concern when I see deer feeding in a soybean field up here that has fresh tracks from the late summer weed killer they sprayed down. I can smell the chemicals, and see deer out in the beans.
Also it seems Usually it's the farmer who handles the chemicals that gets the cancer. Not his wife.
All just food for thought and my rambling sitting her. But me personally I would hunt it.

 

[NMSbowhunter]

I think about everything that gets dumped into the Mississippi every time I am in New Orleans eating seafood. Then I order another dozen oysters on the half shell.

 

[mschultz373]

I talk about cancer alley all the time, had to do a report on it in school. Compared to the entire world those 2 maybe 3 parishes are highest cancer and there’s not even a close 2nd. And people chose to live there. I’ll never wrap my head around it. What’s crazy is Ascension parish is the wealthiest in the state but they have slum level air quality. And there’s no amount of money in the world that could get me to live anywhere near BR.

When I sit back and really consider the metrics in my head, I’m not sure why anyone would want to live in Louisiana period. I often wonder why I still live here in New Orleans.

 

[casts_by_fly]

This is exactly my thought process.

The rub here is that we’re talking about air pollution being linked to higher cancer risk in patients that live near these plants. Presumably that involves decades of exposure and not just a few years akin to deer’s lifespan. But that pollution probably has some impact on the habitat and plants the deer eat nearby, which may then mean: residents, if they ate browse and mast from trees nearby, would have any even greater risk of cancer.

But deer are also ruminants and because of their complex digestive system, maybe there is a way that they are able to break down and filter out some of the harmful chemicals present in the habitat? I know that cows are able to hold more nutrients in their meat on low-quality diets as compared with chicken/pork because of digestive rumination.

If I let my mind really go on this, it makes me sad to consider how trashed the habitat in my state likely is. I’ve seen bulletins at the NWR I took two deer from telling anglers to be cautious about consuming fish due to elevated levels of mercury in the main boundary river.

The basic answer may be that free-range ruminant deer from anywhere are still more nutritious than a lot of store bought low quality fed meat like chicken/pork.

It all comes down to the specific pollutants and their chemical properties. I'm a chemical and also environmental engineer by degree and have spent a bit of time in industry looking at the topics. Every chemical is different. You have to consider whether it is an acute risk or a persistent one. An acute toxin could be something like Hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide. Both dissolve in water and after a little dilution are harmless. In high concentrations (e.g. a train tanker spill) they are deadly immediately and for as long as it takes to dilute them away. For example, this was about 5 miles upstream from our cabin. It ruined 30 miles of a stream for years. The risk was gone after a week or so (you could wade the creek at that point) but the damage was done and significant. In this case, because it was an accute toxin and not something bioaccumulative it wasn't something that persisted over time.

No injuries reported after train derailment causes chemical spill

A Norfolk-Southern train derailed early Friday morning near Gardeau in Norwich Township, dumping about 16,000 gallons of liquid sodium hydroxide onto the ground and into Portage Run, a branch of

www.bradfordera.com

Waterway has new life after significant train derailment near Gardeau

Today, Portage Run, a branch of the Sinnemahoning Creek in McKean and Cameron counties, is filled with all kinds of aquatic life, everything from minnows to sportfish.

www.bradfordera.com

Toxins like lead, mercury, and PCBs are bioaccumulative. They absorb into the fatty tissues of living things and more or less can't be processed or excreted. A tiny exposure once isn't going to kill you. Even a large exposure once probably won't kill you. But exposure over time will cause buildup and future ails. This is where our chemical knowledge is more limited. When chemicals are developed or tested for toxicity, most testing is done on rats, minnows, and occasionally other animals. Most common is LD50 testing, which is the lethal dose needed to kill 50% of the test population. That's a very accute test and doesn't translate well to long term buildup. That's why we don't know of the environmental impact of many chemicals until they have been in the environment for a long time and studies can be done to assess the impact. Leaded gas was great for engines. Not so much for the environment. Basically everything that rain touches is contaminated with lead right now.

Mode of exposure is the other consideration. Skin exposure, inhalation, and consumption (eating) are very different modes of exposure. Eat all of the fine particles you want but don't inhale them. The more persistive chemicals tend to be things you eat. That's because of bioaccumulation. Mercury in Tuna is the usual example- algae absorb mercury at teeny tiny concentration. Filter feeders eat the algae and concentrate it. Little fish eat the filter feeders, big fish eat the little fish, tuna eat the big fish. At each step the concentration is increased because nothing can process it. Fatty tissues in the liver can't excrete them so the chemicals build up there (and other fatty tissues).

I don't know the chemicals of concern down there, but you mentioned air pollution as the driver. That makes sense for being around refineries since they are leaky as all get out and will be constantly emitting petrochemical gasses. If that's the primary issue then I wouldn't worry about eating deer. Deer are going to be 2-5 years old and you're not eating their lungs. If its something more noxious then I'd do some digging on what it is and go from there.

 

[NMSbowhunter]

When I sit back and really consider the metrics in my head, I’m not sure why anyone would want to live in Louisiana period. I often wonder why I still live here in New Orleans.

I've always loved New Orleans in spite of all it's warts. All cities are going to have their problems but the Big Easy just has a style to it.

 

[neonomad]

@mschultz373 @MattMan81 yeah the more I think and read about this stuff the more frustrated I get. I’ve been working my food plot practices to nearly eliminate herbicide use, knowing full well the surrounding larger fields are getting hammered with herbicides each year. We have a nice pond with a 40 acre Ag field draining right into it, pond prolly gets a good dose or two of Liberty each year. But if this old shooting range is creating elevated lead levels in the deer I’m hunting that’s really going to take the wind out of my sails. If that’s the case I’ve decided I may be bugging (suing?) the federal government through the second half of my life. If there’s something I can do to get 40 tons of lead dug out of the ground I think I need to try. And let’s not even get into microplastics, that’ll make you start wanting to live in a (plastic?) bubble. Better living through chemistry!?!?!?