I cover the whole state of NC, so sites are potentially downstream of waste water treatment, and that can have any number of contaminants, from hospotal wastes to household chemicals to who knows what. Sometimes sites are downstream of different manufacturing plants, that could be anything also, but dioxin, organochlorines, PCB, methylmercury, lead, many other metals. Old bridges are commonly cured with creosote, which not only has carcinogenic effects but can actually chemical burn the skin many years after being placed onsite. One very specific worry of mine is being downstream of animal production facilities, where their un-regulated use of anitbiotics, especially in pigs, could have created novel bacteria that have no trouble persisting in the body for a long time. This is disregarding the whole gamut of normal bacteria and virus that are omnipresent. It is amazing how much the body can withstand. I spent my teens thrill seeking any flooded river in the east for a good kayak run. I think we all know how high those E. coli levels get when the wwtp start overflowing in a good flood, and I lived through that with only one very severe kidney infection. For five years now I have been doing endangered species research with an emphasis on toxicology. For the most part if you can find an aquatic endangered species you are not going to die from acute exposure, but I do worry about what happens when you have low level exposure for say 30 years or so. Maybe you're fine. Maybe you have to deal with a progression of increasing stress on the body that comes to haunt you in the end. The evidence is anecdotal, but anecdotal evidence is evidence just the same, and it seems to point to the body being able to handle it just fine right up until it can't handle it anymore and then you notice the problem too late to do anything about it. Right now, I show up on site and I look at a stream and I have to make the call "Okay I can dive in that, or to heck with the environment I'm not going in that." and that works alright for not spending the night up with the runs. What I really want to know though is should I be saying no to a lot more sites, or suck it up and go dry for everything and stop worrying about exposure and start worrying about how to get my job done with the hinderance of a few k worth of dry gear. Keep in mind now that I rarely dive in anything that I can't stand up in and for the vast majority of my work I can snorkle just fine. Switching to dry would not only greatly increase my operating cost, it will make me much slower with considerably more effort. Also, and I know this is not a discussion for this thread, but has anyone ever heard of a dry snorkle. I have some engineering types helping me think about a snorkle that can be attached to a ffm that will have a "bite valve". When you bite it it seals itself up for a submersion and then opens up when you let up on the bite. Not totally unlike the snorkles with the little float that sealt the top when submerged, just with much more tension to minimize any leak top or bottom. As always thanks to everyone who takes time to read all of this. Cheers.
