Pyrethroid Pesticides and PCBs in Bivalves from East Sound, San Juan County, WA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Evidence of moderate but widespread pyrethroid pesticide contamination of lakes, streams, ponds and freshwater sediments in the San Juan Islands, WA (Barsh et al. 2008), suggested that these toxicants may be accumulating in nearshore trophic webs where they could affect threatened wildlife such as salmon as well as local human food supplies. At the same time, efforts to reduce chemical contamination in the San Juan Islands have met with a persistent local belief that the Salish Sea region’s large cities (Seattle, Victoria and Vancouver) are responsible for any marine pollution of the San Juan Islands. The present study assesses the local-source contribution of the town of Eastsound, Orcas Island, to the pyrethroid pesticide and PCB loads of uncultivated bivalves harvested from four beaches in East Sound, including the beach into which the town discharges its storm water sewers, and beaches that we expected to be more influenced by wider regional marine circulation patterns. While pyrethroid pesticides are associated with home and garden products, and therefore most likely to be discharged into East Sound by town storm sewers, PCBs were historically used only by a single electrical utility located near the town of Eastsound but on a separate drainage (Crescent Beach). We hypothesized that pyrethroid concentrations in bivalves would be greatest at Fishing Bay near the Eastsound storm sewer, while PCB concentrations would exceed regional marine background levels (if at all) nearer Crescent Beach and the electrical station. Pyrethroid pesticide concentrations in commonly consumed local bivalves (butter clams, steamer clams, horse clams, chestnut clams, soft-shell clams; N = 99) were highest at Fishing Bay nearest the Eastsound storm sewer outfall, and PCB concentrations were greatest at Crescent Beach as predicted. Differences were statistically significant at the
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".