Talk:Housatonic River

Untitled
I Deleted the following picture:

Why? Because the Housatonic River does not flow through Bridgeport, and the bridge shown is not over that river.

I have no reference for this. I live in the area, and just know it to be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.50.154 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How come the aritcle has to say that the river "flows through southwestern New England?" It is SW CT, not New England! There is no such state as New England. NE is a brianchild of Boston and of their culture, not CT's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.101 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by your distaste for New England, yes it is not a state but a region encompassing several states and dates back to the Colonial Era. Since the river runs through Massachusetts, the southwest side of that state in fact, and Connecticut, the western side of that state, the description of Southwestern New England is incredibly accurate. In regards to New England being the brainchild of Boston I suggest you look into the regions long and interesting history, and Connecticut's role in it, more closely.Tommyborsh (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Natural beauty
Proposed new material I have been on Rt. 7 since childhood... Driving north along winding Route 7 into the mountainous region, even the most seasoned traveler will be struck by the river's beauty with its forested mountain ridges along both sides, its often powerful rapids, and large wild birds fishing from exposed rocks and barren trees. With a large snow melt area in its watershed, the river is guaranteed to flood every Spring (and at other times) attracting expert paddlers from far and wide. Expert fly fishermen are also attracted to the river by the abundant supply of catch and release trout and cite the river as being among the best in the eastern United States.

Outdoor recreation
The Housatonic River is a popular whitewater paddling destination beginning at Falls Village, Connecticut and continuing to Gaylordsville. Most of the river is quickwater and Class I whitewater with long sections of Class II-III whitewater. A deadly and extreme Class VI resides at Great Falls in Canaan (Falls Village) and is most likely not able to be paddled. The most dangerous and difficult section that is navigable is by Bulls Bridge, with Class V whitewater.

Historical dams and artificial lakes
There are several minor and major dams along the river that form lakes. Most notable are two lakes in Connecticut, Lake Zoar, which borders Monroe, Newtown, Oxford, and Southbury, and Lake Lillinonah. Both lakes are major water-sport recreation outlets for the surrounding towns.

Two of the three lakes formed by the dams are used for rowing by clubs, schools, and to host regattas. Lake Lillinonah is used by the GMS Rowing Center and is host to the GMS Regatta. Lake Housatonic is used by the Yale University Crew Team and the New Haven Rowing Club and is host to the Derby Sweeps & Sculls and the Head of the Housatonic.

Fly fishing
The Housatonic River is also a popular fly fishing destination. Fly fishing on the Housatonic River (which is strictly catch and release) has been compared with western rivers and is among the finest for trout in the eastern United States. The most popular area for fly fishing is between the Falls Village Dam and the town of Cornwall Bridge in Litchfield County. Cornwall Bridge has supplies, canoe rentals, and camping for the river sports.

Hiking
The Appalachian Trail follows the river along this section from the Bulls Bridge covered wooden bridge near Kent to Falls Village along the west side of the river. There are many other trails, especially the "old" Appalachian trail. This runs along the east side of the river though Cornwall Bridge, by the easily-remembered red covered bridge in West Cornwall to Falls Village and is actually far more scenic with vistas of the river, connections to other Connecticut trail systems, and "discoveries" of ancient farm structures and pre-historical stone artifacts. John Bessa (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the above timestamp and signature as the above good contribution was unsigned. SageRad (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

pcb
Gosh, seems like I heard somewhere that there was a major poisoning of that river. Hmmm....where could I have heard that now?

Maybe it was from googleing: pcb poisoning housatonic

Maybe that is where I heard it. Nasty ole Google! We'll have to fix that!

And I do wonder why this hasn't shown up in this here Wikipedia page.

I wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.247.170.47 (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

PCBs
do you have a page number for the PCB concentration in this source ? Geogene (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Figure 5 on page 7. In the text on page 6. SageRad (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Curious how you're questioning multiple edits of mine across pages, and why. Would you explain that please, ? SageRad (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Questionable sourcing in one page implies questionable sourcing elsewhere. I'm asking you, as a courtesy, rather than blanking, which is my usual process in these cases. Geogene (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "blanking" mean? SageRad (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you're calling "questionable sourcing" i believe refers to my edits here in which i used a source to establish that there is significant mercury nitrate in the Still River and therefore it's not good to eat the fish in the river. You seem to have thought that source was to establish that the factory was a major point source of pollution, but that was not the case. That still needs a source and i moved your "citation needed" tag to the relevant place and reinstated my source, which is of interest to a reader who comes to that page. SageRad (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. In reference to blanking, I usually hit the delete key when I see something that doesn't seem to be in the source. I prefer to do that because Citation Needed tags can persist indefinitely in some articles. On the other hand, when I hit delete I can immediately remove suspicious/counterfactual content and that benefits Wikipedia instantly, not years later. But here that would be unjustified, I found what was needed on page 24. Geogene (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I've known that as reverting. Yes, that whole USGS document is about the PCB levels measured in the Housatonic River and it goes into great detail about the levels at all places in the river, and also gives an estimate of 22,000 pounds total of PCBs in the river. I did convert units if that was any issue in your looking, so 110 mg/kg would be 110,000 ug/kg. SageRad (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

PCBs & Consumption

 * I have again reverted your addition to this article which advises that birds and fish from the river and its immediate environs should not be consumed. Unless you find a source that explicitly forbids consumption, then your conclusion that wildlife from the river is universally unfit for consumption is an unsupported claim.

You have stated that your claim against consumption is "incontrovertible". That is incorrect and unsupported by any explicit source material. You do not personally decide what is or is not incontrovertible, at least not on Wikipedia; published sources do. In addition, any interpretation on your part of the relative toxicity of various levels of PCBs is also irrelevant unless explicitly supported by a source. I do see the new source you have cited which is more thorough than your previous source, but again, this source does not explicitly forbid consumption of fish from the Housatonic. It discusses health concerns related to excessive consumption of PCBs, but it does not automatically follow (nor is it explicitly stated) that PCBs are universally present in Housatonic wildlife in excess of levels that are considered toxic.

Nobody is arguing that there isn't PCB contamination in the Housatonic. That alone does not mean that consumption is to be broadly halted. According to current guidance documents, PCB is potentially toxic only above certain concentrations. In addition, specific diets and other physiological factors of fish and other wildlife mean that the degree of PCB consumption/retention varies dramatically by species.

Most importantly, the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CTDPH) releases a yearly advisory explaining what species of fish can be eaten from various Connecticut waters, including information on frequency of consumption for low and high risk individuals. Several species of fish from the Housatonic River are noted as being safe to eat at a rate of one meal per week or one meal per month. Folks in Connecticut have been eating certain fish species from the Housatonic routinely based upon these guidelines. Your broad claim that nothing should be consumed looks and sounds silly to Connecticut anglers who are meticulously following the official CTDPH advisory.

Your broad claim against consumption is invalid according to the CTDPH, unless you can find an equally credible source that explicitly states otherwise. This is a simple matter of explicit, sourced data. Jgcoleman (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2015‎


 * So i changed it to "presents health risks" and added a second EPA page as a source that explains that consumption of PCBs presents a health risk. Satisfied now? I don't understand the motivation of your edits. And i think any anglers who eat the fish are foolish. You can "get away" with eating some fish sometimes but there is no reason to add a toxin to your body burden. Stocked trout may be different if they've not been in the river for long and may have lower levels, but those are stocked. You are absolutely wrong about any level of PCBs being "safe" -- that is a fallacy. Lower amounts present lower risks -- but there are still risks proportionally and there is no known "safe" level for PCBs. There are realistic levels set for drinking water, simply because PCBs are in the environment so widespread and it's not always possible to avoid them completely, but this is not a statement that they are safe. You have your facts wrong, so please stop making such contentious edits. I hope you will let the "and present health risks" stand, as it's adequately sourced, and it's true, and it's a needed notice about the river. Just know, it's not safe to eat the ducks or the fish from the river. SageRad (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not satisfactory. You're trying to make a broad, sweeping claim that simply isn't borne out by the facts. Not all species of fish in the Housatonic present health risks and, according to CTDPH, many can even be eaten at a rate of one meal per week or one meal per month with a reasonable expectation of good health.

Your personal fear of PCBs is not a credible contribution to this article. You do not get to decide what is or isn't a fallacy based upon your armchair science. The CTDPH is a far more credible source than your own interpretation, so there's absolutely nothing "contentious" about my edits; they reflect the official advisory issued by Connecticut state government. The fact that you personally think that the CTDPH and anglers who eat fish from the Housatonic are "foolish" is irrelevant; that is your opinion and it has no place here. Based upon current, published data from a credible source, your claim that ALL fish "present health risks" is incorrect. (Note also that despite your patently incorrect comments above about stocked trout, trout are among the few species listed in the advisory that should not be eaten under any circumstance. I suggest you actually read my credible source rather than trying to discount it simply because you don't agree with it on principle.)

Your claim that it's a "needed notice" is equally incorrect. First of all, Wikipedia is not and has never been considered a source of thorough public health advisories. Nothing is "needed" in this case unless it is completely factual and the State of Connecticut says you are wrong that all fish present health risks. You, personally, are not a credible source and your inflated fear of PCBs doesn't entitle you discount this claim by the CTDPH.

Furthermore, understand I have no obligation to add anything to this article regarding the consumption of fish. My assertion is that the issue is more complicated than what can be inserted in a simple blanket statement. Folks in Connecticut and Massachusetts are better off seeking out the latest consumption advisory from their state health boards rather than being fed broad statements here on Wikipedia. Your "sense of duty" with regard to adding a consumption advisory to Wikipedia is misplaced and melodramatic. People should be getting their consumption data from credible state health agencies, not from you SageRad.

I have modified this section of the article to make a statement about public health; this statement is reasonable, noting some health risks without going too far by stating a false generalization. The way I have modified it now makes substantiated claims about public health risks, but doesn't attempt to be an authority on consumption or to make broad unsubstantiated claims. If folks want more specific data, they are best off looking up the most recent yearly advisories from their respective state. I ask that you do not further modify this section of the article without explicit consumption advisory data or without further discussion here. Jgcoleman (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2015‎


 * Please be more brief. Your texts are really too long. My sources 'did support the former claims that the wildlife contains PCBs and that ingesting PCBs presents health risks. You are being really onerous here. SageRad (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop your condescension and lecturing. You are not being civil. You are saying things like "Your personal fear of PCBs is not a credible contribution to this article. You do not get to decide what is or isn't a fallacy based upon your armchair science." which is the worst kind of condescending bullshit language, frankly. Just NO!! Get off your high horse. Do i have to counter every bullshit allegation and aspersion in your long winded comment now? Let's begin by saying it's not my "personal fears" and that's a condescending and assuming phrase you levy, and it's not "armchair science" sir-- it's a large number of peer-reviewed scientific paper that support this claim, as processed and reviewed by the EPA into the two pages that i had used as source. Open your eyes and stop treating me like a child, and edit for the article and for the people, not against me. And stop casting aspersions. I cannot even read you long winded accusation-laden comment, sir. If you keep going like this i will need to bring it to a notice board. If you knew people who are sick from eating wildlife containing PCBs, as i do, then you would perhaps feel more like being a reasonable person here. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in your heated response to what I've written here, nor am I interested in truncating my comments here to your liking. I have, from the beginning, advocated for adding text to this article which is specifically and precisely borne out by published sources. The sources you are citing discuss general public health risks associated with PCBs; you have felt content to extrapolate upon these sources and conclude that no wildlife from the river should be eaten. Your extrapolation has no place here SageRad unless it is explicitly supported by a source; I don't know how to be any more clear. Furthermore, even if you do find a source that explicitly advises against all consumption (which you have not yet done), the fact that there exists a credible source which says otherwise means that this issue is far from a settled point. But given that you have not found a source that specifically controverts the CTDPH advisory, then my claim that consumption isn't universally dangerous is nothing more than accurate data drawn from a credible source. I'm not sure what you find so contentious about this... this is how Wikipedia works. Feel free to call a notice board, by the way. I am only advocating that you not insert unsourced data into this article. You already did this twice, despite the fact that I've demonstrated that your broad claims were explicitly controverted by a credible, significant source on the topic (CTDPH).
 * Well then, please stop being condescending and using loaded insulting words against me, and my response will not be heated and i will actually be able to read your text. Please re-read your initial comment and think about your tone. SageRad (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know how sourcing works, and i am here for the right reasons. I don't need this kind of attitude leveled against me. SageRad (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I stand by everything I've written here. Whether or not you like me or my tone is not my concern. I am interested only in the factual accuracy of this article. Jgcoleman (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2015‎
 * I am also interested in the factual accuracy of the article. We must be WP:CIVIL in order to discuss well and work on the accuracy. Here is a guideline from the MDPH against eating any wildlife from the northern parts of the Housatonic River. I do realize that the Connecticut counterpart that you provided says that some species may be eaten once per month or once per every two months, and recommends trimming off the fat and dripping off the fat in a special way while cooking the fish, but still, that is what the state has deemed an "acceptable risk" which does not mean no risk, and therefore the language that the wildlife "presents health risks" is accurate. There is no dose below which PCBs present no risk. So, i think the article is indeed accurate in stating that there are health risks borne by eating wildlife from the river. I know that the northern parts have higher concentrations, of course. That's why MDPH advises strongly against eating any wildlife at all, while the Connecticut one advises eating none of many species and gives a one-per-month advisement for some species. SageRad (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You are reading too much into the language of "acceptable risk" and adopting the most extreme, and arguably unintended, connotation. CTDPH has determined that eating the specified species at the specified frequencies poses an insignificant health risk and that is why they have explicitly permitted consumption in these instances. In contrast, CTDPH clearly found significant health risks associated with trout and catfish, which is why they advise against eating them at all. "Acceptable risk", as it is used in this context, is synonymous with "insignificant risk". If that were not the case, they would have advised against eating ALL fish just as they did with trout and catfish. Jgcoleman (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not reading too much into it. There are some toxins that have a minimum dose level below which there is no risk and then there are toxins that bioaccumulate and that have a risk response starting at zero, for which there is no absolutely "safe" amount. The first nanogram adds some risk. These are two different kinds of dose/risk relationships. There remains a risk even if an agency deems it "acceptable" and a person has the choice whether to assume that risk or not. There are many sources of information on this. The CTDPH is not the only source on this. SageRad (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to discuss connotations with you. I have never once alleged that PCBs do not generally come with a health risk, nor have I advocated to eat whatever one pleases from the Housatonic. My argument, which directly mirrors that of the CTDPH, is that there is sufficiently insignificant risk associated with eating many species of fish the Housatonic that there need not be an advisory against doing so. From there, you are free to personally interpret the safety of eating those fish based upon your own reading or research. Nobody is forcing you to eat them, but the CTDPH is simply saying that no significant risk is associated with it. "Acceptable risk" is just that, a level of risk which acceptably low as to be statistically insignificant. It does not indicate a "public health risk", which implies a positive affirmation of significant risk. Jgcoleman (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't have time, then don't. Then you don't have time to engage properly to edit the article. The judgment of what is "acceptable risk" is a judgment call, and there remains risk associated with eating any wildlife that contains PCBs. The CTDPH does indeed make an advisory against eating all the fish named. Some of the species, they give a rate of eating them, like one meal per month, that they deem to be acceptable. That does not mean no risk. The current wording does include this, as it says "presents health risks" and that is correct. Note also that i never used the phrase "public health risk", nor is that in the article content. "Health risk" is the current phrase there. SageRad (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, so are we still discussing the current edit? I am pleased with the way in which article currently reads, so if you are as well, then we having nothing further to discuss. Please clarify. Jgcoleman (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, i am fine with how it reads: "Birds and fish who live in and around the river contain significant levels of PCBs and present health risks." So i guess we're good. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I was looking at the more reasonable language under the PCBs section which states "Some species of fish that reside in the river such as trout, carp and catfish have been shown to present health risks if consumed." I didn't realize you planted it in two places, the most prominent of which is still pushing a bogus blanket statement. I don't have the time to continue discussing this, but your blanket statement is erroneous and a disservice to this article. You contribution is unfortunate and is part of an alarmist agenda that you openly admit to harboring, both in your profile page and in the content of this commentary. It is unfortunate that responsible editors such as myself don't have the time to prevent folks like you from making unsubstantiated claims in the articles you target. Jgcoleman (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, user, i didn't "plant" it in two places. That is loaded accusatory language. Be WP:CIVIL or i will bring you to a noticeboard for behavioral issues. There is no "bogus" statement. The current content is "Birds, such as ducks, and fish who live in and around the river contain significant levels of PCBs and can present health risks if consumed" and this is true and supported by the sources. Can we be done with this? I am not "pushing" nor am i "alarmist" nor is this an "agenda" and you're placing yourself above me and casting aspersions by implying that i am not responsible, etc. I would advise to focus on content, not your conspiracy theory about me, and be reasonable. The wildlife in the river does contain PCBs and this does present a health risk if consumed. There are various levels and dynamics at play, and an advisory that some fish can be eaten once per month and to cook them in a particular way, but the content remains accurate and supported. SageRad (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your extensive negative history here on Wikipedia speaks for itself. I am far from the only one who believes that you have, and continue to, make loaded contributions to articles that are oftentimes alarmist in nature. I, for one, do not even think PCBs are significant enough in the grand scheme of things to be mentioned in the leading paragraph of the article. Mentioning them under the "Pollution" heading is more than sufficient. But again, you have enough time to hijack this article and essentially write whatever you please because editors such as myself don't really have the time to stop you. So write whatever you want, SageRad... you win. Jgcoleman (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely uncalled for. Focus on content. Stop casting aspersions. Stop profiling/stereotyping. Unacceptable behavior. SageRad (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The sensible, common-sense interpretation would summarize the CTDPH standpoint as stating that it's safe to eat so-and-so fish at so-and-so-frequencies; that's the clear, overall meaning which is intended. That is significant because it speaks to the most accurate connotation of the terminology used in the advisory documentation. That is to say, it stands to reason that "acceptable risk" would be put forth in the advisory with the implied meaning of "insignificant risk". Although the specific language used ("acceptable risk") is open to interpretation to some degree, it is most reasonable to believe that if the risk identified was anything other than "insignificant risk", then indeed those fish species would've been conversely treated as a significant risk and CTPDH would've advised against eating them, just as they did with trout or catfish. Considering the CTDPH explicitly says, in short, "You can eat these types of fish this often", I'm sort of puzzled as to why we are even going into the discussion of connotation of specific terms like "acceptable risk". Your insistence that there's more to it than that simply doesn't make sense to me, which is why this discussion has become a source of aggravation and befuddlement on my end. Again, I can't keep doing this, SageRad... I can't keep going back and forth with you. I am adding this to the Talk Page only so that my objection to your edit is documented. But I am otherwise done trying to edit this article. This has been nothing but a needlessly frustrating experience when all I've advocated from the beginning is a purely common sense interpretation of the official CTDPH consumption advisory, an interpretation which they clearly intended when it was published. Jgcoleman (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many more sources than the CTDPH document. There is the MDPH document and EPA documents, and there are many scholarly reviewed articles about PCB toxicity and presence in wildlife. The existence of one source that says that eating some kinds of fish once per month does not establish well enough that it's "safe" to eat the wildlife in the river. I thought that the present language of "presents health risks" was accurate and was also acceptable to you. I thought we had put this down. SageRad (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I had thought we were discussing the mention of PCBs in the "Pollution" heading, where I had changed the wording to refer only to some species that were explicitly stated as unsafe to eat. I hadn't realized there was another reference in the leading paragraph which still uses the blanket language that I've opposed as being incongruous with CTDPH source data. CTDPH is not the only source, but it is of immense significance because it is the only document that speaks directly to the safety of consuming fish of various species from Connecticut's 140 miles of the Housatonic River. It is the only official statement that advises tens of thousands of Connecticut residents as to what they should or should not eat from the Housatonic River, so it's hardly just one random voice in the conversation. On the contrary, it is the most authoritative and important document in its realm. The MDPH document addresses Massachusetts only, not Connecticut. CTDPH reviews EPA guidance documents when making their advisory and the EPA documentation does not explicitly address consumption as the CTDPH advisory does. The CTDPH advisory is the only published source that directly speaks to consumption safety in detail for this river in this state; as such, it supersedes extrapolations of more general data. And it should be pointed out that it doesn't exactly take any broad liberties in that regard; it advises against eating many species of fish. But for those that present insignificant risk, it says so; plain and simple. That they've termed this as "acceptable risk" is purely incidental. As I mentioned in my previous statement, the sensible interpretation of "acceptable risk" in the advisory is "insignificant risk". Jgcoleman (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The wording is about the same in both places. I don't know what you mean by "the blanket language." I think it belongs in the lede because it is a very significant quality of the river. You're pushing a questionable interpretation of one document whereas there are other documents of similar level and better that contradict it. There are scientific papers and EPA statements that do say that the wildlife is contaminated and that eating it poses health risks. Even in regard to the fish which the CT document says are allowable to eat one per month or two, it still makes it clear that the reason for this throttled rate of eating them is due to potential health risks is someone were to eat more than that. Other sources showing that PCBs bioaccumulates and that there is not a safe floor level that poses no risk at all, all add up to support the simple statement that eating the wildlife presents health risks. That's how i see it and i think it's reasonable representation of the sources we have. By the way, Connecticut has about 82 miles of the Housatonic, not 140. That's the whole river length. SageRad (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly disagree, but we've already established that I'm done making edits here. The CTDPH advisory is not just one document: it is the most specific document, which was developed in consideration of EPA findings and guidance documents as well as CTDPH research, and which stands as the only official health advisory document produced by state officials for Housatonic fish consumption in Connecticut. You're discounting the most important document in the mix in favor of more general data which does not explicitly controvert the CTDPH advisory unless you leverage extrapolations. Wikipedia is not the place to lodge the unproven claim, whether implicitly or explicitly, that health officials of the State of Connecticut are actively and irresponsibly advising Connecticut residents that it's okay to eat dangerously contaminated fish which present a health risk that is more than insignificant. That's precisely what you are suggesting, albeit in a subtle manner. Venturing in this article to controvert Connecticut's most important official document regarding Housatonic River fish consumption, a document which is subject to state-wide scrutiny and which currently serves to authoritatively advise all anglers in the state, is disingenuous in my view and seeks to challenge a very important and specific document with relatively general data that doesn't sufficiently support your contending claim. Jgcoleman (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

To simplify, EPA is essentially stating that "wildlife is very contaminated in and around the Housatonic". CTPDH is essentially saying, "Indeed, it is. We mostly agree with you and advise against most consumption, though we should also mention that we have found that these particular species of fish in our stretch of the river are generally safe to eat at these frequencies." This is simple long and short of it; nothing questionable about it. No murky connotations. What I'm advocating for is this very sensible and common sense understanding of the EPA/CTDPH documents which sees them as having a general/specific relationship in which neither is controverted. Jgcoleman (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me put it simply. Eating the fish presents health risks. The reader can go to the sources if they want. Even for fish which the State of Connecticut says that non-pregnant people and people in the lowest risk group may eat one per month, they still do "present health risks" and that is why the state advises to limit consumption to one per month and to cook it to drain as much fat as possible. So even this document does show that eating the fish "presents health risks" so i don't see the contradiction. SageRad (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear: the CTDPH advisory does not advise residents to eat fish that pose a health risk at the frequency that they suggest. So your claim that CTDPH universally agrees with your view that "all fish present health risks" is simply not true. To give the advisory a voice, since we seem to be having a tough time accepting the simple meaning of the document: if you were to ask the advisory, "Can I eat bluegill from the Housatonic?", it would in turn say," Yes, it's okay as long as people in the high risk group only have one meal of them per month and people in the low risk group only eat one meal week. If that weren't the case, and such consumption presented risks, we would've advised you not to eat them at all, just as we did with trout and catfish." Thus, your blanket language -meaning your broad statement that all fish present health risks- is not congruent with the advisory as you seem to claim. Your claim seeks to controvert the advisory. To be clear, you are actively disregarding valid source data in the advisory when you make your broad claim. Let this be shown to future readers and editors. Jgcoleman (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if your interpretation of the the CTDPH document is actually correct that there is zero or insignificant risk of eating certain fish once per month, then eating two such fish per month is not cleared as "safe" by that document, and it is still true that eating contaminated fish "present health risks". If you really want to add more text to the article to elaborate on the CTDPH document, and including content to the effect that CTDPH says that in certain runs of the river, it is an acceptable risk for low risk groups to eat one fish per month of certain species, then go right ahead. Please don't levy this moral charge against me to posterity. I'm following sources. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be stated for the record, in addition to everything I've explained above, that "insignificant risk" is generally synonymous with the term "safe" in most sensible usage of the English language. Safe is not a technical or scientific term indicating "absolute zero risk" or anything along those lines, as you have been insisting. Instead, it is a non-specific, relative term which, to have any useful meaning, must possess a subjective, but common-sense-based, definition. For example, tens of thousands of people die in automobile accidents each year in the United States alone... yet it would be perfectly reasonable to refer to automobiles and their operation as basically "safe". Again, I don't anticipate that you will take this to heart, but it needs to be stated for the observation of future editors and readers. Jgcoleman (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I do indeed take that to heart. I understand that there are sometimes acceptable risk levels deemed by individuals or by government agencies. I also offered above that we could state in basic detail what the CTDPH says regarding fish consumption, that they deem a certain number of some fish acceptably safe for low-risk groups. Still, note that even if two fish per month are deemed "safe" by the agency, then still 3 or more fish per month are not deemed safe and it's still reasonable and accurate to say that eating the fish "presents health risks". SageRad (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to briefly tie up this loose end with an ameliorative admission. Although I stand by comments above, I will nonetheless concede that our discussion has ultimately served to generally improve the article relative to where it began before our exchange. Jgcoleman (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Jgcoleman, i appreciate that very much. I feel the same, and i am appreciative of holding the articles to high standards for sourcing and accuracy. SageRad (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello PCBs debate
I lived in this Connecticut valley from '76 until just this year, and I would like to share my anecdotes on the PCB problem (and other things from recollection).

The PCBs came from a General Electric factory in Massachusetts (Great Barrington?) that made transformers, probably the big kind. By '76 the dumping had stopped, but, naturally, there was concern about the water. We did not swim in it back then, but the dogs did. Quoting my father, "the dogs won't live long enough to get cancer." Be it what it may, there have not been recent pollution alerts, and common wisdom was that the mud, which is very nutrient, covered the PCB layer and thus hid the problem. We moved our well up the bank to the house in the 80s, as the old well has hand dug and had a cast iron pump (that is still there, and still gets electricity!) We swam in it frequently after the panic subsided.

FYI, the reason the house got sold (to rich financiers from NYC to expand their mansion) was the ticks. Everyone gets bit, period, and everyone, so far, got sick w/ Lyme Tick Disease. I hear a lot about ticks where I am at now, the Bay of Fundy, but I have yet to find one and am unconcerned. But in this beautiful river valley, perhaps the most beautiful in North America, you will need scratch the buggers out with a fingernail (yeah lots of blood), treat with alcohol and iodine on a large "band aid," and, and if the bugger(s) is (are) in for 24hrs, then take a doxycycline pill (only 10 cents and given freely via prescription) w/in 72hrs of the bite (local wisdom, believe it!) (More on this here from me.)

I would be grateful if someone could review and include the material I have posted above as "future text." Since then I have found what I believe are artifactual evidence of aboriginal mediation in the area (state protected but not documented) and would like to write about that, perhaps photograph again if I can visit (and not get bit!)  --John Bessa (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I drove along the river yesterday, from Massachusetts to southern Connecticut, and i can assure you that there are still active warnings all along the river, saying not to eat the fish, and also the ducks and waterfowl. There i good reason for this, because PCBs are in the river still, and the benthic insects eat the sediment, and the fish eat these. The problem has not gone away and is not buried forever under sediment. It's active and it's a huge issue. Fish and duck lipid levels of PCBs are extremely high. SageRad (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting nostalgic already
The photo at the top really does the river no good and needs to be replaced. I found the river in my area to be difficult to photograph because there are no long stretches, so you mostly get surrounding mountains with a little water. Nonetheless, I can create a gallery here on the talk page from the many pictures I have taken, and perhaps others will add.

The biome is unique in that (I believe) it creates a channel for warm, wet southern air to pass over Long Island and up into Connectict to make it sort-of "tropical." It is not until late December that cold sets in, and conflicts between southern warmth and the arctic express can create very heavy, wet snow falls that bring many, many trees down. Fortunately for flora and fauna, there are still many trees as the area is very-controlled wrt to logging, and hunters are now universally-hated thanks to their friend who massacred all those kids downriver near Sandy Hook. --John Bessa (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yesterday i took photos from Bull's Bridge and other spots. Maybe i can upload. Note that hunters are not universally hated but this is not a forum where we ought to be discussing matters other than the article. SageRad (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , i uploaded a photo that i took yesterday in Kent from Bull's Bridge. See how you like it. SageRad (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous People
I modified the additional text you added regarding native peoples. You'll find that the essential information is all there, but I've re-arranged a few sentences and condensed ideas to produce a smoother read.

The information you added is accurate, but speaks broadly to Connecticut as a whole. I've made an effort at trying to bring the Housatonic Valley into the text more directly without modifying factual information.

I did remove the 1851 quote. Here's my reasoning:


 * The direct reference to the year 1851 could have inadvertently lead readers to believe that DeForest's account related to that year.
 * The direct reference to DeForest read awkwardly in the article, since DeForest was not previously introduced elsewhere in the text.
 * DeForest's verbatim account, while exhibiting beautiful language, was basically just restating the earlier sentence that mentioned the clearing of underbrush via autumn burns. Jgcoleman (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, thanks for the note on why you made those changes. I do like to include well written language sometimes when i come across it in sources, like i did with this page on Batcheller's Cave that i created, but i can see your point for brevity too.


 * I went to the New Fairfield Free Public Library and got a lot of good new sources on native people of this area from the town's historian, and have been working on updating, correcting, and integrating them into some pages of the area, as i learn more from these sources. SageRad (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

For others, the quote in question is this one:

In 1851, DeForest wrote, "Connecticut exhibited no such appearance as it exhibits now... No thickets choked up the way through these endless woodlands, for the underbrush was swept away every year by fires kindled for this purpose by the inhabitants."

If you like to see the original source, it's online here. A beautiful, locally published book, this one. SageRad (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Housatonic River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http%3A%2F%2Fviewer.nationalmap.gov%2Fviewer%2F to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519121339/http://www.epa.gov/NE/ge/sitehistory.html to http://www.epa.gov/NE/ge/sitehistory.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150907221916/https://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/2015_fish_flyer_english.pdf to http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/2015_fish_flyer_english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Housatonic River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924100700/http://www.sevenson.com/index.php/project-summaries/housatonic-river-pcb-soils-and-sediment-remediation/ to http://www.sevenson.com/index.php/project-summaries/housatonic-river-pcb-soils-and-sediment-remediation/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203131659/http://www.housatonic-river.com/index.php to http://housatonic-river.com/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235514/http://www.hvatoday.org/show.cfm?page=info%2Fwatershedmap.htm&folder=info to http://www.hvatoday.org/show.cfm?page=info%2Fwatershedmap.htm&folder=info

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)