A year has passed since three wise men from the East reported a noxious bloom of Microcystis aeruginosa (Mike) in Agency Lake and in Klamath Lake. Mike had been present, in abundance, for about five weeks, especially in Agency Lake, The three eminent scientists from the East didn't say the species might be toxic or that it could be toxic, Rather, they said it was so toxic that if a cow or a dog took a lick of the lake water the animal would stagger away and die immediately. Yet, dogs, cattle and other critters drank lake water every day.

It is official, no animals were reported ill, none were injured, none died; one cow, died of old age, compounded by being struck by a loaded, long bed, Ford, pick-up truck. It is said that the wise men from the East tell, that dogs and cattle and other animals avoided the water. This does not square with our knowledge that dogs, cattle and other animals drink, drank and have drunk water with toxic algae blooms, then died. Yes, frequently the presence of a toxic bloom of algae is detected by animal die off. Even in the recent past, die off was the only measure of the presence of poisonous algae. Moreover, it has been documented that the animals, did indeed, drink the water from the Lakes, the River and the irrigation ditches of the Klamath Basin at that time.

It is wise to exercise caution when one suspects a toxin. Let us err on the side of safety. However, on the day the algae story was published in the newspaper, this old Scientist published that it was a strain that was not toxic. (see Part I) Two weeks later he reinforced his conclusions (see Part II). As stated, Mike was present for more than a month, without incident, before it was reported to the newspaper. This old professor wrote in Part III (31 Oct. 96) that the scientists from the East overreacted, The overreaction caused considerable confusion then and now.

It is known that there are different strains in the species of blue-green algae among Microcystis aeruginosa, Anabaena flos-aquae and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. Moreover, it is known that most strains are non toxic. It was known in August of 1996 that there was no problem with algae toxins in Klamath Lake. This old researcher wrote four pieces (6 Sept, - 31 Oct. 1996) (Parts I-IV) providing citations, documentation and practical (horse sense) information that the story, as presented by the eminent scientists from the East, was inaccurate, unnecessary and alarmist. (See Part IV). Copies were sent to the newspaper and to others. This old biologist was interviewed by journalists (?) from several magazines. Neither newspaper, nor magazines ever printed a word. But, did this old professor complains Did he pout? Of course he did, he's still pouting.

Since the Publication of the story of Microcystis aeruginosa, things changed for the harvesting companies. Most companies suspended harvesting during the bloom of Mike. Companies were obligated to test for microcystin which might or might not be present. The Oregon Department of Health decided the maximum allowable amount of microcystin was 1.0 mu.g/g (one millionth of one gram per gram). There is no evidence that 10 millionths or 20 millionths would be harmful to anyone. None the less, companies must have their harvests analyzed frequently at several hundred dollars per each sample. Who is the primary beneficiary of this largess of dollars for checking the amount of microcystin? None other than the fine scientists from the East.

When testing for microcystin, the technicians might use HPLC or ELISA methods. First they must prepare a standard, then analyze the sample against the standard. Harvesting companies routinely send splits of the same sample to different laboratories and always receive decidedly different results. Also, companies send splits of the same sample to the same laboratories and receive different results, They always get different results. Always!

When scientists cannot replicate data, the data is worthless. When scientists cannot agree on standards the standards are not reliable. It is reasonable to expect that splits from the same sample will generate the same results or at the very least come rather close. This is not the case. Sensitivity of reagents and equipment when measuring in millionths of one gram, can cause different results. Measuring in the millionths, in different labs, in different parts of the U.S., with different equipment, and different technicians, using methods which cannot replicate data, at different altitudes, and different humidity, call into question any results when the data is millionths of a gram.

It is not surprising that data from the splits is totally inconsistent.

A measure of 10 mu.g/g might be considered, then anything less than 10 one millionths would be acceptable, providing the labs can measure it with some accuracy.

The first four parts this old professor wrote were ignored. To write more shows how naive he is, actually believing someone might read it.

Folks are trying to measure a substance, in the millionths, which might or might not be present, which has never been shown to cause any illness in human beings, using methods which cannot be replicated, and producing questionable results, costing the harvesting companies tens of thousands of dollars.

Suppose lab results brought before a graduate committee could not be replicated. Would a graduate degree be granted? Is the old professor jealous that he is not raking in the dough measuring microcystin?