For five years, researchers have tracked the spread of a so-called "shell disease" that now leaves up to 20 percent of the lobsters growing in Rhode Island's shallow, rocky waters safe to eat, but too disfigured to sell. No one knows the cause.
Yesterday, concerns about lobsters and the general health of Rhode Island's coastal waters triggered complaints about a new state program designed to protect us all from an exotic new disease that many fear will be coming this way soon with migrating birds and biting mosquitoes.
The objections were raised after the state Department of Environmental Management distributed thousands of pounds of larvicide to public works departments in 32 communities that have volunteered to spread it in catch basins to kill mosquitoes that might carry the fatal West Nile virus.
Late in the day, Save the Bay called on the DEM to ask the towns not to spread the larvicide until more research can be done about possible effects on lobsters. A scientist from Connecticut and a North Kingstown Town Council member made similar suggestions.
"If you have a lot of environmental stresses, lobsters will get diseases," said John Torgan, Save the Bay's baykeeper. "I'd be cautious about adding a new risk."
But state officials, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the larvicide manufacturer, researchers, and even the head of the Rhode Island Lobsterman's Association say there's no evidence to support any links between lobster health and efforts to kill mosquitoes.
"It's the most wild, speculative association that you could come up with," said Malcolm Grant, a DEM associate director who is supervising the campaign against the West Nile virus. "I'm praying people will keep in perspective we're talking about human life on one hand, and extraordinarily speculative information by a few people concerned about lobsters."
The towns won't be asked to begin spreading the larvicide until mosquito larva are expected to hatch, probably in another two or three weeks. So there is time for critics to raise their complaints and the DEM to respond.
Already two issues are clear:
First, Rhode Island, as well as 16 other states from Maine to Texas, will continue rolling out large-scale programs to kill mosquitoes, because officials don't want to face the mass hysteria that hit New York last fall when the West Nile virus erupted and killed seven elderly people.
In the short term, the state is using Altosid, a product whose active ingredient, methoprene, prevents mosquito larvae from growing into adults. The state is also distributing bacterial larvicides. If those aren't sufficient and the virus does break out, the state may be forced to use far more toxic pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes.
Second, lobster researchers will continue struggling for money to help them find out what is sickening Rhode Island lobsters or what is being called the catastrophic death of lobsters in Long Island Sound that put hundreds of fishermen out of work there last year.
"This is a very new thing for us to be looking at and I think we are lucky we have the data. But it's a puzzle. The problem is there is no money," says Kathy Castro, a research associate at URI.
For five years, she has tracked the disease as it grew from negligible to a problem affecting about one-fifth of the inshore lobsters. A smorgasbord of bacteria are somehow overcoming the lobsters' defenses and eating holes in their shells, Castro said.
It's not a public-health problem, she says. The lobsters are safe to eat. but it's troubling because the problem is growing and no one knows why.
The lobsters here appear to be killed by bacteria, not the paramoebas that are suspected in Long Island, she said.
But Castro doesn't suspect larvicides here, she said, because little have been used before in Rhode Island, particularly compared to the overall pesticide use by private citizens.
Concerns about the larvicides were first raised publicly a few weeks ago at a workshop in Connecticut on the Long Island Sound lobster deaths.
Hans Laufer, a professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut who has studied reproductive hormones in crustaceans for 20 years, asked why Connecticut planned to use methoprene to kill mosquitoes.
"My research indicates the same concentrations that kill mosquitoes would affect lobsters," Laufer said in a telephone interview yesterday. He said the company making Altosid never did long-term tests, only short-term.
He said when someone from the DEM later called him to ask his advice, he suggested that the agency use Altosid only if necessary.
"It's a quick fix. And probably a cheap fix," Laufer said. "The right way is biological control" such as distributing fish in wet areas.
Richard French, a veterinary pathologist who heads a task force studying the Long Island Sound lobster deaths, said yesterday the biggest problem with Laufer's theory is timing. The lobster deaths began early last year, while the West Nile virus and resulting spraying of pesticides didn't occur until the fall.
His group believes a one-celled paramoeba was the leading cause of death. But French acknowledges more study needs to be done.
"The biggest problem here is there are a number of different factors to deal with — environmental, water quality and specific agents. It could easily be a multifactoral disease situation," French said.
"Basically, you're trying to control a disease of public health significance [ West Nile] with agents that may affect the public health of the Sound. It's a concern of a number of people. But at this point, there is no indication this product [Altosid] is directly related to the mortalities."
Monday night, Kenneth D'Ambrosio, a town councilman in North Kingstown who has followed the Connecticut lobster crisis, suggested at a council meeting that his town hold off on distributing Altosid until more is known.
"Some red flags should be looked at before we eliminate an industry and completely change the ecosystem in our Bay," D'Ambrosio said.
Raymond Iannetta, president of an East Greenwich company that markets a device for killing mosquitoes, said yesterday he has called the DEM and the governor's office to try to stop use of Altosid.
"You put this stuff in storm drains and then when it rains, it all washes into the Bay," Iannetta said. "DEM won't recommend our product to people, but it will recommend an insecticide. I'm concerned about the Bay."
Prof. Stanley J. Cobb, a top lobster researcher at URI, said yesterday he agrees with Laufer's theory that Altosid could be a problem for lobsters, at least in a laboratory experiment. But he sides with French's assessment that the timing doesn't support the theory — heavy pesticide use for West Nile didn't begin until long after the lobster deaths were well under way.
Nina Habib Spencer, spokeswoman for the EPA's New York region, said New York City is already putting Altosid into some 130,000 storm drains. The EPA, she said, considers it one of the least toxic pesticides available.
And Mark Newburg, spokesman for Wellmark International, which makes Altosid, insists the company's studies indicate Altosid has no effect on crustaceans.
"The fact is, if our product was to somehow wash into the ocean, it would be so diluted, I doubt you would even be able to detect it," Newburg said.
Almost every researcher agreed yesterday that more work needs to be done, but no one knew of anyone actually planning to do it.
The DEM's Grant said Rhode Island has studied Altosid extensively and plans a very conservative approach, using the larvicide at half-strength, half a teaspoon per catch basin.
It is in pellets that will sink to the bottom of a pool of water, he said. The larvicide will be released over 30 days, but once released, it biodegrades very rapidly.
One study found it could affect grass shrimp when applied at 10 times the prescribed concentration. But if the larvicide was washed into Narragansett Bay, it would be enormously diluted, rather than concentrated, Grant said.
"Really, Altosid, giving everything we know about it, is a no-brainer for catch basins," Grant said.
