Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Monday, May 4, 2026

Vehemently Anti Crepuscular

 There are little things, little visual evidences, that pop up in our world to tell us how incredibly small we are. One such phenomena that has that effect on me is the appearance of anticrepuscular rays. See, the suns rays are parallel. It really, really doesn't feel like it, because the sun is so comparatively large and far away that the more common way we see rays of light from the sun- crepuscular rays -they appear to diverge from the source. 

This is a scale issue, though, of the same order that a road's painted lines appear to  get closer together the further away they are... it's just something we're much less familiar with seeing. Crepuscular rays are not remotely rare. They occur all the time when sun shine through clouds, leaves, or even sky scrapers in hazy conditions early or late in the day. The optical conditions that let those rays extend overhead are rarer, but they do occur. When they do, its spectacular.

Anticrepuscular rays occur when the suns ray are visible meeting again at infinity on the opposite wide of the sky from the sun. Very, very rarely, crepuscular rays meet anticrepuscular rays meet and span the whole sky, supposedly. I've never seen such an occurrence. One day in Florida, though, with the sun rising out over the Atlantic, I turned to the West and gasped at the sight of the best anticrepuscular rays I'd ever had the pleasure to see. It may seem a silly thing to feel small observing this, but in some sense this optical phenomena represents the scale of the light from our sun and the clouds in our atmosphere, going so far and visually spreading apart in such away that when you can see those rays on the other side of the sky, it looks like they just go on forever. 

That's pretty darned cool if you ask me. 

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, Ryan, Dar, Eric, and Collin for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog and access more informative content, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version!

Friday, January 16, 2026

Bomb Cyclone on Lake Ontario

"Explosive cyclogenesis (also referred to as a weather bomb, meteorological bomb, explosive development, bomb cyclone, or bombogenesis) is the rapid deepening of an extratropical cyclonic low-pressure area. The change in pressure needed to classify something as explosive cyclogenesis is latitude dependent. For example, at 60° latitude, explosive cyclogenesis occurs if the central pressure decreases by 24 millibars (0.71 inHg) or more in 24 hours. This is a predominantly maritime, winter event, but also occurs in continental settings.

-Wikipedia contributors. (2025, December 30). Explosive cyclogenesis. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 03:47, January 13, 2026, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Explosive_cyclogenesis&oldid=1330226435

On December 29th, 2025, I had a morning doctor's appointment. I felt a little rushed- getting there, getting it done, getting the heck out of there -because the atmosphere was doing something very interesting in the area of the Great Lakes. Models showed a rapidly deepening closed low sweeping a gnarly jet across the whole region, bringing intense winds to the surface with the potential to create massive waves in the places with the most fetch. It was a continental bomb cyclone, a low almost reaching hurricane levels of intensity. Although I'm a warm season convective weather chaser at my core, the winter is long and I live in the northeast. The gaps between towering, rotating supercells are extremely long for me. I've gotta take what I can get. When mother nature decides to put on a show, I can't help but be compelled to be there for it. It was especially appealing after visiting the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum. Experiencing a taste of the sort of event that was responsible for such dirty work seemed fitting. Forecasts even suggested that conditions on parts of Lake Superior could be worse that the night the Edmund Fitzgerald sank, and that storm didn't quite make the pressure drop grade to qualify for bombogenesis. The Dec. 28-29 storm performed a 20mb pressure drop in 24 hours. 


National Weather Service, Twin Cities, MN. December 28 2025 Winter Storm and Blizzard Conditions. https://www.weather.gov/mpx/Dec28Blizzard 

The most intense conditions would occur on Superior, and there was no shot at getting that far. Lake Erie would certainly see some exceptional waves and wind and probably a big seiche; where the wind pushes enough water that it significantly drops the water level at the west end of the lake and creates flooding on the East end, at least in westerly wind. My morning doctor's appointment negated getting to Lake Erie in a timely fashion. Ontario it was, with time to spare and familiarity both playing rolls in my decision making. I knew the shoreline of Oswego and Jefferson Counties would be getting battered, and the road network there is a familiar one to a tributary fisherman. I initially set sights on Oswego, then Sandy Pond as we got closer. We passed through some of the monster cyclone's dirty work on the way, where ice accretion was bringing down tree limbs and slippery spots were causing accidents. Clouds broke before we arrived at the lake, but the blue sky with puffy white clouds scudding quickly overhead was really evidence of the incoming high winds. Soon, gusts in Ellisburg would exceed 50mph, and the wind hitting the exposed lake shore would be even more intense as the pressure gradient on the backside of the cyclone approached. The temperature was also falling quickly. Soon, spending ten minutes outside the car would become pretty hard to tolerate. 



The lakes are impressive- a little uncanny even, if you're used to the ocean -but I'd never seen them in big weather. The way the waves broke along the beaches in northern Oswego County was a little different from anything I can recall seeing. They'd break way out, more than a mile off the beach, then come come rolling in as stacked whitewater. I'm sure this is owing to the very slight depth gradient on that part of the lake shore. Though it didn't make for the most impressive shore break size-wise, it was very loud. The wind was more impressive, blowing sand and whipping trees about, even taking down fences in the parks. 



To the north, at Henderson Shores, cliffs set a more dramatic stage for breaking waves being funneled between Stoney Island and the mainland. Far out, white caps broke and were bowled over by the strong winds, sending plumes of spray like smoke swirling across the waters. it would be quite a scary time to be out there in a vessel. There's also some sick part of me that wants to know what that experience is like. Standing on those cliffs is such  different vantage point, above it all and completely safe. Being out there in it, immersed in the chaos with no immediate escape... that's a whole other thing entirely. 


To my knowledge no boats sank during the 28th-29th storm, and even the large freighters find safe port nowadays when these conditions do arriver. We've advanced forecasting dramatically since the 1970's and a storm like this is something meteorologists today have a good handle on well in advance. That saves a lot of mariners and has made the Great Lakes a fair bit less deadly than they once were.  It's no less impressive to experience nature's intensity on the shoreline as these storms will rear their ugly heads for centuries to come. As it got later, it was just getting harder and harder to be outside as conditions continued to deteriorate. Driving perpendicular to the winds I had to work to keep the car on track. We headed home, satisfied with the experience. 

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, Ryan, Dar, Eric, Truman, and Collin for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version.

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

The Shaky Future of American Beech

 There was a smallish American beech in the woods not far from the second home my family lived at in Connecticut. It was not a loner, as in many places in the Southern New England Forest, beech were a fairly prominent tree there. This one, though, stood atop a rise that marked sort of a second, smaller peak of the hill we lived on. Their were two houses up there mostly surrounded by woods, making it a pretty good place for an outdoor-inclined child to do a hefty chunk of their growing up. That little beech on the second peak was big enough and just branched well enough to be a great climbing tree, and I hasten to make a guess at how many hours I spent off the ground in that tree. When the canopy was off it made an even better viewing position from the top of that already prominent rise, looking down a fairly significant and steep hill. I watched deer, foxes, coyotes, and even- only once -a fisher from that tree. I haven't seen it in a long while though, and I wonder how it's doing. I wonder because American beech in Connecticut are, on the whole, not doing so hot. 

In 2012, a biologist named John Pogacnik working for Lake Metroparks discovered sick beech trees in a grove overlooking the Grand River in Lake County, Ohio. At the time, there wasn't a clear cut answer as to what was damaging these trees, but they were beginning to get sickly ,striated leaves, and it was evident that something was quite wrong. The disease would become known simply as beech leaf disease, and in time was tied to a nematode worm species: Litylenchus crenatae mccannii. Whether the nematode alone is responsible or if some bacteria is a nasty collaborator is yet unknown, but what is known is that the disease is more than just an inconvenience. BLD is proving to be especially deadly to younger beeches, which when infected seem destined to die in about five years time. BLD has since spread to 13 US states and Ontario, with detection in Connecticut occurring in 2019. It has since spread to every county, and it is rare now- in my experience, at least -to see a beech not affected by the disease. 


Fagus grandifolia is a fixture of the eastern forests; "large-leafed beech" in Latin. You've probably seen one that someone scratched their name into. I don't at all condone this, it's a rude thing to do to a tree. This is done to a lot with beech because they do make a notably good canvas for such things, with their smooth, even, grey bark. American beech have lovely, dark green, almond shaped leaves with parallel side veins that each end in a slight point. Beeches are also notable for marcescence, or keeping some or all of their leaves through winter until they bud out. These dry, dull yellow leaves add color to an otherwise grey and white winter landscape in the northeast. They also whisper and shake in a breeze, and to me, a New England forest would feel very different were it not for that sound as a winter storm closes in and the wind kicks up. It would be really hard, as a whole, to picture these woods without beech. We've been through the loss of iconic trees in the East before, though... perhaps none more iconic than the American chestnut. 

I walked a scrubby low area between hilltops in the Taconics not long ago with my friend Bruce, and we passed hundreds of little saplings with long, dark green, spike-edged leaves. Most of these were less than an inch in diameter and surrounded decrepit looking, dead small trees. These are what's left of a species now widely considered to be functionally extinct, stump sprouts from a still living root system trying desperately to regain a hold. It can't though, not yet at least. And that's a shame, because these were once a dominant and massive tree of the Eastern forests. Many old houses in New England have American chestnut in their construction, as it was a highly favored lumber for it's rot resistance and strength. Old film photographs depicting whole families standing in front of massive Castanea dentata harken to modern day photos of the redwoods or sequoia, and few trees standing today East of the Mississippi come close to the magnitude of those monsters, especially deciduous trees. At the moment the idea of seeing a truly giant American chestnut is a dream, and that's all because of a fungus imported by accident and rapidly spread through a population of trees that lacked immunity to it. There are folks trying to realize that dream, even though for many the understanding that this won't occur in time for them to actually see it is abundantly clear.

 Jack Swatt and Dr. David Bingham explained to me how I could microwave-roast a chestnut as we stood at the base of 10-29, the tallest, fullest, best looking tree on Dr. Bingham's property in central CT. "Take a very sharp knife, put it on the flat side so it doesn't roll, punch it in so it makes a little x. As it's cooking the steam bursts the rest", Dr. Bingham suggested. In my hand was a nut produced by tree 10-29. It was a beautiful, lustrous thing with that stereotypical deep color. This tree and the others in Bingham's orchard are part of the American Chestnut Foundation's backcrossing program. The idea is to produce a tree that is as close to American chestnut as possible, but carries blight resistance from genetic crossing with Chinese chestnut. The chestnut in my hand wasn't quite as small as that of a pure American, and the leaves on the tree weren't as large or as toothed as as pure American. But it sure wasn't like a pure Chinese chestnut either, and though the cankers from blight were visible in various spots on the tree's trunk it was still a beauty. Bingham referred to and gestured at traits of the tree I was yet unfamiliar with. "It certainly has the very typical American bark, and it's branching like an American tree".  Backcrossing, unlike pure hybridization, is intended to isolate one desired trait from a donor parent while crossing the offspring with a recurrent parent whose whole genetic background is preferable. In this case, preferred background is that of the American chestnut- traits like nut size, leaf size and shape, bark, branching, and growth -nd the preferred trait from the donor parent is the blight resistance of the Chinese chestnut. The end result won't exactly be the same as what was lost to blight, but the goal is to get the closest tree possible. That's a common theme in species conservation.... something as close as possible, genetically and physiologically, is a lot better than nothing. 

The first nuts David Bingham planted in his orchard came from one Connecticut tree. "The mother tree" was an American chestnut he found while clearing a hilltop on a family property. It was just a sprout then, but Bingham cared for that tree by packing mud onto blighted spots and wrapping it with plastic. The native fungi and viruses in the mud help the tree fight the Cryphonectria parasitica, the blight fungus. If not taken care of, or if the tree shows no resistance, the fungus essentially girdles the trunk of the tree, killing it. The root system, unaffected by the fungus, can survive long after the main trunk dies It will keep putting up stump sprouts for decades. It was these that I saw on that hike in the Taconics. Under David's care, though, this sprout made it much longer than most. "It got big enough and started flowering," he told me. When it first produced nuts they were all flat, they were infertile nuts." If there are no other flowering chestnuts around to pollinate with, such is the result. The next year, with help from American Chestnut Foundation, the tree was pollinated. "We got about a hundred nuts off of it". So started the orchard; and that mother tree is still standing today too under Bingham's watchful eye. Rows of chestnut trees from the Mother Tree and various hybrid parents were planted in rows. They were then "inoculated", using bores to place a core with a virulent strain of blight in each tree. The trees that handled it best were kept, those that didn't were culled. It was those that made the grade that stood this day, here and there in what otherwise looked like a meadow. Bingham kept things to what the untrained I may think is a unruly state, but a naturalist sees as vital habitat for birds and pollinators. 

The fungus that causes chestnut blight is Cryphonectria parasitica. Under a loop it isn't impressive... the fruiting bodies are tiny and dull orange. The impact of that fungus, though, was staggering. Most sources place arrival from Asia in the late 1800's. Ground zero was the Bronx Zoological Park. By the 1940's the blight spread to the entire population and in half a century a tree that made up about a quarter of the Eastern forests and a very high percentage of the mast crop (nuts) became a ghost of itself... still existing, sort of, but mostly as a reminder rather than a functioning species. Because of it's lumber value, salvage logging took place and may have worsened the odds for the iconic species. Now it's up to a handful of dedicated individuals to try to bring it back. Like many conservationists, Jack Swatt and David Bingham are driven by an appreciation for nature and for a species, using there time voluntarily to try to improve their world. Swatt learned about the American chestnut during his college years, joined the American Chestnut Foundation later on but wasn't very active right away. He'd been very active with the fire department, but after developing psoriatic arthritis needed to find another way to devote time. "So I was out hiking in Naugatuck State Forest and found an American chestnut that had burrs at the top of it," he told me as he donned gloves to protect his hands from the spikes. "I started doing more volunteer work and monitoring those trees because I had more time on my hands, and I became more and more involved". Many of use who find a species or habitat in peril quickly find ourselves entrained in the mission to restore, protect, or preserve them. Swatt described it as "infectious" and I couldn't agree more. 

"Burrs go right through every glove I try", he said, "so I wrap them with duct tape. They're really pretty bad!" I'd never seen chestnut burrs before, but Swatt told me there are more trees that produce them than even he had realized. In places where lots of cutting has been done- he described a spot where cutting was performed to manage for Ne England cottontail -the sprouts can grow better, and in a five to ten year period before succumbing to blight they get a chance to flower and produce nuts. They emphasized that finding a tree with a lot of burrs is often a sign it isn't doing well and may be close to the end. "When you're finding them with burrs it's often because they've been weakened and they know that they're on the way out" Bingham said, and Swatt added "If they're growing really healthy, they put their energy into growing." The interesting thing with trees, though, is that growing takes a while. 10 years is long as is, and that's a fraction of the time it will take to know if any of this is working. Neither of these men will be around long enough to see the fully realized result of their hours of labor. David Bingham is 85 years old, and already has plans for the orchard he knows will outlive him. The property will go to a land trust to continue its goals. "I'm glad I didn't know how long this would take when I started" he told me. "I certainly thought it was going to be solved in my lifetime." At one point, he gestured at me, "You're young enough to maybe find a solution." And maybe that's true, but it wouldn't be without standing on the backs of people that came earlier who were willing to try to solve a problem they couldn't be around long enough to see through. Restoring a forest takes more than a lifetime. There's something deeply admirable about people willing to work toward a goal that far out. 


 Alex Amendola's office could be described as eclectic, I suppose, but if you are paying enough attention you'd see an underlying theme runs through the scattered odds and ends: two Polyphemus moths pinned to a propped up log, a copperhead skin shed, various mineral specimens, old bottles lined on a shelf, and a few bonsai, along with maps, old signs, and posters pertaining to ecology and forestry. These were all evidences of a life spent tromping in the woodlands of southern New England. Amendola is a forester for CT DEEP, and he certainly loves trees... though his path to his current occupation was a bit circuitous. "I wanted to be a a marine biologist, but they gave us a test for what job would suit you best. My number one result was forest ecologist, and I was like 'I hate trees, why would I ever want to do that'". Amendola was going to The Sound School, a New Haven based maritime based high school. He went from conservation law to environmental law in college, then found his way to that test result and ended in forest ecology. Now much of his life revolves around trees and things that pertain to them. He's the president of the Bonsai Society of Greater New Haven. Managing the forests of south Central Connecticut provides his income. I ended up in his office because my brother worked with Alex as a seasonal, and learned through him that forestry is a lot more than just marking trees. Radio telemetry with spotted turtles, for example... "I was astonished by how many thousands of feet some of them would put on in one night or two nights. I did the calculations to someone of my body weight and it was like 75 miles in a day!" If I was looking to get a deeper perspective on what beech leaf disease would mean for the whole landscape and the wildlife it would seem I'd been directed to the right person. After he got his seasonal set up with some office work for the day, we hopped in his work truck which was really a relatably (to me at least) disheveled version of the inside of his office- scattered with the tools of the trade, random rocks, and other accoutrements -and headed towards a site he was managing for Eastern red cedar and bigtooth aspen. These species don't do well under the canopy of taller trees but are a valuable asset for a diverse forest, so this site had been cut to free up these trees and give them a real chance. A variety of species rely on Eastern red cedar, including Juniper hairstreak, a lovely little green butterfly. The female trees produce beautiful blue berries that attract cedar waxwings. 

When we arrived and walked out, we were walking through a landscape that might look a mess to the untrained eye. Most hikers and outdoorsman have a somewhat specific sanitized idea of what a healthy forest looks like and this probably wouldn't fit it... a scattering of tall trees with limited midstory and near breast high understory surrounding them. But this did have variety now, and was lacking it before. I'd been there before it was cut in fact, and remember seeing the grove of cedar Alex was seeking to save, trapped between taller mature trees. What now existed was and would for a while be different from what surrounded it. The seed bank that lives in the soil had gotten sun and all of this low growth came up, a whole host of different species than what had been represented before. Variety is key to ecological success, especially in a state with lots of developed land and an abundance of busy roads. The more different habitats available within an are, the more diverse and healthy it is. From birds to bugs to mammals, all benefit from varied habitats in close proximity. It still looked unnatural though, because it had to be logged to achieve the goals. I wanted to know what the progression would look like."It'll grow up, and you'll get to what we call the 'density dependent mortality'; you start to lose the losers for one reason or another- maybe its genetics, maybe its abiotic factors, biotic factors, whatever. Then you get the pole stand, small sapling stand and they'll start to reach up where they can." Pole is a timber classification; not yet sawtimber, no longer a sapling. "At that point the decision comes to burn, or do TSI or timber stand improvement, essentially selecting our favorites and trying to help them out. That'll happen in 20 years for these cedars. By that point their physiology should be strong enough to compete. Essentially the next step here won't be for another 15, 20 years?" This active management is so important to maintaining these species because it mimics what either would naturally have occurred in terms of disturbances- stand leveling storms or big fires -that shaped the diversity of plants and wildlife on the landscape, or mimics the land management carried out for centuries by the indigenous peoples. Because habitat is now fragmented, there's no guarantee that such events will occur in time naturally to keep some of these native species around. In order to keep some of them from disappearing from the landscape we have to come in and cut or burn things down selectively.  It may look messy, but it is oh so vital. In southern New England, old farmland and meadows are lost to forest progression, and with them will be species like the New England cottontail, smooth green snake, and indeed red cedar. "We want to have eight to ten percent of our forest in this early successional stage across all of Nehantic. Wind storms, fires... all of our forest is really predicated on that in Southern New England." 

Beech fits into all of this. "They provide that mid story that is very important to some birds," Alex told me. Not every tree branches in the same way. Some form a single trunk with branches coming off That same characteristic that made them fun to climb when I was a kid is key for species whose feeding or nesting habits evolved around the presence of that tree and others with heavy branching further down their trunks. Beech also make large groves of trunks from one root system. What looks like a bunch of different trees is really just one organism. The smaller sprouts in these groves produce both understory and midstory as they grow, and under the shade of the larger trunks they remain a lasting example of that habitat. At least they did, until a new nematode came along. We stood under a grove of beech that was looking quite sickly discussing how that nematode works. "The damage was done inside the bud, then when it leafs out it's all screwed up. If you see the microscope footage, the nematodes just cause physical damage tunneling all through the cell walls". This damage produces shriveled, misshapen, striped leaves that can't execute the processes they're meant to. It'd be like if something went to town and did a bunch of physical damage to your stomach and prevented you from being able to take in nutrients. Many beeches try to refoliate, but they aren't very good at it. "They don't even look like beech leaves." Sycamore, by contrast, refoliate every season in response to anthracnose, dropping their leaves and re-growing a new healthy batch. We don't know why beech can't do the same yet. That means trouble for a landscape scale problem, and it's unclear if there will be a good way to solve it. "There are plenty of beneficial nematodes," says Amendola. "Spreading some sort of nematicide would be comparable to something like DDT". DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is a synthetic insecticide commonly used to control mosquitoes. It had severe environmental impacts, most notably thinning the eggshells of raptors. Though banned many decades ago, DDT still shows up in FDA food tests and in all nearly all CDC human blood tests. 

Beech leaf disease has spread very rapidly. The range of beech is over 800,000 square miles in the Eastern United States. Beech leaf disease has spread to about 160,000 square miles since 2012, so it's gotten to about  one fifth of the distribution of the species in the country already. That's not including Eastern Canada, either. The tricky thing is, it was novel from the start. Research to understand the disease, what caused it, where it came from, and how it might be controlled has to be performed while the disease proliferates. Science takes time, and all the while, the disease is killing trees, damaging habitat, and creating thousands of dangerous snags that could fall and injure folks outdoors. Though there are obvious differences between chestnut blight and beech leaf disease, both are landscape scale problems. We have to hope that we could learn from the past and come out of this better than the chestnut blight, but we already blew it: the disease is here. That's the most dangerous step, and once that door is open its really, really hard to close. Alex drove me through Chatfield Hollow State Park, pointing out stands of birch that were so beaten down by the disease that they were already becoming a potential danger, not to mention opening up the brook to full summer sun and warming the water dramatically. 

If you see a beech tree that seems to be resistant to the disease, note it's location and see if it holds out, because discovering just a few resistant trees could be vital to weathering this storm. Stay apprised of BLD and other tree diseases and invasive species through the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at https://portal.ct.gov/caes. Generations down the road, there may still be big, healthy beech standing in our forests, and maybe even American chestnut. If there are, it'll only be because people like David Bingham, Jack Swatt, and Alex Amendola cared enough to see something through to their own end despite the knowledge that the job wouldn't be over, and they'll never see the fruits of their labors. 

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, Ryan, Dar, Eric, Truman, and Collin for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version. 


Thursday, July 31, 2025

LLMs, Energy, & Fly Fishing's Soul

 I can't figure out how to turn off Google's AI Overview, and that is driving me batty. Ironically, the answers to "how do I turn off google ai overview?" from Google's AI Overview don't actually work, and the answers in the community help questions don't either. Some even appear to be AI generated themselves.... I'd really, really like to turn it off, and as it stands it doesn't seem to be possible. Why have I devoted close to an hour of my life just trying to disable something meant to make searching the web easier? For me, it seriously fails to actually live up to that goal. But more so, I want no part of large language models or generative artificial intelligence.

Large language models are the most advanced current form of language models; learning systems for processing language. Language models currently exist in two forms, statistical and neural, and most LLMs are the latter, more advanced form. Modern statistical models have been around a while, with pioneering working going back to the 50's and Noam Chomsky's "Three models for the description of language", (which I'm sure would mostly go right over my head if I wanted to pay $15 to access the PDF). Statistical language models use probability to determine the next words in a sequence, analyzing large quantities of text and deriving probabilities based on sequence frequencies. Neural models, by contrast, aim to mimic aspects of human brain function through a computational model based on the neural pathways utilized in creating language. LLMs are given input in the form of immense volumes of existing information- internet text, digitized books, so on -and from that are trained through machine learning; putting those inputs through the neural process. Inputs; namely language of some sort, but represented as numbers; travel from nodes (artificial neurons) down edges (artificial synapsis) to more nodes, often arranged in layers called hidden layers. After passing through the hidden layers the output layer (more nodes) are reached, and the network outputs number that are reconverted into language, images, audio... whatever. If what the network puts out is given back to it again, it will add to it. As the LLM is trained, it can be given feedback on it's outputs to further hone either accuracy or a desired outcome. The material used to train the LLM can be incredibly broad and of course can dictate the outputs, and that's one of the reasons I've tried turning off Google's. I've found it frequently provides faulty, partial, or untrue answers based on the information it's pulling from, which can come from all manor of articles, blogs, forums, and web pages that seek to answer the search prompt. Without seeing the source directly it's a bit harder to suss out its validity and I just end up searching the same way I would have anyway before the Ai Overview existed. The other thing that peeves me is that even if the answer is concise and accurate, it deprives the sources of readership, possible ad revenue, and potential future engagement if the users don't decide to follow through and see where the answer came from by following through links. That's a bit gross, I think, and I do wonder how many answers Ai has provided that have been trained through the many hundreds of things I've written over the years. To learn much of the above, I leaned on Wikipedia (I know, I know, it is fairly trustworthy though, especially with nerdy tech crap like this) and this video by Henrik Kniberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IK3DFHRFfw. Kniberg highlights the utilities of Generative Ai too, and though none of that is lost on me and I can see some of it's value, exposure has done nothing but scare me further away from it. 

Ai generated text, images, videos, and music do nothing but improve with time, at least for the goals of the companies creating them- that's how machine learning is meant to work. I'm not letting the failures of LLMs alone dissuade me from them... the hilarious extra fingers, the ease of gaslighting chat bots, and X's Grok starting to call itself "Mechahitler" are absurd, certainly, but there are bigger problems in my opinion. Even as they get more accurate and closer to "human", they just aren't, and the products generated by Ai lack soul. That's cliché and almost meaningless, I know, but the reason writing, art, music, speech, even answers to many simple questions are often meaningful is simply the human experience. When we generate text or an image with our hands, pens, paint brushes, so on, they ring loudly of our life experience, morality, values, bias, and creativity. The way Ai generates it basically just takes from people's voice or style, or even their opinion, modifying it a little but not really creating. This is where fly fishing first comes into play in the conversation. Things have now progressed to the point that I've heard of fly anglers asking Ai what to do on the while water. 

I'm sorry if you've done this... but please get up right now, go to your closest mirror, give yourself a good hard look, then- and not too hard, I'm not trying to injure you here -slap yourself. Are you kidding me? Really? You need a robot to tell you what fly to tie on? This is getting so far from everything that is actually special about fly fishing as a pastime and as a social activity that it frankly disgusts me. There's nothing wrong with asking what you should do in a given situation of an actual human, or learning through reading or videos. You may not even get a perfect answer, or even an answer to your specific question at all, but you're always likely to glean something of worth. Say you ask Joe Humphreys what fly to use on Spring Creek when there's no hatch going on in the middle of an April day. He's liable to tell you to use his Hump's Cress Bug, or some other scud or cressbug imitation, and explain how it'll be best fished rolling on the bottom. He'll tell you how to pick the right number of shot to get down, and to space them a bit to better roll along the bottom. He might even show you how to make a good tuck cast, perhaps tell a story of some good fishing he had recently with that methodology. You'll get the implicit voice of Joe Humphreys and his experiences; his time, his successes and failures. Even if he somehow gives you the wrong answer, that has value. Now look up that same question online, and though there'll be degrees of separation you could sort through information for days, from people of all experience levels. Magazine articles, blogs, forums, images of flies, videos galore... all made by different anglers with different experiences and knowledge, varying approaches and points of view, from all over the world. That, too... incredibly valuable. It isn't immediate, it takes some work on your part, but it shouldn't be immediate. Finally, let's say you're out there on the water alone and don't have anyone there to ask or time to read through loads of information from different sources. Is it not more rewarding, enforcing, and true to the sport to experiment, observe, and try to come to your own conclusion, than it is to ask a machine? If you do ask Ai, it may give you a perfectly good, useful answer, but it will be one lacking in complete context. It'll tell you to tie on a scud because someone, somewhere, likely multiple sources in fact, said it was a good idea. You don't get to learn who all of those someones are, what their history and experience is, and why precisely they think a scud is a good idea unless you put in the extra effort, and at that point you're negating the work the Ai did for you. 

We've already left behind so many of the things that gave this sport soul as technology has continued to progress, are we really going to just ask the machines what we should do now? That sickens me. This is a sport that many of us claims "gets us closer to nature", and yet we seem to try harder and harder to remove as many natural elements from it as possible while shortening the learning curve and ascribing more value to just catching fish at all costs than to the process of exploration. Those aspects are so valuable to the sport, and initially in many respects technology seemed to provide avenues to deepen that. Now, it's skipping multiple important steps. 


Of course, there's a much more pressing concern, not only for fisheries but for whole communities. Currently and probably for perpetuity, Ai EATS energy. So much so, in fact, that it has the potential to impact the health of fisheries. Ai relies on data centers, basically huge warehouses full of computer servers. These servers need electricity to run. Some sources indicate that these data centers, which are popping up all over the US as Ai booms, are set to account for close to half of the energy growth in the country by 2030¹. Ai data centers may use close to a million MWh annually... the average household sits at about .01 MWh. There are 3,912 data centers in the US². Aside from just electricity, data centers need to cool their servers and this can be highly abusive of water resources. Not all of the water is recycled in the process, which typically uses evaporative cooling, and the amount used per day is astounding, well into the millions of gallons. That's millions of gallons per day less than would otherwise be going into people's wells and into groundwater output to spring fed coldwater streams. What water may be discharged would also be far warmer than natural groundwater, and this could have significant impacts on coldwater resource, which trout anglers rely on. Some Trout Unlimited state organizations are already concerned about this reality (mntu.org). The current administration has been pushing through legislation to deregulate data centers and Ai, and even encourage building them on federal land. At a time when water and energy use are already very problematic, and impacting communities and fisheries in a very real way, this is incredibly reckless. Communities around the country are already feeling the impacts, with some residents suddenly feeling pressed to leave places they've spent their whole lives as data centers fundamentally change- in their eyes ruin -their home. They feel no recourse as the largest corporations in the world rush to build these facilities and municipalities jump on potential tax revenue. Right now, as far as the federal government is concerned, it's full speed ahead. It's up to the the states to regulate data centers in such a way that protects towns and sensitive habitat, and there are many indications that they're failing. Though the battle may seem unwinnable, this is one every community really needs to fight.


So, this is something I simply refuse to take part in as much as I can avoid doing so. I won't knowingly interact with Ai generated content, I won't use Ai chat generators to help with my writing or my business even if that means those that do jump ahead initially, and I'll keep skipping past that damn Google overview that's inaccurate half the time anyway. Stupid as it is, it's also scary, well past what I've already discussed above. "While the Level 3 ranking is largely about the model's capability to enable renegade production of nuclear and biological weapons, the Opus also exhibited other troubling behaviors during testing." ³

What the ever living f*** are we doing? 

¹ "AI is set to drive surging electricity demand from data centres while offering the potential to transform how the energy sector works" https://www.iea.org/news/ai-is-set-to-drive-surging-electricity-demand-from-data-centres-while-offering-the-potential-to-transform-how-the-energy-sector-works

² https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/

³ Ina Fried, Axios. May 23 2025 "Anthropic's new AI model shows ability to deceive and blackmail" https://www.axios.com/2025/05/23/anthropic-ai-deception-risk

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, Ryan and Dar for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version. 

Sunday, July 6, 2025

Diquat Madness & The Proliferation of Fear-Based Rhetoric

 In April 2024, while pulling my canoe after a mostly unsuccessful day, I ran into a few environmental scientists that were curious about water levels and asked if I'd been out a lot recently. "We take it the river has fallen a lot over the last week," one posited. "Oh yeah," I replied, "quite a few feet". "Yeah, we're not always used to seeing the species we're surveying for six feet up in the trees." he said. These scientists were from a team working with the Army Corps of Engineers, and the species they were surveying for was a highly invasive aquatic plant called hydrilla. Hydrilla's presence in the Connecticut river is relatively new, with first confirmation coming in 2016 in Glastonbury. It is especially noxious, because any time a piece is broken off, it can sprout new roots and make a new plant. This makes it uniquely hard to control as manual removal is not longer an option once density reaches full blown infestation. Control is important, both ecologically and socially, because hydrilla is so prone to rapid spread that it has significant negative impacts on water quality, fish, native aquatic plants, and outdoor recreation like boating and swimming. So control in some form or function is paramount. And this crew was doing preliminary study for herbicide treatment. Work has been done for a number of years studying both the plant itself, monitoring it's spread, and testing possible methods of mitigation and control. This new project sought to determine the efficacy of herbicidal treatments, and the water body I was leaving was to be one of the first test sites on the first year. One of the herbicides in question is called Diquat, and though it's use and application at one site went without major public backlash in 2024, the same cannot be said for 2025. 

FOX61 interviewed protesters they described as "environmental activists" at the state capital as they voiced their concerns on the use of Diquat. One of those interviewed was Selina Rifkin, whose sentiment isn't an uncommon one currently "Spraying horrible chemicals that kill everything into our lakes and rivers. It isn't necessary." A Change.org petition headed by a photo of a handful of dead, floating fish, evidently European species- it looked like crucian and barbel to me -got the messengers point across. Diquat is going to kill everything, these folks firmly believe that. If this were true, there'd certainly be reason to protest it. How could the Army Corps so brazenly poison our waters, and why would CT DEEP sign off on it? 

Way back before I ever put pen to paper about fishing, or knew almost anything at all, my best friend and I dumped a bucket of Diquat is his farm pond. I kid you not, I have real world experience with this poison that kills everything. Young, dumb, and frustrated with summer weeds making it hard to fish the pond the way we wanted to, we sought weed control as a way to better our fishing. His dad got is a big ol' container of Diquat. We read the directions, didn't wear any safety gear of any sort, and did our best to distribute the whole jug's worth across the tiny bass pond. Memory serves me that it did kill off a fair bit of the heavy vegetation, and to our untrained young eyes, nothing else. There certainly was no fish kill, the pond still to this day is loaded with bass, sunfish, bullheads, and all of the wonderful creepy crawlies that those fish eat. We also didn't die, despite definitively doing it all wrong. Hearing and reading a lot of comments about this same herbicide "killing everything" seemed a tad strange. Of course, my experience is anecdotal at best, though perhaps of higher value than much of the commentary currently circulating because at least I have some actual first hand experience... but that isn't enough, not for me. So let's dig into everything we can, shall we? Let's start with the basics. How does this Diquat stuff work?

Diquat is short for diquat dibromide, or 6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1'-c) pyrazinediium dibromide. Now that sounds scary... but I'm not a chemist, and if it sounds scary so might this: β-D-galactopyranosyl-(1→4)-D-glucose. That's lactose, that's in natural milk... not scary at all, you just aren't a chemist, most likely. Chemicals always sound scary if you aren't hugely familiar with chemistry and reading chemical formulas. That's fine, neither am I, but we're going to have get a little cozy with chemistry here to understand what 6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1'-c) pyrazinediium dibromide does. Basically, it binds to photosynthesizing cells and inhibits that key processes of plant function- turning sunlight into energy. The chemical accepts electrons from Photosystem I, one of a plant cell's two photosynthetic systems. That electron is used to create a reactive oxygen species (ROS), which damages the cell and prevents NADPH and ATP production by that cell. NADPH helps make glucose, lipids, and nucleic acid, and ATP provides energy. It also destroys the cell membrane. Without these things, the cell dies. And when all of an aquatic plant's photosynthesizing cells die, it dies. That's how Diquat kills hydrilla and other plants. It than binds with particles of soil and sediment, usually leaving the water column free of detectable levels within a day or two, though it remains undegraded in sediment indefinitely.¹ Diquat is also used as a desiccant on potato crops and some seed crops used for feed. A desiccant, if you aren't familiar, is something used to dry things out or keep them dry. 

It is entirely reasonable to have concerns about how a chemical compound that completely kills a photosynthetic cell might effect other cells, including ours and the species we care about. This is especially true given that Diquat is banned by many countries and the European Union (many of the people I've seen bringing that point up are also the sort to suggest that the European Union is an overbearing, freedom less hell-scape, so that comes off as a little rich. Sorry, I call it like I see it... you can't have this both ways). Let's start with humans, since we tend to be a selfish lot....

A 63 year old landscaper in Florida admitted himself to the hospital about 90 minutes after drinking a gulp of herbicide from a Gatorade bottle. He would die soon after from multi organ failure. The medical professionals involved in his case did a brief case study highlighting it, as well as the need for further study on diquat poisoning. It doesn't read pleasantly. Upon admission, he was having uncontrollable urination, diarrhea and gastric emesis. By his fourth and final day is the hospital, effects had reached his brain. "On day four of hospitalization, the patient was noted to have new onset dilated pupils and was taken to receive a CT scan of his brain, which showed diffuse cerebral edema and toxic encephalopathy with cerebellar tonsillar herniation and mild hydrocephalus." ² Basically, in the body, the ROS previously mentioned makes hydrogen peroxide. Normally the body detoxifies hydrogen peroxide, but this reaction from the Diquat cycles over and over, overwhelming any chance of that. The case study notes that Diquat poisoning is quite rare, hence the need for further study it sites only 30 cases from 1969 to 1999 with a 43% mortality rate. It also sites that nearly all similar cases in which more than 12 grams of Diquat were consumed result in death within a few days. The same ROS that causes a photosynthetic cell to die leads to multi organ failure. Scared now? It's important to consider concentration. Of course, drinking a full gulp an herbicide that makes a reactive oxygen species and spurs cellular havoc is a potentially deadly proposition. So far no study I can find indicates health risks from exposure to a water body treated with diquat within just a few days of treatment, and that comes down to Diquat's affinity for organic molecules. After dispersion in a water body, it binds with with plant cells it kills, but also with tons of organic particles in the water column and in the sediment on the bottom. It becomes a more or less inert there, no longer present in the water column and allowing aquatic plants (hopefully the native ones, replacing the invasives killed by the diquat) to grow unabated. This is what I watched happen in that pond all those years ago. There was no noticeable evidence of a herbicide in the water just a short time after treatment. Sunlight also degrades diquat based on numerous studies, one citing a photodecomposition half-life of 1.6 weeks.³ So, without too much time passing, the science says there shouldn't be much to worry about so far as swimming, contact with the water, or consuming fish goes. Diquat is dispersed at low concentrations compared to the fatal dose and is largely undetectable in just days. It isn't recommended to drink water treated with diquat within three days, but, speaking as someone on and around it all the time, you don't want to drink from these Connecticut River backwaters anyway. It might kill you on a good day, Diquat or not. 

Onto other species... that Wisconsin DNR fact sheet makes mention of study on fish, all very Wisconsin. Walleye showed signs of poisoning when contained in diquat treated water, other game and panfish did not. Some fish kills have been recorded in diquat treated waters, especially small ponds. This is most likely a result of oxygenation, as rapid vegetation death and decomposition can use a lot of dissolved oxygen. This shouldn't be a significant problem in the Connecticut, where tides cause a significant amount of water exchange day in and day out. The bigger problem comes with macroinvertebrates, which are indeed vitally important. The same fact sheet states "...certain species of important aquatic food chain organisms such as amphipods and Daphnia (water fleas) can be adversely affected at label application rates." The Army Corps project isn't dismissive of the potential impacts on wildlife, as anyone who cares to sit and read available drafts and proposals for this project can find. Pretty plainly though, labeling Diquat a "poison that kills everything" is more than misleading... its just plain wrong. There is validity for concern with both human and environmental impacts, but most of the posts making the rounds on social media lack rigorous research, citations, or anything that would make them trustworthy. And that's just where the problems start. 

That same environmental activist interview by FOX61 than I mentioned earlier, Selina Rifkin, later on said "There could have been an educational campaign about what this is. There could have been a call for volunteers to pull it out by hand. There could have been some kind of examination of the other possibilities for getting rid of it is, this is, this is a financial option, and it's the easy solution." This is the point where I must admit, I get a little bit pissed off and say... are you kidding me? Every single thing she lists there has been done already, it takes just seconds to find that it has been done, and if anyone actually cares one iota about this issue these words wouldn't leave their mouth. There's a sign at just aviation every launch and put in on the lower Connecticut that tells me what Hydrilla is, how to prevent the spread, and has a nice little picture of what it looks like. The education is there. The Connecticut River Conservancy regularly holds manual water chestnuts pulls funded in part by grant money from the state's AIS program... I've already written about that. The volunteer effort is available. Information on why manual removal can in fact worsen hydrilla is immediately readily available with a Google search. Manual removal alone will not work. And this entire Army Corps hydrilla project has been about finding the best option to control the hydrilla through multiple means (read here). CT DEEP has also been exploring management options since at least 2021. In hours of research prior to and while working on this cursed blog post that I shouldn't have to write, I found source after source after source that partially or wholly refutes every argument being made by the Jonny-come-lately diquat protestors. We are a lazy, triggerable, reactive society that absolutely fails to find the forest through the trees time and time again. I'm not even here to say there isn't some merit to suggesting diquat shouldn't be used, I'm not convinced that it will be an effective treatment on its own. But it also doesn't take much research to make sense of this Army Corps project, why it's underway, and why they're using Diquat on a limited number of waters. Unfortunately, if you've made it this far, I doubt you're the sort that is causing this outrage. If you are though, thank you for sticking around. Please, go to your next argument, make your next comment, attend your next protest, or donate to your next cause armed with legitimate arguments instead of reactionary social media posts. Spend some time researching the topic with actual doctors, scientific papers, and as many different sources as possible. 

Media (both social and mainstream news) failed us on this one, as it has in the past and will continue to in the future. Facebook and Instagram made it easy for people to pass along inaccurate posts. FOX61 and others did a poor job of pointing out inaccuracies in the demonstrator's statements. A petition circled with a blatantly fear-mongering header image, with thousands of signatures and counting. I'm sick and tired of this; if all of these people could have put this energy and effort into being informed and taking action on invasive species, there'd be no need at all to apply herbicide on the Connecticut River. But here we are, fighting a government that's desperately trying to undue the problems we cause, then complain about, then complain about the potential solutions to, then complain about the cost of. It's all very tiring. I have very little hope anymore, but if so many as one person walks away from reading this less inclined to hop on the disinformation train, I guess I've done my part. Read as is spoken through clenched teeth while smashing my mouse to smithereens against my desk: Now its time for me to go clean, drain, and dry the canoe after another day of pulling water chestnuts on the big river, trying to beat a problem that could one day hit me right in the wallet the same way hydrilla has been.


Currently, the Diquat treatment has been postponed till 2026, reportedly for funding issues. 



¹ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2012. Diquat Chemical Fact Sheet

² Daniel M Aloise, Adam Memon, Ana Zaldiver. 2022.  Diquat Herbicide Organophosphate Poisoning and Multi-Organ Failure: A Case Report

³ Smith, A.E. and Grove, J. 1969. Photochemical degradation of diquat in dilute aqueous solution and on silica gel. J. Agric Food Chem. 17:609-613.

More: https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/Topics/CTRiver/Images/Fact%20Sheets%20-%20updated/FACTSHEET-CTRiverHydrilla-ExecutiveSummary-May2023.pdf

https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Projects-Topics/Connecticut-River-Hydrilla/

FOX61 Article: https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/hartford-county/hartford/protestors-voice-concerns-over-diquat-use-in-rivers-lakes-connecticut/520-e3bc1018-b506-4f04-9795-f1c8b9d91079

Video overview of Florida landscaper case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmu48JYFTBc

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, Ryan and Dar for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version.