Still legal to coat felt soles with rubber cement?

[tjm]

29 minutes ago, BilletHead said:

. Myself I will adhere to the rules put in place where required and wade with caution in those places with rubber soled boots. 

I don't suggest not adhering to the rules. I do suggest changing the rules, or finding science to support them.  Bothwell found that lack of phosphorus caused the excessive blooms; put the phosphorus back into the waters and the problem should be solved. He kinda blamed the lack of phosphorus on climate change, and that could well be, but it seems that the problem arose soon after the ban on phosphorus in detergents and that always made me wonder.

I have not seen any study any where that showed felt soles were involved in any way. Bothwell's original paper was not a study, it was just a speculation. I've not seen any study that showed felt had a better chance of carrying microorganisms than wool socks have.

Are there such studies?

[Phil Lilley]

Back when they change the rule, I applied rubber cement to my felt sole boots. Granted, I don’t Wade very much but what I found out is at least wading Taneycomo with our gravel Is that either felt sole boots or rubber cement covered boots it makes it extremely difficult to walk. I feel like I’m going to twist an ankle. While the rubber cement has all but come off my boots now and I still wear them. Again, I don’t wade Taneycomo very much but when I do, I prefer my felt soles for my safety.

[Terrierman]

1 hour ago, tjm said:

I don't suggest not adhering to the rules. I do suggest changing the rules, or finding science to support them.  Bothwell found that lack of phosphorus caused the excessive blooms; put the phosphorus back into the waters and the problem should be solved. He kinda blamed the lack of phosphorus on climate change, and that could well be, but it seems that the problem arose soon after the ban on phosphorus in detergents and that always made me wonder.

I have not seen any study any where that showed felt soles were involved in any way. Bothwell's original paper was not a study, it was just a speculation. I've not seen any study that showed felt had a better chance of carrying microorganisms than wool socks have.

Are there such studies?

Lack of P caused blooms?  That's contrary to current nutrient regulatory requirements.  Considerable research showed P to be the limiting nutrient for algal growth in TRL.  Taking P down to <0.5 mg/l in wastewater discharges is credited with stopping algal blooms in the James River first and contributing to general TRL clarity - which is better now than it was 15 years ago.  Better AG practices and riparian zone protection are also effective in controlling nutrients which affect water clarity.  It's a process.

[tjm]

2 hours ago, Terrierman said:

Taking P down to <0.5 mg/l in wastewater discharges is credited with stopping algal blooms in the James River first and contributing to general TRL clarity - which is better now than it was 15 years ago.

Was this Didymo?

Actually I did not do the study, Bothwell and some other scientists did, and it may have been lack of P causing the extra growth of snot rather than the blooming. One report coupled lower P with lack of snowpack, if memory serves, and the leeching of P into the runoff caused by melting snow. And in truth it really does not matter because I don't wear felt.

[Terrierman]

1 hour ago, tjm said:

Was this Didymo?

Actually I did not do the study, Bothwell and some other scientists did, and it may have been lack of P causing the extra growth of snot rather than the blooming. One report coupled lower P with lack of snowpack, if memory serves, and the leeching of P into the runoff caused by melting snow. And in truth it really does not matter because I don't wear felt.

Not specifically didymo.  I did see what made sense to me at least though after reading Bothwell.  Lower P levels apparently slow cell division and allow what is there to grow longer attachment stalks which forms the mats.  Higher P levels allow faster cell division with shorter stalks and mat formation is not so much.  What seemed odd as heck to me was that forming the mats didn't equate to more biomass.  It was a bit of an odd study with a lack of detailed information, but still interesting.

[tjm]

 "Not specifically didymo." 

I think that satisfies any apparent contradictions. Some mammals can eat fesque grass and flourish, other mammals  either cannot eat grass or suffer from eating fesque; I would not expect all algae to follow the same rules.  However I would not be surprised if the next study did show all previous studies to be wrong, that's usually how these things work.

I don't think that I've read all of Bothwell's writing of the subject, I think that it became a career for him and if you look for them a few/several universities have also made didymo studies in the 15 or so years since the first one. I used to have some of them bookmarked, just as I used to have many CWD references bookmarked, but recently my interest in both has faded. As Reinhold Niebuhr said " ... and wisdom to know the difference" between things I cannot change those I can.