|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
Acid seas 'will kill off coral within 70 years'
 Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:51 am
|
 |
|
Acid seas 'will kill off coral within 70 years'
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
(Filed: 04/02/2005)
Coral reefs could be dead within two generations and cod replaced by jellyfish because of the acidification of the sea, scientists said yesterday.
The potentially disastrous problem, discovered only recently, is being caused by the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It is parallel to man-made climate change and scientists believe that it will give new urgency to efforts to phase out fossil fuels.
Carol Turley, the head of science at the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, told a conference in Exeter that the acidity of the sea was rising through chemical processes that turned carbon dioxide into carbonic acid.
She said: "It is happening now; nobody is saying it is not happening. It is O-level chemistry but no one noticed until 15 months ago. This is a rapid change that the world - and the organisms in the sea - have not seen for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. There is a very urgent need to do more research."
Ms Turley said that acidification was likely to have "a severe impact" on organisms with calcium in their shells or skeletons, from plankton to sea urchins.
Corals' ability to produce calcium is expected to decline by up to 40 per cent by 2065.
Lobsters and crabs, which form their shells out of another compound known as chitin, may be less susceptible to damage.
As half of all carbon from the atmosphere is "fixed" by microscopic plankton, the take-up of carbon is likely to slow down as the seas became more acidic, accelerating global warming.
Ms Turley said that cod and other fish ate plankton and shellfish that relied for their growth on calcium carbonate. If fish were not there, the sea would fill up with organisms such as jellyfish, which could eat other kinds of plankton.
"In cartoon form, you could say that people should be prepared to change their tastes from cod and chips to jellyfish and chips," she said. "The whole composition of life in the oceans will have changed."
Ms Turley told the conference, called Avoiding Dangerous Change, that coral reefs could find the sea too acidic within 35 to 70 years.
"Your grandchildren are unlikely to be able to dive on a [living] coral reef," she told delegates.
The rise in the acidity of the sea, which is believed to have begun with the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution, has emerged as one of the key messages from the conference on climate change that will be relayed by Tony Blair to world leaders at this year's meeting of the G8, of which Britain is president.
An estimated 400 billion tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels emitted since the Industrial Revolution has been taken up by the oceans - some 50 per cent of the carbon dioxide emitted.
Scientists from the Plymouth laboratory have given the Government an urgent briefing on the problem.
Jerry Blackford, a colleague of Ms Turley, said that the rise in acidity could kill coral reefs long before global warming made the sea too hot for them.
The carbon from fossil fuels that was already in the atmosphere could be enough to stop the coral forming.
"It is getting towards inevitable that the coral reefs have had it," Mr Blackford said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/04/ncoral04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/04/ixhome.html |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:34 am
|
|
|
Hello Theta. Thanks for the welcome and sorry for the delay. 
quote:
Humans have been dumping waste into the ocean forever. It can take only so much.
That's true. We have been dumping too much waste, toxic chemicals and all kinds of bacteria and viruses into the rivers and oceans and things are getting out of hand now and a lot of the sea creatures are being affected by it and not just the coral. 
There was one sentence in the article that I noticed in the article that said lobsters and crabs might be less susceptible to the damage. Though it might not be a directly related to the higher acid level in the ocean, it could most certainly be a contributing factor which also could decimate the coral much sooner than 70 years from now.
quote:
Lobsters and crabs, which form their shells out of another compound known as chitin, may be less susceptible to damage.
Unfortunately, however, the lobsters in New England are being affected by something that is damaging their shells.
February 16, 2005
Mysterious lobster shell disease
NARRAGANSETT, R.I. (AP) - A disease that rots lobster shells and can kill the crustaceans now affects 30 per cent of lobsters along the New England coast, decimating the industry in many areas, scientists said Wednesday.
The disease's cause and how it spreads remain a mystery, though theories are emerging and the scientists said they will seek state and U.S. government money for further studies.
The disease does not taint the lobster meat but makes the shells too unsightly to serve whole. It can weaken lobsters so much some die prematurely.
Researchers in the region first noticed shell disease in the 1980s, with shells marked by little black spots. But in recent years, the researchers said, shells have become fully enveloped by the disease and in the worst cases have rotted entirely.
Scientists said trawl and trap studies show egg-carrying females are most susceptible to the disease. The studies also show lobsters living in warmer water appear to contract the disease more readily.
Hans Laufer, a professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at the University of Connecticut, said he believes lobsters may contract the disease from alkylphenols, chemicals that are byproducts of industrial sources.
Laufer stressed his studies are just preliminary.
Another scientist, Roxanna Smolowitz of the marine biological laboratory at Woods Hole, Mass., said bacteria attach themselves to the lobster's shell and begin to penetrate.
In 1999, the lobster industry in Rhode Island generated $30 million and employed 425 fisherman, said Mark Gibson of the state Department of Environmental Management. Four years later, the industry produced $16.7 million and employed 279.
"Something's happening before they get to us and that's what we need to know," said Mike Merchant, president of the Rhode Island Lobsterman's Association.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2005/02/16/933088-ap.html |
| |
|
|
Thetaloops
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Posts: 151
|
|
Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:00 pm
|
|
|
http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2003/gs031119.php
Can't believe how they can justify putting radioactive waste in land fills. Like they don't realize it is going to end up in the water!
RADIOACTIVE WASTE PLAN ATTACKED
Date: 031118
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
EPA SUGGESTS STORING LOW-LEVEL MATERIAL IN LANDFILLS
By Eric Pianin, Washington Post Staff Writer, November 18, 2003
The Environmental Protection Agency is considering an important rule
change that for the first time would allow the nuclear industry to
store low-level radioactive material in ordinary landfills and
hazardous waste sites.
The agency today will formally invite public comment on its plan to
"promote a more consistent framework" for the disposal of the waste,
including such low-yielding radioactive materials as cesium,
strontium, cobalt and plutonium. Currently, those materials must be
stored in nuclear waste sites closely regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the EPA and state governments.
EPA officials stressed that the waste under review contains only
small amounts of radioactive material and that any loosening of rules
would not affect the carefully monitored handling of lethal spent
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or tailings from the
processing of uranium or thorium ore.
"The important principle is that any facility that might accept 'low-
activity' [nuclear] waste must provide protection of public health and
the environment that is comparable to the protection provided by EPA
and NRC standards for other radioactive wastes," according to an EPA
statement.
After a meeting late yesterday between EPA officials and
environmentalists, EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said, "No decisions
have been made, and at the end of this [review], we may decide no
change is necessary."
Despite those assurances, a coalition of environmental groups,
including the Sierra Club, the Nuclear Policy Research Institute,
Public Citizen, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, is
strongly opposing the potential rule change. In a letter to EPA
Administrator Mike Leavitt, the coalition warned that the proposed
rule "could significantly harm the environment and public health...if
you do not act promptly to block it."
Environmentalists said the EPA proposal would permit radioactive
waste - including refuse and soil from decommissioned nuclear power
plants and weapons manufacturing plants - to be disposed of in
landfills designed and permitted only for chemical waste, industrial
waste and municipal garbage. Some say the Bush administration is
considering the change as a means of reducing the industry's storage
and disposal costs.
"The EPA's proposal is to deregulate radioactive waste, pure and
simple," said Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource
Service, a watchdog organization.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said recently that a rule change
"would allow radioactive wastes to be sent to landfills that were
neither designed nor licensed to handle such waste."
The EPA's efforts to devise a new "safe" category of nuclear waste
that could be disposed of at unlicensed dumps or incinerators
coincides with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's consideration of
several options for nuclear waste deregulation.
The NRC has provided technical support and comments to the EPA over
the past 18 months, and the two agencies have coordinated their
regulatory review activities, according to NRC spokesman David
McIntyre.
* * * |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:39 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thetaloops
http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2003/gs031119.php
Can't believe how they can justify putting radioactive waste in land fills. Like they don't realize it is going to end up in the water!
They already dumped some highly radioactive waste on beaches in the UK Theta. 
March 06, 2005
'Reckless' nuclear plant dumps waste on beaches
Kenny Farquharson and Mark Macaskill
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8165 |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 3:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
