Archive for the ‘Marine Life’ Category

Canadians Preserve Arctic Wilderness Area

Thursday, September 4th, 2008

 

An Environmental News Service article stated: “The Canadian government has announced that it will protect more than 450,000 hectares (1,737 square miles) of Arctic wilderness in the Nunavut Territory, including a globally significant Important Bird Area, by establishing three new National Wildlife Areas.”

 

The Canadian government is contributing $8.3 million to the effort. Prime Minister Harpter said, “This is a real demonstration of our commitment to protect our species and their incredible habitat in the North.” Too bad it’s not our North like ANWR.

 

Now watch how example works America. The article also stated that, “In another recent announcement, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, pledged to permanently protect 225,000 square kilometres (86,872 square miles) of boreal forest in the northern area of the province. Covering more than 20 percent of Ontario’s total land mass, the area to be protected is roughly the same size as the United Kingdom.” Outstanding!

The boreal forest is one of the largest undisturbed forest and wetland ecosystems. And it’s quite a carbon storage facility storing 186 billion tons. Quebec joined in the preservation program earlier in May pledging to protect “18,000 square kilometres (6,949 square miles) of forest and wetlands in 23 new conservation areas. Fifteen of these new conservation areas are in the boreal zone.”

Great for Canada. What about us selling off parcels of our national parks and forests to private ownership for the highest bid? We’re still not getting it.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-04-01.asp.

 

 

 

 

The Need for Crude May Disappear Within a Decade

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008

 

 

Professor Rose Ann Cattolico of the University of Washington began her study of algae back when the other fuel crisis hit in 1973. Only unlike those that eventually gave up the search for alternative fuels Cattolico continued on for more than 30 years.

 

The results of her tenacity may help the entire world shed their need for crude in a very short period. For the U.S. it may happen within a decade. Her studies are so promising that according to an article on UW News website, “Allied Minds, an investment company that works with universities to commercialize early-stage technology, invested in the University of Washington biology professor’s work, forming a startup company called AXI.”

 

What Prof. Cattolico basically did was create an entire database of different types of algae. Different algaes produce lipids, or oil, as a result of photosynthesis. All algaes are different so that one type of algae may produce oil that is perfect for two stroke engines, another for home fuel, and another for jet or car fuel. There are so many forms of algae that genetic engineering is unnecessary. 

Cattolico stated, “Algae grow rapidly and do not require the use of productive farmland. Algae also can use various nutritional sources, including wastewater.” What a boon to be able to use wastewater to feed the algae. If it works in anyway like biodigestion, the effluent and/or any solids leftover are pure fertilizer.

According to Erick Rabins of AXI, “Entire infrastructures, from specialized growing facilities to processing plants, will have to be created. [] The most optimistic assessment that I’ve heard is that it could be six to eight years before there’s something that’s useable, but the tools and techniques to make it possible are being created right now.” he said.

The professor emphasizes what many environmentalists have been saying all along: “What we need is a Manhattan Project for fuel. If we can get a Manhattan Project for fuel, it won’t take 25 years.”

http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=43454.

 

Wayward Dolphins Threatened by Celebration

Friday, June 27th, 2008

I saw a segment on the news this morning about a dozen wild dolphins that made a wrong turn and ended up in a river in Seabrite, NJ. There are 3 calves with the pack that are mesmerizing residents. Evidently they were following food and didn’t pay attention. The dolphins know where they need to exit to get back to the open sea but are deterred by the noise and vibration of a bridge they must go under. So they keep turning back. The worry is that the Fourth of July approaches and hundreds of boats are set to go up the river to a bay in celebration of the holiday. As one boater said, “They [the dolphins] don’t stand a chance.”

What’s wrong with this picture? I see a ridiculously bad attitude toward nature here. Boaters are willing to mow down a group of stranded dolphins with babies in order to celebrate. American’s are trying to get Canada to quit seal hunting, Japan to quit dolphin and whale hunting, and what to we do but offer another of our hypocritical bad examples.

If I was a Seabrite resident with a boat, I’d simply stay home. Have we finally become an overall mindless, unempathetic, feel good society, because if we have, it’s a good indicator of our overall decline that has nothing to do with politics or economy. It seems we suffer a selfishly bad attitude toward life besides our own . What would you do in this circumstance, stay home or mow down the dolphins?

In the meantime marine specialists are going to try and add predatory type negative vibrations to the water to drive the dolphins out to sea where they can be away from real harm, humans.

Dead Zones Grow

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

 

Do you like the taste of shrimp, crab, or grouper that you can only get along America’s southern coastline? You might what to savor whatever you can of these seafood delights because Dead Zones are growing around the world.

 

I remember reading about Dead Zones at least 10 years ago. It has now become a chronic problem especially in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay. The culprit is groundwater runoff from farms that carry fertilizer high in Nitrogen and Phosphorus over hill and dale until it ends up in the ocean waters.

 

Farm fertilizers do their trick in the open waters along our coastlines raising record crops of algae, which in turn rob the water of oxygen, which pretty much kills off all life to the bottom. In 2004 it was documented that there were over 150 dead zones worldwide. Many are recurring dead zones like in the Pacific Northwest.

 

The fact that the U.S. is pushing corn for ethanol is going to make the dead zones grow larger and faster. The New Farm Bill may help alleviate some of the problem because for the first time it allotted millions to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and billions for good land stewardship and protection for wetlands. Still the new Farm Bill cut back on the Conservation Reserve Program. This program paid farmers for not farming areas of their land that acted as buffers against fertilizer runoff. Using that land to grow cash crops is enticing.

 

So the farmer profits from planting more land, while the farmer of the sea will have a decline in profits. Land farming vs. sea farming has an inverse relationship. There has to be a happy medium in the future if we want to continue to enjoy shrimp, crab, and grouper because this is not the way to go. Like the article in U.S. and World Reports says there will be: “more fertilizer in the ground and fewer barriers to stop it.”

 

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/06/dead-zones-grow-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.html

Plastics, Birth Defects, Baldness…

Sunday, May 18th, 2008

 

I read an article “More Problems With Plastics” in U.S. News and World Report, May 19, 2008, by Adam Voiland that will be very disturbing to males. It’s about chemicals called phthalates found in plastics. I’ve already reported and insinuated that we’re slowly poisoning ourselves with gender bending bisphenol A (BPA), another additive in plastics. Phthalates are endocrine disruptors, (interferes with hormones) like BPA, whose results are already seen in fish with both male and female reproductive organs, no organs, or a variety of mutations in between. BPA could soon affect birds and mammals, if it hasn’t already done so. Who knows? We’re lied to so much with scientific jargon relating to parts per million, trillion, and so goes the story of phthalates.

 

It takes me a long time to research scientific reports about industrial toxins because I have to look up every other word and then find out what the baseline is. Then I have to look at the industry that produces it and figure out how they are lying about it. It’s like every time I hear that water and air are so much cleaner than 30 years ago.  I want to scream. Thirty some years ago we were so awfully polluted, and I was here to see it, when beaches were closed not sporadically but regularly. Out of this pollution came the Clean Air and Water Acts where we began to clean up. So of course we’re cleaner than at our all time highest pollution levels. But how much cleaner? If we mean 2 parts per trillion less of any of a myriad of toxins in our air and water than in 1970, we can honestly make that claim, but it’s hardly ideal or healthy now is it?

 

So here we have an article that talks about birth defects from phthalates especially in male babies. One out of 300 baby boys, (scary numbers here) don’t have a urethra that emerges out of the tip of their penis. It ends up somewhere else underneath, midway down the shaft, or barely out of the scrotum. It’s called hypospadias and studies show that phthalates reproduce it in rodents. The article says, “Phthalates are used widely as softening agents in certain plastics,” PVC mostly, but also pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and all types of products. 

 

The article states that in 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that “most Americans have traces of hormone-disrupting chemicals in their body.” Another advocacy group found “84 percent of American have at least six different phthalates in their urine.”  Scientists have been studying 3 of the most prevalent hormone disruptors that are also linked to “testicular cancer, reduced sperm quality, diminished penis size, and undescended testicles.” Told you it was a male nightmare.

 

Of course, and here is the lie, not everyone thinks the effects seen in animals justifies concern. Again, the excuse is that the doses the animals are given are higher than anything in humans. Risk to humans is minimal. Lives are weighed by parts per million/trillion. Nice, real nice. One in 300 babies has hypospadias, but nah, no big risk. That’s why many European countries have banned phthalates in certain toys. America is still in the consideration stage at this point; even though some companies stepped up to the plate and phthalate free products are showing up in stores. Now you know what that means.

 

I have to take the time here to point out one of my biggest complaints also. What’s the sense of experimenting on animals if someone ultimately uses the same tired excuse that it’s not the same for humans? It is why I am and have been adamantly against animal experimentation for a long time. It is an absolute myth that it is necessary. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, NEAVS, and many professionals have been testifying about it for years. We’re in the 21st century now. There are superior methods. But research animals are a big racket and cheap. Don’t ever lose your cat or dog.

 

If you’re male and already in your 20’s or 30’s breathing a sigh of relief, think again. Or rather look to your hairline. As a licensed cosmetologist that had my own shop for almost 8 years, I paid close attention to the most successful products for baldness. Baldness is relative to some of the many hormones our body produces. An overabundance of a certain type chokes out the hair follicles. My husband’s father and grandfather on his mother’s side were bald, as were all of his uncles on both sides of the family. My husband is 55 with a full head of hair. Hmmm. Eating freshly cooked meals every night, not drinking tap water for almost 30 years, imbibing minimal pop or junk food, and growing our own fruits and vegetables is starting to really show results. It’s not just a cliché that we are what we eat, drink, and breathe. Believe it!

Stop This Bill to Drill in the Arctic; Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices

Tuesday, May 13th, 2008

I received this e-mail from Defenders of Wildlife:

The Senate will vote on an amendment to the national Flood Insurance Bill offered by Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) and co-sponsored by Senator Pete Domenici (NM) that threatens polar bears and other wildlife.

Rather than addressing high oil prices and dependence on foreign oil by moving toward better alternatives and practical solutions, this amendment promotes more drilling in more places for more oil profits. 

This is not a solution, it’s a sell off. Please take action right now…

1. Make the call. Either today or tomorrow morning, please call your Senators at one of the numbers below:

 Carl Levin - (202) 224-6221 or (313) 226-6020 - http://levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

 Debbie Stabenow - (202) 224-4822 or (517) 203-1760 - http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm

 If you are calling after 5:00 PM or before 8:00 AM Eastern time, please be sure to leave a message.

2. State your name and where you are from and tell your senators to “OPPOSE the McConnell-Domenici amendment (#4720) to the Flood Insurance Bill. This awful amendment would allow harmful drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, promote the use of unproven coal-to-liquid technologies, promote environmentally harmful shale development and end the decades-old moratorium on new drilling off the coasts of Florida, California, Virginia and other coastal states.”

3. Report your call. Your feedback will help our activists on Capitol Hill more effectively target their efforts to defeat this awful proposal.

The McConnell-Domenici amendment is the latest in a long string of ill-conceived, cynical and increasingly desperate attempts by the oil companies and their allies in Congress to industrialize our wild places under the guise of “energy security.”

Here are some facts about the amendment that the oil companies don’t want you to hear…

  • It won’t lower summer gas prices in America.
    New drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge wouldn’t hit the market for many years. Even then, its effect on prices at the pump will be small. In fact, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data indicates that in 2030, when oil discovered in the Arctic Refuge would be near peak production levels, the effect at the gas pump would be only about two pennies per gallon. 
  • The MConnell-Domenici amendment will threaten polar bears.
    The noise and disturbance caused by drilling in the Arctic Refuge — the most important onshore denning habitat for America’s struggling polar bears — could cause polar bear mothers to abandon their cubs to die. Such drilling would also further extend America’s dependence on climate-changing fuel sources that are threatening the very survival of these and other animals.
  • The MConnell-Domenici amendment will threaten birds, sea lions and other wildlife.
    Last year’s disastrous oil spill off the coast of San Francisco, which killed birds and raised concerns about the long-term impacts on the area’s sea lions and harbor seals, demonstrates the dangers of increased oil production and shipping off our coasts.      
  • The amendment will undercut efforts to fight global warming.
    The McConnell-Dominici amendment would not only extend America’s addiction to oil, it would also encourage the use of coal-to-liquid technology technology — which emits high quantities of greenhouse gasses – and promote environmentally destructive oil shale development.

I made the calls locally to Senators Stabenow and Levin just a half an hour ago.  Just tell them you want this bill opposed. My calls were answered by a person who recorded them, and I’ve reported my calls to Defenders so they have a head count to oppose this on Capitol Hill. It’s extremely important to call, especially since I just posted that scientists have evidence upon evidence that man has affected the environment for thousands of years. We’re the culprit and to just continue to pollute is absolute suicide first for the animals and eventually for us. If you care about generations to come stop big oil once and for all.

Like the Bermuda Triangle of the Sea

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

 

“Strange Days on Planet Earth” series from the National Geographic channel previewed the North Pacific Gyre, a swirling clockwise vortex, of ten million square miles. We wonder where all the debris goes that gets into the water.  It ends up where it’s ashamedly known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Among other things tons of plastic has accumulated here. Some argue plastics do eventually bio degrade, well, not so much. Plastic photodegrades, which means it gets smaller and thinner, and thinner until it is in micro pieces.

 

Most people are not aware of this gyre. Others know to avoid it’s swirling outer perimeter and the dead calm center. So many haven’t actually experienced the mess. In the series “Strange Days,” a boat decided to motor across the gyre to cut down on time on its way to another environmental study. It would only take a week to cross. But once the boat entered, the captain could not believe what he encountered day after day. He said it was literally a cesspool of large items and what appeared to be floating flakes. The captain decided to lower a skim for plankton that pretty much looks like a cheese cloth wind sock meant to gather plankton. What he gathered were small plastic particulates in the millions. According to Wikipedia: “These pieces, still polymers, eventually become individual molecules, which are still not easily digested.[1] Some plastics photodegrade into other pollutants.”

 

Birds and other mammals are feeding on this stuff. Birds feed it to their offspring. Industrial plastic pellets are washing up near shorelines also, and look like fish eggs. Baby albotross’ dead on the beach showed exposed stomachs filled with plastics of all kinds. There is more polymer in the N. Pacific Gyrate than there is plankton. According to Wickipedia: “Besides ingestion and entanglement of wildlife, the floating debris absorbs toxins in the water which, when ingested, are mistaken by the animals brain for estradiol, causing hormone disruption in the affected wildlife.” This is evidence of more hormone disruptors that affect the genetics of young life. We’re seeing gender bender fish, wait until we start finding gender bender birds and mammals. That’s food for thought. Right now we’re eating into this polluted animal chain, and will more than likely suffer the same consequences in the future if not already. So keep using and throwing out plastic of all kinds and keep saying man doesn’t have an affect on his environment and that recent rapid changes in climate are happening naturally. Sure. 

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/pollution/trash-vortex

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7312777.stm

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/the-plastic-killing-fields/2007/12/28/1198778702627.html?page=fullpage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender Bender Fish, Bisphenol A from Plastic, and Baby Bottles

Thursday, May 1st, 2008

As part of the “Strange Days on Planet Earth” by National Geographic that I watched on PBS, was a segment about compounds found in plastic like bisphenol A that leached into a Missouri Tributary, and into the fish and animals in a remote area. Bisphenol A acts like estrogen, and is an endocrine interrupter. It doesn’t take much for this stuff, 30 parts per trillion, to affect estrogen response in fish because they have an extremely sensitive system.

I went to find out more about this because I’ve already written about fish in N.Y. and recently the Potomac River in Washington that have both sexes, have changed gender, or are sexless due to estrogen discharged in the effluents of sewage treatment plants. When I watched this latest presentation about fish in Missouri that are altered by bisphenol A, I thought I would rummage around and found website after website from different places all over the country with gender bender fish.

There was even a study about perch in Michigan’s lakes on jestor @ http://www.jstor.org/pss/3435861. The article listed various endocrine disruptors present in the water like the estrogen from sewage plants but also bisphenol A. Read the article because it states “gonadal intersex was observed in male white perch collected from the Bay of Quinte (22-44%) and Lake St. Clair (45%), [] Intersex was not observed in hatchery-reared white perch or in white perch collected from an uncontaminated reference site (i.e., Deal Lake) in the United States.” So the lower Great Lakes are considered contaminated.

This does not bode well for our water systems. The “Strange Days” series continued about bisphenol A in plastic from which we eat and drink. It’s dangerous for our health. That’s why we’re being told lately not to microwave anything in a plastic container. As for baby bottles it’s really bad news.

The series stated that hormones control genetic programming in developmental stages of life, so babies are really affected by bisphenol A. Heating plastic baby bottle causes 10 times the amount of bisphenol A to leach out. They didn’t have to connect the dots any further. Do not use plastic baby bottles unless it’s documented they don’t contain bisphenol A.

Can excessive plankton buildup in the Arctic trigger same methane explosions as those off of Africa?

Thursday, May 1st, 2008

Yesterday I reported that NASA satellites are studying all types of changes on the earth. One of NASA’s studies whose results were on their website stated that:

Scientists from Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., set out to see what effect reduced sea ice cover would have on the organisms that comprise the base of the Arctic marine food web, the single-celled floating algae called phytoplankton. Because these photosynthetic organisms rely on the sun to meet their energy demands, reduced Arctic sea ice cover means an increase in the amount of open water habitat suitable for algal growth. Thus, their abundance is expected to increase.

Not surprisingly, the scientists found that the growth of phytoplankton has indeed increased markedly in concert with the rapid reduction in sea ice cover over the last five years. However, they were surprised to find that this growth did not take place in the areas of the Arctic where we expected it. The researchers anticipated that areas experiencing the most dramatic loss of sea ice would show the largest increase in algal growth. However this was not the case. Algal growth did indeed rise in newly ice-free areas, but only accounted for about one third of the total Arctic increase. The majority of the increase in algal growth (70 percent) was observed in the shallow waters that ring the Arctic Ocean. In these areas, algal growth rates increased because the sea ice in these areas, algal growth rates increased because the sea ice cover was melting sooner and freezing later in the year giving the algae increasingly more time to grow.

This was nine year study using all types of satellite imagery including and MRI Spectroradiometer to compare ocean color and temperature relative to sea ice melt that was also assessed.

I read a lot of things and certain words like phytoplankton buildup tweaked my curiosity as to the difference between phytoplankton and plankton. Phytoplankton is the autotrophic component of plankton. According to Wikipedia an “autotroph is an organism that produces complex organic compounds from simple inorganic molecules using energy from light or inorganic chemical reactions. Another article I found at:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002481.html didn’t differentiate between phytoplankton and plankton.

This does not bode well at all in my mind because of the blog I just wrote about explosions of methane gas into the atmosphere that are growing in size to that of meters in the ocean waters off of Namibia. If all of this phytoplankton is rapidly spreading in the shallow waters that ring the Arctic Ocean, and there are not enough fish or marine mammals in that region to eat the excess plankton (phytoplankton), doesn’t it stand to reason that this Arctic phytoplankton will go the way of plankton near Namibia? In other words, it will die and rot, creating hydrogen sulfide pockets. All that is needed is high pressure from a storm on the ocean’s surface to affect the pressure on the ocean bottom in these particularly shallow waters around the Arctic and an eruption might occur. These are the same eruptions happening off of Namibia. I realize that scientists claim these explosions are not likely to take place because of the constant churning of the ocean floor. But then there is Namibia. Explain that?

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/04/24/mankind-contributes-to-global-warming-through-fish/

Scary stuff since the first global warming event 40 million years ago was from methane gas eruptions. The earth was eventually scorched. This just shows how delicately balanced our world really is. We fish too much, or disrupt certain species by changing habitat drastically, and something else is thrown out of kilter like phytoplankton, something so small we don’t really see it except for greenish colored water. It’s something so small, yet it can eventually kill us.

NASA website: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ecosystem_research_briefs.html..

NASA Channel/Website Uncovers the Geek in Me

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

I just came to the realization this morning that I’m a geek. I doubt anyone but those extremely close to me would ever consider me a geek, because I didn’t. But I’m writing a fiction book that deals with space and as part of the research; I clicked on the NASA channel this morning. Oh, I’ve visited this channel before but it never occurred to me how long I linger there. I actually sit mesmerized by this world of space, science, and math that face it; most of our population knows absolutely nothing about and could care less.

My interest in the NASA channel isn’t the only thing however that qualifies me as a geek. Lately, I’ve become more and more interested in alternative sources of energy, particularly the many experiments with hydrogen. And I actually liked advanced math in college. Huge algebra problems were like puzzles to be worked, and I fanatically worked them. I even took an electricity class at Community College for the fun of it. Now something is clearly wrong here when only five people signed up for the class and after the instructor outlined what everyone would be doing, including algebra, the final class tally turned out to be me and another guy who had to take it. I’m a geek aren’t I?

That’s probably why I was anxious to read the pdf files of the latest findings that were reported from NASA today via telecon by a panel of experts ranging from terrestrial ecology to atmospheric and oceanic sciences relative to:

Changes to Earth’s ecosystems [that] are evident in recent research that employs NASA remote-sensing data. Panelists [discussed] several topics, including the impact of shrinking Arctic sea ice on marine ecosystems, how invasive species alter the biochemistry of local ecosystems, the role of climate change on the length of growing seasons and ecosystems, and seasonal changes in phytoplankton and the consequences on marine ecosystems.

It’s amazing what is seen from satellite devices, and how these global views allow scientists to analyze a situation. As these views are recorded over time changes become evident. Linking all the info from different components of the global warming equation like Arctic ice melt, rainforest changes, results of deforestation and fires, and marine biology is what has been necessary since the whole global warming theory began. Gathering data like that from all types of sources, and then combining it in a productive way to see how one system affects another over the globe is a daunting task, but satellite technology looks to tackle all of that in the future.

Check out the sight and the pdf files of different topics discussed.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ecosystem_research_briefs.html.

Click on News and Features on that page also to get the latest from NASA about polar bears and loss of habitat:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/polar_bears.html