You are viewing [info]polaris93's journal

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Let's Roll
http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/what-killed-10000-fish-off-the-shores-of-delaware-bay/19591125?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fsurge-desk%2Farticle%2Fwhat-killed-10000-fish-off-the-shores-of-delaware-bay%2F19591125

By Kathryn Yao

(Aug. 12) -- UPDATE: This afternoon, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) confirmed that the cause of the massive menhaden die-off in the Delaware Bay is low oxygen levels. This is based on the most recent water sampling results.

What does "low oxygen levels" mean? It's when the water contains less than 5 micrograms per liter of oxygen. The scientific term is "biological stress." The New Jersey DEP also found the lowest oxygen level was at 3.4 micrograms per liter -- this water sample was from Pierce's Point in Middle Township, the area with the most dead fish.

On Monday, residents on an island close to Fairhaven, Mass., were struck with a terrible odor: thousands of dead fish on the shores of their beach. Two days later and 200 miles away, beachgoers on the Jersey Shore stumbled across an even worse sight: Tens of thousands of dead menhaden fish splayed ashore for more than eight miles along the Delaware Bay, with tons still floating in the lapping waves.

When the state DEP began investigating the cause, experts said one reason the sensitive species died is "warm waters that have depleted the oxygen," a marine fisheries employee told KSAT.

New Jersey's Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring observed water samples taken Wednesday and concluded there were no signs of toxic phytoplankton species, such as red tide. After inspecting the remains, marine fisheries said the fish had been deceased for at least a few days before washing on and around the shore.

According to Eric Stiles, New Jersey Audubon's vice president for conservation and stewardship, the menhaden are a "critical fish" for the area's ecology, and the fact that so many died is "highly significant."

Residents in the area have never witnessed such a large population dying at the same time. Thirty members of the Fishermans Beach Association own the beach, according to one member, KSAT reported. She added, "This is quite sad for us. ... We'll have to get down here and clean it up."

"If the fish schooled very tightly in shallows very close to shore for any reason, they may have simply used up all the oxygen that was available to them and died," said Robert Van Fossen, the DEP's assistant director for emergency management.
Major cleanup operations will start Friday.

Comments

( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]jblaque wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 12:01 am (UTC)
Jesus F. Christ...
[info]polaris93 wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 01:33 am (UTC)
The pH of ocean water is falling at a significant rate, i.e., it's acidifying due to increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. With 7 billion human beings roaring around the planet, anywhere from 500 million to 1 billion of our internal combustion vehicles on the move at any given time (including cars, trucks, buses, etc.), underground coal-mine fires blazing away on seveal continents, and our factories continuing to send huge amounts of pollution and carbon byproducts up the stacks every day, it's no wonder. Plus, many areas of ocean are warming steadily, as measured over the last 20 years by NOAA and other agencies across the world. Coral reefs are dying because the organisms that give the coral their color are dying because they can't take the heat. This isn't going to stop any time soon. I'm afraid the world is going to be in for a very rough ride over the next couple of centuries. These fish kills are just the beginning.
[info]jblaque wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 01:40 am (UTC)
Damned, filthy apes.
[info]polaris93 wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 02:21 am (UTC)
If there weren't so many of us, this could have been avoided. Maybe. The thing is, for a century and a half we've been doing all we could not to fall under the scythe of epidemic disease, and succeeding quite well at it. So one great control on population size is largely ineffective in our case. The so-called agricultural green revolution of the 1970s also made it possible to feed many more people than would have been the case otherwise, which means that people who would have died of famine lived and had children who in turn had children, etc. In biological terms, we are too successful a species. For a deeper analysis of this, you might want to read the books of astrobiologist/paleobiologist Peter D. Ward and his occasional co-author Donald Brownlee. Ward's new book, The Flooded Earth, and his and Brownlee's The Life and Death of Planet Earth, are especially good. All of Ward's books and his collaborations with Brownlee are available at low prices in used copies in excellent condition on amazon.com. Another author whose books you might try is Stephen J. Pyne; his Cycle of Fire series, including, e.g., Fire: A Brief History, is an outstanding introduction to human ecology and all its ramifications, especially as it is related to our use, creation, and control of fire over the last 1.8 million-plus years.
[info]jblaque wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 03:38 am (UTC)
"In biological terms, we are too successful a species."

I am in full agreement. Human overpopulation is the biggest threat to the Earth's ecoweb, and will ultimately cause an enormous cull event, most likely via epidemic or famine/drought.

The sooner, the better, IMHO.

Thanks for the book tips, btw. I've added them to my reading list. Are you a Stephen Jay Gould fan, by chance?

Edited at 2010-08-14 03:38 am (UTC)
[info]polaris93 wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 04:00 am (UTC)
Are you a Stephen Jay Gould fan, by chance?

Yes. I even purchased his monumental Structure of Evolutionary Theory, which Dr. Ward refers to in his On Methusaleh's Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions. Sorry to say I haven't done much more than cracked the covers of it, but it's here, and someday . . . :-)


Visit W3Schools!
[info]polaris93 wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 04:16 am (UTC)
But there is a problem. So far, we are the only possible means Earth -- Gaia, whatever -- has for getting her life off this rock and elsewhere in the universe before she dies. All living worlds must eventually die, whether of their star going off the main sequence and expanding into a red giant, galactic catastrophe, decline due to old age, nuclear war, or whatever. Eventually, no matter what, Earth will die, any life on her at the time become extinct. The only way her life can persist beyond that time is to get out into space and settle on other worlds, worlds of other stars, and, ultimately, worlds in other universes. We are all who have arisen on Earth so far that are able to do that, because success in that endeavor requires metallurgy and modern synthetic manufacturing, which requires a high-energy technology, i.e., mastery of fire, on land (there are too many obstacles to that presented by life in the oceans). It requires hands like ours, and a great big brain like ours, and imaginations and aspiration like ours. And there isn't enough time left for the evolution of another organism that could do the same job. We are it. Eliminating us before we do the job for Earth's body-ecology that is our true niche will effectively neuter her. Not good. So we'd better get cracking while we still can.
[info]jblaque wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 04:30 am (UTC)
"So we'd better get cracking while we still can."

Call me pessimistic and/or misanthropic, but I believe we have already crossed the point of no return with regard to eventual extinction. As a species, we tend to ignore even the most serious warning signs until it's too late, which is the case, I believe, with overpopulation. Translation: The human race is going to (literally) fuck itself to death.
[info]polaris93 wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 04:36 am (UTC)
we have already crossed the point of no return with regard to eventual extinction

No, not yet -- but my reasons for thinking so have to do with knowledge I'm privy to but can't back up at this point. I will say that assuming we do manage to get off this rock and take a good cross-section of Earthly life with us, it might not be the world's best idea to let the world know about it, if you see what I mean. Public reaction to such information could a) interfere with such a project while it was still in progress, and b) cause mob violence the world over which could be the final push into all-out nuclear war. Earth isn't doomed. Yet. "Wait and see" is a maddening answer, but it's all I have. And my friend, I know I've lived maybe 50 lifetimes in the last two millennia, one immediately after another, and that gives a viewpoint that sees things rather differently. So, we'll see.
[info]jblaque wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 04:53 am (UTC)
Two opposing visuals immediately come to mind:

1) The eco-pod spacecraft Valley Forge, from Silent Running.

2) The photographs of people on the roof of the U.S. embassy, begging to be taken aboard the Marine helicopters as Saigon fell.
[info]polaris93 wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 04:54 am (UTC)
Neither. Something very else.
[info]jblaque wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 05:26 am (UTC)
I was only speaking for myself. As I said, call me a pessimist. :)
[info]polaris93 wrote:
Aug. 14th, 2010 05:36 am (UTC)
Depends on what you know and what you want, I guess.
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Let's Roll
[info]polaris93
Yael Dragwyla

Latest Month

May 2012
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner