Table of Contents
Article 1-9/17/13 Hawaii Molasses Spill
Article 2-10/9/13 Mercury Levels in Fish
Article 3-11/3/13 Tagging Aquatic Animals Can Disrupt Natural Behavior
Article 4-11/19/13 Southern right whales dying in Argentine Patagonia
Article 5-12/7/13 Reef fish having difficulty swimming due to more heat
Article 1-9/17/13 Hawaii Molasses Spill
Article 2-10/9/13 Mercury Levels in Fish
Article 3-11/3/13 Tagging Aquatic Animals Can Disrupt Natural Behavior
Article 4-11/19/13 Southern right whales dying in Argentine Patagonia
Article 5-12/7/13 Reef fish having difficulty swimming due to more heat
Article 1
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/us/hawaii-molasses-spill/index.html
Hawaii molasses spill could lead to more predator species, agency says.
by Tom Watkins
Health officials in Hawaii say that the gigantic molasses spill that occurred this week could cause more harm in the local marine environment that was thought before. They warn that the large amount of sugary molasses and dead fish, which were suffocated by breathing in the molasses, could draw large amounts of predator fish like sharks and barracuda, and that the molasses could also make marine algae and harmful bacteria grow in size, as well as continue to suffocate fish. The deputy director of the Hawaii Health Department told reporters, "This is the worst environmental damage to sea life that I have come across, and it's fair to say that this is a biggie, if not the biggest, that we've had to confront in the state of Hawaii."
Personally, I believe that the officials, now that they know what can come about from this spill, should begin cleaning up the spill immediately. I have always liked swimming, and the affects that this spill could have, such as increased amounts of predator fish and harmful bacteria, could seriously hurt swimmers like me. I think a good way to start would be extracting the molasses from the water and removing the dead fish, to keep sharks away. Although a lot more would need to be done than this, I think it is necessary for people to act fast. I remember the last time a major product spill happened, the BP Gulf disaster in 2010, where health and company officials failed for a long time in cleaning it up, and it absolutely devastated the environment. Having recently visited the wildlife in the gulf, I was deeply affected by the images of animals suffering because of the spill, and I hope it never happens again, even though the spill in question this time is of a much smaller magnitude. Above all, I hope that no humans are hurt, either in the cleanup effort or as a result of the spill.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/us/hawaii-molasses-spill/index.html
Hawaii molasses spill could lead to more predator species, agency says.
by Tom Watkins
Health officials in Hawaii say that the gigantic molasses spill that occurred this week could cause more harm in the local marine environment that was thought before. They warn that the large amount of sugary molasses and dead fish, which were suffocated by breathing in the molasses, could draw large amounts of predator fish like sharks and barracuda, and that the molasses could also make marine algae and harmful bacteria grow in size, as well as continue to suffocate fish. The deputy director of the Hawaii Health Department told reporters, "This is the worst environmental damage to sea life that I have come across, and it's fair to say that this is a biggie, if not the biggest, that we've had to confront in the state of Hawaii."
Personally, I believe that the officials, now that they know what can come about from this spill, should begin cleaning up the spill immediately. I have always liked swimming, and the affects that this spill could have, such as increased amounts of predator fish and harmful bacteria, could seriously hurt swimmers like me. I think a good way to start would be extracting the molasses from the water and removing the dead fish, to keep sharks away. Although a lot more would need to be done than this, I think it is necessary for people to act fast. I remember the last time a major product spill happened, the BP Gulf disaster in 2010, where health and company officials failed for a long time in cleaning it up, and it absolutely devastated the environment. Having recently visited the wildlife in the gulf, I was deeply affected by the images of animals suffering because of the spill, and I hope it never happens again, even though the spill in question this time is of a much smaller magnitude. Above all, I hope that no humans are hurt, either in the cleanup effort or as a result of the spill.
Article 2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131003162953.htm
Warmer oceans could raise mercury levels in fish.
by ScienceDaily, based on research done by Dartmouth researchers
A study done at Dartmouth college led by Jennifer Dijkstra and other researchers shows that warmer ocean temperatures, which have resulted and will increase due to worsening global warming, can release mercury into the ocean, sometimes enough to give the fish mercury poisoning. Mercury that forms from compounds of industrial pollution can find its way through rivers and into oceans. This much was already known. The research showed that increased temperature in the water can enhance the effects of the mercury and make it more condensed, giving fish who accidentally consume mercury higher doses of it.
If people cannot do much to stop global warming and pollution, which I think would be the best solution to this problem, then the people who run factories should try to reduce the amount of mercury in their factories emissions. Not only can the mercury hurt fish, it can also hurt people who eat fish. Many people, like me for instance, like eating fish, so they could be put at risk for mercury poisoning. I would not be comfortable eating fish if I knew they had toxic chemicals in them, and I doubt if many other people would be either. This would also give millions of people around the world who depend on fish for most of their protein intake the choice of potentially getting poisoned or not getting enough nutrition. I hope that a solution for the mercury problem can be found as soon as possible.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131003162953.htm
Warmer oceans could raise mercury levels in fish.
by ScienceDaily, based on research done by Dartmouth researchers
A study done at Dartmouth college led by Jennifer Dijkstra and other researchers shows that warmer ocean temperatures, which have resulted and will increase due to worsening global warming, can release mercury into the ocean, sometimes enough to give the fish mercury poisoning. Mercury that forms from compounds of industrial pollution can find its way through rivers and into oceans. This much was already known. The research showed that increased temperature in the water can enhance the effects of the mercury and make it more condensed, giving fish who accidentally consume mercury higher doses of it.
If people cannot do much to stop global warming and pollution, which I think would be the best solution to this problem, then the people who run factories should try to reduce the amount of mercury in their factories emissions. Not only can the mercury hurt fish, it can also hurt people who eat fish. Many people, like me for instance, like eating fish, so they could be put at risk for mercury poisoning. I would not be comfortable eating fish if I knew they had toxic chemicals in them, and I doubt if many other people would be either. This would also give millions of people around the world who depend on fish for most of their protein intake the choice of potentially getting poisoned or not getting enough nutrition. I hope that a solution for the mercury problem can be found as soon as possible.
Article 3 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031090429.htm
Tagging Aquatic Animals Can Disrupt Natural Behavior
by ScienceDaily, based on research done by a team of international researchers.
A team of American and Canadian researchers working at the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration Pacific Islands Fisheries science center in Hawaii discovered that research instruments such as cameras and satellite tags can harm sea animals. The researchers tested if the devices cost these animals a significant amount of energy, by studying fibreglass casts of them with the devices on in a wind tunnel. They found that even though on larger animals the drag produced was very small, on smaller or juvenile animals, their speed and efficiency could be cut in half. The scientist who led the study, T. Todd Jones of the University of British Columbia, says "If the drag costs from carrying tags disrupts their natural behaviour, they may miss out on breeding and foraging seasons, be unable to catch enough food, or even end up becoming someone else's meal."
I think that this is a very serious issue, not just for science but for the ecosystem in which these experiments are performed. Since marine animals use propulsion for almost all activities while floating in the water, if enough of a species are tagged with impeding tags, their population can drop due to many of them starving, being eaten or not breeding. Not only will this cause disastrous effects to the ecosystem since (as it is well known) if the population of one species, let alone many, is affected seriously then the rest of the ecosystem may be forever changed for the worse, but it will also create worse research conditions for scientists, who will not be able to accurately study the behaviors of animals who are hampered. I think the solution is that marine biologists should rethink the shape and size of the tags they use, in order to make them more aquiline. Since the fundamental design of these tags has not been changed for a few decades, I think a rethinking of it would help marine biologists a lot.
Tagging Aquatic Animals Can Disrupt Natural Behavior
by ScienceDaily, based on research done by a team of international researchers.
A team of American and Canadian researchers working at the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration Pacific Islands Fisheries science center in Hawaii discovered that research instruments such as cameras and satellite tags can harm sea animals. The researchers tested if the devices cost these animals a significant amount of energy, by studying fibreglass casts of them with the devices on in a wind tunnel. They found that even though on larger animals the drag produced was very small, on smaller or juvenile animals, their speed and efficiency could be cut in half. The scientist who led the study, T. Todd Jones of the University of British Columbia, says "If the drag costs from carrying tags disrupts their natural behaviour, they may miss out on breeding and foraging seasons, be unable to catch enough food, or even end up becoming someone else's meal."
I think that this is a very serious issue, not just for science but for the ecosystem in which these experiments are performed. Since marine animals use propulsion for almost all activities while floating in the water, if enough of a species are tagged with impeding tags, their population can drop due to many of them starving, being eaten or not breeding. Not only will this cause disastrous effects to the ecosystem since (as it is well known) if the population of one species, let alone many, is affected seriously then the rest of the ecosystem may be forever changed for the worse, but it will also create worse research conditions for scientists, who will not be able to accurately study the behaviors of animals who are hampered. I think the solution is that marine biologists should rethink the shape and size of the tags they use, in order to make them more aquiline. Since the fundamental design of these tags has not been changed for a few decades, I think a rethinking of it would help marine biologists a lot.
Article 4
http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dying-in-record-numbers-near-argentina.htm
Southern right whales dying in Argentine Patagonia
by Discover Science News and Jennifer Viegas
Hundreds of southern right whales have been dying in two bays off the Atlantic coast of Patagonia, with no known explanation and only a few theories as to why.
The two bays which the deaths occur, Golfo Nuevo and Golfo San José, are two of the most used whale nurseries in South America, where hundreds of female whales go to give birth and raise their calves. However, in 2003, death rates, formerly very small, began to increase. Most of these new deaths were among infant calves. By 2008, a hundred whales, including 90 newborns, died unexplained deaths at Península Valdez, and death rates have gone steadily up. Deaths for 2013 are expected to be over 120. There does not seem to be any apparent patterns in the deaths, as location and time of season are scattered all over the maps. The Southern Right Whale Health Monitoring Program is working with scientists worldwide to find the cause, and have a few theories. The main idea seems to be that the whales are dying from attacks by kelp gulls. These gulls have been observed trying to rip skin and blubber from whales, including newborns. These attacks not only cause large sores and cuts on the whales, it also causes great stress and pain for them. Even though for normal adults these attacks may not be damaging, it is possible that they could be fatal for newborn whales or pregnant females. Whatever the cause, action needs to be taken, scientists agree. Says International Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine director Dr. Frances Gulland, "The current mortality of southern right whales at Península Valdés is unparalleled at a global scale. No other right whale population is losing so many calves each season. The populations of their northern sister species in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic are both endangered and the more closely related southern right whale population off the coast of Chile and Peru is critically endangered. Should these populations encounter this same crisis, they could go extinct."
I think that the most likely scenario is that the kelp gulls are what are causing the deaths, as there does not seem to be any other reasonable cause. Even though I think it is usually a bad idea for scientists to interfere in nature, the only option to end the whale deaths is to remove the kelp gulls from the area. I do to think this will be harmful to the environment, since kelp gulls live in many different environments and move from place to place often. Also, kelp gulls attacking whales seems to be a new phenomenon, first reported in 1996, so environmental changes should not be feared as a result of this. Again, if something's not done, not only will the whales of South America be hurt, but research and conservation efforts all across the area could be put in serious danger.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dying-in-record-numbers-near-argentina.htm
Southern right whales dying in Argentine Patagonia
by Discover Science News and Jennifer Viegas
Hundreds of southern right whales have been dying in two bays off the Atlantic coast of Patagonia, with no known explanation and only a few theories as to why.
The two bays which the deaths occur, Golfo Nuevo and Golfo San José, are two of the most used whale nurseries in South America, where hundreds of female whales go to give birth and raise their calves. However, in 2003, death rates, formerly very small, began to increase. Most of these new deaths were among infant calves. By 2008, a hundred whales, including 90 newborns, died unexplained deaths at Península Valdez, and death rates have gone steadily up. Deaths for 2013 are expected to be over 120. There does not seem to be any apparent patterns in the deaths, as location and time of season are scattered all over the maps. The Southern Right Whale Health Monitoring Program is working with scientists worldwide to find the cause, and have a few theories. The main idea seems to be that the whales are dying from attacks by kelp gulls. These gulls have been observed trying to rip skin and blubber from whales, including newborns. These attacks not only cause large sores and cuts on the whales, it also causes great stress and pain for them. Even though for normal adults these attacks may not be damaging, it is possible that they could be fatal for newborn whales or pregnant females. Whatever the cause, action needs to be taken, scientists agree. Says International Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine director Dr. Frances Gulland, "The current mortality of southern right whales at Península Valdés is unparalleled at a global scale. No other right whale population is losing so many calves each season. The populations of their northern sister species in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic are both endangered and the more closely related southern right whale population off the coast of Chile and Peru is critically endangered. Should these populations encounter this same crisis, they could go extinct."
I think that the most likely scenario is that the kelp gulls are what are causing the deaths, as there does not seem to be any other reasonable cause. Even though I think it is usually a bad idea for scientists to interfere in nature, the only option to end the whale deaths is to remove the kelp gulls from the area. I do to think this will be harmful to the environment, since kelp gulls live in many different environments and move from place to place often. Also, kelp gulls attacking whales seems to be a new phenomenon, first reported in 1996, so environmental changes should not be feared as a result of this. Again, if something's not done, not only will the whales of South America be hurt, but research and conservation efforts all across the area could be put in serious danger.
Article 5http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news/reef-fish-find-its-too-hot-to-swim
Reef fish having difficulty swimming due to more heat
A group of researchers from James Cook University working on behalf of the Australian Research council has found that increased temperatures in the ocean have led fish in the Great Barrier Reef to lose much of their energy, in some cases making them become completely lethargic. This mostly affected larger fish in the southern and western part of the reef, but according to the team, all fish in the area are affected, except for a few species like coral trout. This lethargy mostly manifests itself in the fish spending most of their time on the ocean floor and spending less time searching for food and doing other activities, and when they do move, moving much slower than normal. Global warming seems the most likely cause for this phenomenon, as it is the major cause of rising ocean temperatures. No major environmental effects have been seen yet, as this event seems to be a new one, unobserved before this several month old story, but large ones are expected in the future. As chief researcher Dr. Jacob Johansen stated, "The loss of swimming performance and reduced ability to maintain important activities, like moving to a spawning site to reproduce, could have major implications for the future distribution and abundance of these species," possibly even leading to a severe population decline due to increased predation, starvation, lack of breeding and other causes that stem from fish having difficulty swimming.
II I think that even though immediate effects will probably not be seen in the near future, action should be taken soon. In the near future, fish affected by heat increase, especially southern and western ones, should be moved to northern and eastern areas that are cooler yet have a similar geography. As this is not a permanent solution, something long-term should be done. One good idea would be to reduce the amount of pollution in the Queensland area of Australia. In my view, pollution in this area is the most probable cause of this rise in sea temperatures. The warm area is centered around the southern and eastern Coral Sea, nearby where Queensland's largest cities and many of Australia's industrial areas are located. If pollution is reduced here, there is a good chance that sea temperatures will drop, fish can be moved back and the ecosystem can return to normal. Even though this problem might have more to do with worldwide rather than local trends, some solution needs to be attempted. The Great Barrier reef is not only important as one of the worlds largest ecosystems, indispensable to the world marine environment, but a source of great beauty and fun for all those who enjoy seeing it and being in it. It would be a shame if this great reef is permanently damaged.
Reef fish having difficulty swimming due to more heat
A group of researchers from James Cook University working on behalf of the Australian Research council has found that increased temperatures in the ocean have led fish in the Great Barrier Reef to lose much of their energy, in some cases making them become completely lethargic. This mostly affected larger fish in the southern and western part of the reef, but according to the team, all fish in the area are affected, except for a few species like coral trout. This lethargy mostly manifests itself in the fish spending most of their time on the ocean floor and spending less time searching for food and doing other activities, and when they do move, moving much slower than normal. Global warming seems the most likely cause for this phenomenon, as it is the major cause of rising ocean temperatures. No major environmental effects have been seen yet, as this event seems to be a new one, unobserved before this several month old story, but large ones are expected in the future. As chief researcher Dr. Jacob Johansen stated, "The loss of swimming performance and reduced ability to maintain important activities, like moving to a spawning site to reproduce, could have major implications for the future distribution and abundance of these species," possibly even leading to a severe population decline due to increased predation, starvation, lack of breeding and other causes that stem from fish having difficulty swimming.
II I think that even though immediate effects will probably not be seen in the near future, action should be taken soon. In the near future, fish affected by heat increase, especially southern and western ones, should be moved to northern and eastern areas that are cooler yet have a similar geography. As this is not a permanent solution, something long-term should be done. One good idea would be to reduce the amount of pollution in the Queensland area of Australia. In my view, pollution in this area is the most probable cause of this rise in sea temperatures. The warm area is centered around the southern and eastern Coral Sea, nearby where Queensland's largest cities and many of Australia's industrial areas are located. If pollution is reduced here, there is a good chance that sea temperatures will drop, fish can be moved back and the ecosystem can return to normal. Even though this problem might have more to do with worldwide rather than local trends, some solution needs to be attempted. The Great Barrier reef is not only important as one of the worlds largest ecosystems, indispensable to the world marine environment, but a source of great beauty and fun for all those who enjoy seeing it and being in it. It would be a shame if this great reef is permanently damaged.