Naval battles

[The_simpsons]

You know the big naval battles between germans and british and americans and japanese during WW2? I wonder, how big was the impact on the ocean environment? ships blowing tons of artillery straight to the water, massive sinking ships that must leak alot of petrol when they get hit and sunk by other ships artillery and also airplanes crashing into the water they too, leaking petrol. I have certainly not heard about it, but come to think of it it must have had a negative effect on the sea ecology, but how big?

[insane_alien]

its a big ocean, any effect it had is probably negligible now.

[The_simpsons]

yeah i suppose so

[Dark Photon]

the ocean is HUGE, a few hundred tonnes of artilliary and ship whould not affect it, and any petrol leakage's effects will be too minite to be noticed.

[herpguy]

its a big ocean, any effect it had is probably negligible now.

But not near the battles at the time. Those could have wiped out massive amounts of ocean plants and animals ruining the eco-system for some time. If that happened, then there is obviously a bit less life in the ocean now.

[SkepticLance]

Quantify the statement "the ocean is huge."

In fact the oceans contain approximately one million, million, million tonnes of water. 10 to the power of 18.

 

Any impact of pollutants would be negligible, even locally.

On the other hand (and I am speaking as a mad keen scuba diver) those lovely wrecks that resulted would have produced magnificent artificial reefs that by now support enormous biodiversity and biological productivity.

 

The damage from ocean battles is to human life. The environment reaps the reward.

[herpguy]

SkepticLance,

It would effect things locally. Think of it this way, if someone is smoking around you, you can still smell it, and if you are like me start coughing because of it. If oil spills then diving birds will die because they can't get to the fish, they might get caught in the oil, etc. The ocean may be 10 to the power of 18 tons of water, but for short periods of time, yet long enough to kill things, the amount of pollution in the site of the wreck would be very heavy.

[SkepticLance]

herpguy.

Let me rephrase. In the long term the local effect would be negligible.

 

Yes, inside enclosed spaces, there may be temporary problems. But over time, recovery is total.

 

I have dived Truk lagoon. This is a small enclosed space, in which a big chunk of the Imperial Japanese fleet was caught by an American air attack, and large numbers of ships went down, with all the pollution that this entails. This is an extreme example, since it was a hell of a tonnage of shipping sunk, and in a very small enclosed space, and in a pristine tropical coral reef environment. Sure there would have been damage at the time.

 

However, go there today, and you will be blown away by the sheer biodiversity and health of the marine environment.

[herpguy]

SkepticLance

 

I suppose you are right now that you put it that way. But it probably depends on what was sunk. Oil would do nothing but hurt the environment, but, like you said, a shipwreck would provide a great habitat for ocean creatures.

[Prime-Evil]

Good question when you think of all the tonnage that went down in the Battle of the Atlantic. Still, when you think of how much fossil fuels are used today compared to the 1940s, even during the war, I would guess that some of the supertanker catastrophes of today might have caused comparible environmental damage then all of WWII, not counting the land battles.

 

First Battle of the Attlantic 1914-1918

- 5,000 Allied merchant ships sunk

- 178 U-boats sunk

 

Second Battle of the Attlantic 1939-1945

- 5,150 Allied ships lost = 21,570,720 tons

- 785 U-boats sunk

- Many other British and German Naval Ships, Auxilliaries, Landing Craft

 

 

Battle of the Pacific

- Japanese lost 1178 Merchant Ships = 5,053,491 tons.

- American Naval Losses were 214 ships = 577,626 tons.

- Many other Japanese and Allied Naval Ships, Auxilliaries, Landing Craft

 

This is not all the maritime losses in WWI and WWII, but perhaps most of it.

 

Let's say 50 Million Tons as a good round number.

Not sure how much would be:

1. People

2. Food, Textiles, Wooden Crates

3. Metals

4. Ammunitions

5. Petroleum Products

 

By Comparison:

1967 - Cornwall, Eng: Torrey Canyon ======== 38 million gallons

1976 - Buzzards Bay, Mass.: Argo Merchant === 7.7 million gallons

1977 - North Sea: blowout Ekofisk oil field ===== 81 million gallons

1978 - Portsall, France: Amoco Cadiz ========= 68 million gallons

1979 - Gulf of Mexico: exploratory oil well Ixtoc = 140 million gallons

1979 - Tobago: Atlantic Empress, Aegean Captain = 46 million gallons

1980 - Barbados: Atlantic Empress will under tow == 41 million gallons

1983 - Persian Gulf, Iran: Nowruz Field platform ==== 80 million gallons

1983 - Cape Town, South Africa: Castillo de Bellver = 78 million gallons

1988 - Saint John's, Newfoundland: Odyssey ====== 43 million gallons

1989 - Prince William Sound, Alaska: Exxon Valdez == 10+ million gallons

1989 - Las Palmas, Canary Islands: Kharg-5 ======= 19 million gallons

1990 - Galveston, Tex.: Mega Borg ============== 5 million gallons

1991 - Southern Kuwait: Persian Gulf War ==== 240–460 million gallons

1991 - Genoa, Italy: Haven =================== 42 million gallons

1991 - Angola: ABT Summer ================ 15–78 million gallons

1992 - Fergana Valley, Uzbekistan =============== 88 million gallons

1993 - Tampa Bay, Fla.: three ships collided ======= 0.34 million gallons

1994 - Russia, Kolva River tributary: oil dam ======= 4-84 million gallons

1996 - Milford Haven, Wales: Sea Empress ========== 20 million gallons

1999 - Britanny, French Atlantic coast: Erika ======== 3 million gallons

2000 - Rio de Janeiro: ruptured pipeline ============= 0.34 million gallons

2000 - Mississippi River, New Orleans: Westchester ==== 0.57 million gallons

2002 - Spain: Prestige ========================= 20 million gallons

 

This works out to as much as 1500 Million Gallons ~ 5 Million Tons

 

 

So 50 Million Tons of General Tonnage during WWI and WWII

vs 5 Million Tons of Oil from Major Oil Spills since 1967

 

BUT:

http://www.offshore-environment.com/facts.html

"Oil spills account for only about five percent of the oil entering the oceans. The Coast Guard estimates that for United States waters sewage treatment plants discharge twice as much oil each year as tanker spills."

"The amount of petroleum products ending up in the ocean is estimated at 0.25% of world oil production: about 6 million tons per year."

 

So at 6 million tons of oil now entering the oceans every year, it might be possible to argue that we are now causing more environmental damage to our oceans every year, than all of the years of WWI and WWII combined. As much as all the major oil spills since 1967, every year.

 

To visualize 6 million tons of oil, any oil slick roughly 100 km x 100 km x 1 mm thick. This doesn't cause any real serious damage except when it goes aground in a thick slick, and even then only temporary, except that you also have to remember that we are doing this year in and year out, and probably will continue for at least another 100 years. Then again, maybe some enzymes and bacteria love the stuff.

.

[Prime-Evil]

A better way to put it might be that on average all 6.5 Billion people in the world are dumping the equivalent of 1 litre of motor oil in the oceans every year. Of course North Americans would be responsible for about 25% of the total, or about 5 litres per person.

.

[SkepticLance]

Prime Evil.

Don't forget that oil is biodegradable. There are lots of little bugs in the sea that thrive on it, and break it down completely, in a time ranging from a few days to a few years, depending mainly on temperature. If oil is spilled in the open ocean, it actually does little damage, and is lost fairly soon after.

 

Indeed, there are places in the ocean where natural oil seeps,. releasing millions of tonnes over oil over a long time period, actually support flourishing ecosystems with enormous numbers of unique species not found anywhere else.

 

Of course, if oil is spilled close to shore, and especially in an enclosed space such as a harbour or lagoon, it can do a lot of damage in the period before it is biodegraded. Fortunately, nature is able to recover. Most sites of oil spills after a decade or so appear to be right back to normal.

[Prime-Evil]

No I agree. I am sure there are enzymes and bacteria and some plankton that just love the stuff.

It's just those pesky sea birds and otters and so forth that seem to have a rough go of it.

.

[Prime-Evil]

I think the main thing is to restore natural biomass and biodiversity levels

and then cut back on the amount of shit we through at it every year.

 

The more biomass and biodiversity the more robust the ecosystem, I think.

I understand there in naturally less of both as you go further North.

But I am not sure if it is less robust just because it is less complex.

 

The solution to polution is dilution. Except I'm not sure we should mix so much human waste with so much fresh drinking water. What's up with that? Gotta be a better way.

.

[SkepticLance]

"The solution to pollution is dilution."

Obviously pollution in all forms is to be avoided. However, it is also good to prioritise and to know which forms of pollution are worst, so we can direct our efforts there.

 

Pollution in the open ocean is least concern, due to the enormous diluting effect. If we were to manufacture one million tonnes of, say lead nitrate, which is very soluble and very neurotoxic, and dump it in the open ocean, the long term effects would be negligible. After complete mixing, the final concentration would be one part per trillion, which is way less than what is in the ocean already.

 

The prime concern with pollution is local. Pollutants in smaller areas, like harbours, and river mouths, can cause a lot of harm.

[daneeka]

Is bioaccumulation not a problem though? Soluble pollutants don't appear to be a long term problem but a lot of the compounds we produce tend to hang around for a pretty long time; and many of these substances aren't event injected into the ocean. Sterility among certain whale taxa, for example, is thought be caused by such an effect.

[SkepticLance]

daneeka.

Bioaccumulation is a tricky subject, about which a lot is said but little understood.

 

The main chemicals accused of accumulating through the food chain are such things as PCBs and DDT, and dioxins. These have a half life of about 50 years. Half are broken down by micro-organisms each 50 year period.

 

This gives them the opportunity to accumulate in tissues of organisms that operate at the top of the food chain especially at high latitudes. eg. seals, whales, polar bears.

And sure enough, we find lots of PCBs, DDT, and dioxins in their blubber.

 

The problem is that there is little or no real evidence to show that these levels of PCBs, DDT and dioxins actually cause any harm.

[Prime-Evil]

These questions are naive, as it is way out of my area,

as most things are, but they popped into my head so here goes:

 

1. In the context of a 50 year half-life, are the micro-organisms destroying these chemicals and biochemicals completely, or are they also using them within their own structures, at least partly? In other words, does the 50 year half-life refer to the entire breakdown chain, or just the levels of the most complex chemicals that you start with?

 

2. How long does it take for these micro-organisms that breakdown these chemicals to evolve or adapt to the new concentrations/structures compared to more naturally occuring chemicals/biochemicals?

 

3. Is it possible that sub-biological chemical changes to the environment can cause evolutionary or adaptive changes at this micro-organism level which causes the population and diversity of these micro-organisms to go up but also change significanty, such that the population and diversity of higher level organisms eventually collapses and has to rebuild because they cannot adapt as quickly?

 

4. How long would such a process of high level die-off and renewal take and is it reversible?

.

[sunspot]

Oil is a product of the earth and is a natural part of the eco-system. Refined petroleum products are a little different but during naval battles much of it was burnt in the explosions of munitions. The carcuses of the ships made nice homes for sea critters. Nature continued as usual.

 

I tend to believe that the eco-arguments are overblown. One only has to look at history to see what our fore fathers did. America had much more woodlands in 1492 then today. It was the second lungs of the world. The world is still breathing fine with one lung. Grass has more photosynthsis surface area per acre than a dense forest. Add shrubs will small leaves and the second lung may have improved.

[SkepticLance]

Prime Evil.

I will make an attempt at your queries.

 

Quote :

1. In the context of a 50 year half-life, are the micro-organisms destroying these chemicals and biochemicals completely, or are they also using them within their own structures, at least partly? In other words, does the 50 year half-life refer to the entire breakdown chain, or just the levels of the most complex chemicals that you start with?

 

2. How long does it take for these micro-organisms that breakdown these chemicals to evolve or adapt to the new concentrations/structures compared to more naturally occuring chemicals/biochemicals?

 

3. Is it possible that sub-biological chemical changes to the environment can cause evolutionary or adaptive changes at this micro-organism level which causes the population and diversity of these micro-organisms to go up but also change significanty, such that the population and diversity of higher level organisms eventually collapses and has to rebuild because they cannot adapt as quickly?

 

4. How long would such a process of high level die-off and renewal take and is it reversible?

 

1. Micro-organisms use enzymes to break down organic molecules. For DDT, PCBs and the like, this takes a long time.

The delay comes from the chemical stability of these compounds. For a million molecules, it takes 50 years to attack and destroy 500,000. then another 50 to destroy a further 250,000. etc.

 

Treat it as a two stage process. Stage one lasts until a particular molecule is initially successfully attacked. This takes time. Stage two is to complete the destruction, all the way down to simple harmless materials like carbon dioxide and water. This is really fast. Essentially instantly, compared to the 50 year time scale. Thus the 50 year half life is the entire break down cycle.

 

2. Evolution and adaptation. Mostly, the concentration in the environment of DDt etc is very low, and the breakdown of these by micro-organisms is incidental to their normal way of life. Thus there is no driving force towards genetic change.

 

Occasionally, there may be a pool of highly concentrated chemical. When this happens, bacteria may adapt. If and when they do, the actual adaptation is rapid. The spread of the new genes through their population is also rapid, if said genes are advantageous. Probably a few days, or weeks. However, sometimes there is no apparent adaptation at all, for decades.

 

3. I doubt we would see any collapse of higher organisms. The food chain is sufficiently complex that a change in one or more populations of micro-organisms would not have too much impact higher up.

 

4. Die off and renewal etc. We are dealing here with micro-organism ecology - mainly bacteria. At this level, changes occur quickly, including ecological change. Rebalancing the ecology would take days only, if it happened at all.

[daneeka]

The problem is that there is little or no real evidence to show that these levels of PCBs, DDT and dioxins actually cause any harm.

 

But there is evidence to show that they are harmful to people isn't there? I don't really know all too much on the subject but I'm aware that various organic compounds are considered to be a human health issue. So if they are harmful to people, does it not make sense they could also be of harm to other mammals?

[MattC]

The problem is that there is little or no real evidence to show that these levels of PCBs, DDT and dioxins actually cause any harm.

 

You take your skepticism a bit too far, Lance. Next you'll be pointing out (quite correctly) that there is little evidence to show that picking your **s in public will hamper your ability to get a date. Have you ever seen a study on this? I haven't.

 

Oh well. To each his own.

 

P.S. I hope you do not take my joke to mean that I agree with your statement that there is no real evidence. I would encourage you to do a little research on the matter. You will find that there actually is a significant bit of data to suggest that these compounds do cause problems in a large number of species. The concentrations found in many dead marine creatures exceed levels that are known to cause adverse effects in similar creatures.

[SkepticLance]

There is a bit more to my statement about lack of harm from DDT etc. These products are fat soluble, as opposed to water soluble, and tend to end up in layers of fat or blubber. If injected into blood, they kill at quite low doses. However, when they enter the body in small amounts over a period of time, they accumulate in fatty tissues. They are stored there, and are, effectively, biologically inactive. While there is a lot of hysteria about the fact that animals such as polar bears have a lot of these products in their bodies, the chemicals are in fat layers, and evidence to show they interfere with normal metabolism is basically lacking. And that is not due to lack of studies.

[Prime-Evil]

Oil is a product of the earth and is a natural part of the eco-system. Refined petroleum products are a little different but during naval battles much of it was burnt in the explosions of munitions. The carcuses of the ships made nice homes for sea critters. Nature continued as usual.

 

I tend to believe that the eco-arguments are overblown. One only has to look at history to see what our fore fathers did. America had much more woodlands in 1492 then today. It was the second lungs of the world. The world is still breathing fine with one lung. Grass has more photosynthsis surface area per acre than a dense forest. Add shrubs will small leaves and the second lung may have improved.

Interesting. I have also heard forests desribed as kidneys. But what is the other lung? Do you mean the oceans or the remaining forests and wetlands? The thing about forests and wetlands, as opposed to oceans and other systems, is that they store an aweful lot of biomass and contain an aweful lot of biodiversity. I am not sure how well we are really doing on just one lung, but I think that is a very good description. If we get sick, for example, I think we would be better off with two lungs.

[Prime-Evil]

Prime Evil.

I will make an attempt at your queries.

 

Quote :

1. In the context of a 50 year half-life' date=' are the micro-organisms destroying these chemicals and biochemicals completely, or are they also using them within their own structures, at least partly? In other words, does the 50 year half-life refer to the entire breakdown chain, or just the levels of the most complex chemicals that you start with?

 

2. How long does it take for these micro-organisms that breakdown these chemicals to evolve or adapt to the new concentrations/structures compared to more naturally occuring chemicals/biochemicals?

 

3. Is it possible that sub-biological chemical changes to the environment can cause evolutionary or adaptive changes at this micro-organism level which causes the population and diversity of these micro-organisms to go up but also change significanty, such that the population and diversity of higher level organisms eventually collapses and has to rebuild because they cannot adapt as quickly?

 

4. How long would such a process of high level die-off and renewal take and is it reversible?[/i']

 

1. Micro-organisms use enzymes to break down organic molecules. For DDT, PCBs and the like, this takes a long time. The delay comes from the chemical stability of these compounds. For a million molecules, it takes 50 years to attack and destroy 500,000. then another 50 to destroy a further 250,000. etc. Treat it as a two stage process. Stage one lasts until a particular molecule is initially successfully attacked. This takes time. Stage two is to complete the destruction, all the way down to simple harmless materials like carbon dioxide and water. This is really fast. Essentially instantly, compared to the 50 year time scale. Thus the 50 year half life is the entire break down cycle.

 

2. Evolution and adaptation. Mostly, the concentration in the environment of DDt etc is very low, and the breakdown of these by micro-organisms is incidental to their normal way of life. Thus there is no driving force towards genetic change. Occasionally, there may be a pool of highly concentrated chemical. When this happens, bacteria may adapt. If and when they do, the actual adaptation is rapid. The spread of the new genes through their population is also rapid, if said genes are advantageous. Probably a few days, or weeks. However, sometimes there is no apparent adaptation at all, for decades.

 

3. I doubt we would see any collapse of higher organisms. The food chain is sufficiently complex that a change in one or more populations of micro-organisms would not have too much impact higher up.

 

4. Die off and renewal etc. We are dealing here with micro-organism ecology - mainly bacteria. At this level, changes occur quickly, including ecological change. Rebalancing the ecology would take days only, if it happened at all.

SkepticLance,

Thanks. I think that answers those questions but leaves one other.

 

If we use the ratio of human biomass vs total above and below ground forest and wetland biomass as a measure of our vulnerability, how much higher can the human population go, and how much lower can the forest biomass go, before things get 'too risky'?