Why it's important to protect our oceans

[recycle2011]

Greenopolis and Melissa are in Monterey Bay California for the World's Oceans Weekend Event at the Aquarium. Greenopolis has a Twitter contest going on and Ashok, a Greenopolis team member, tells people what's going on.

 

The oceans affect all of us— plant, human, or animal, no matter where we are in the world. And even though Greenopolis is happy to be here standing in front of the Pacific Ocean, Greenopolis would want to hear from you on why should we care about our oceans. Tweet @greenopolis why you should care about your oceans. On Wednesday, World's Oceans Day, Greenopolis is going to pick someone to win a thousand Greenopolis points and everyone who participates is going to get 10 points.

 

So tweet @Greenopolis why you should care about the oceans. Stay tuned on Wednesday for the announcement of the winner.

 

10 points just for tweeting and a thousand for the random winner. Okay everybody, get involved.

 

Why do you think it's so important to protect our oceans?

 

"If we don't protect our oceans then we don't have anything to survive on. You know, that's our whole living."

 

"Well probably because oceans are just so important and they make up a good percent of the earth's total surface."

 

"We don't want animals to be extinct. We don't want them to die. You know, they're important. Turtles, octopuses- I love seeing them, kids love seeing them."

 

What can be done to protect the world's oceans? Stop littering, stop polluting.

 

Stop littering. Follow the Greenopolis Global Guide on keeping everyday harmful items out of the ocean. Keep up the good work!

 

[Dekan]

I applaud your good intentions.

 

But the oceans will probably get along all right by themselves, whatever humans dump in them.

 

For example, during WWII, German U-boats sank millions of tons of Allied shipping in the North Atlantic. As a result, the floor of the North Atlantic is today littered with thousands of wrecked ships. These ships contain highly noxious cargoes. Such as planes, tanks, petroleum, bombs, shells, explosives, and tins of US Spam.

 

All this huge mass of stuff has been in the ocean for well over half a century. And the ocean seems to have absorbed it without showing any distress.

 

So will the ocean really get distressed, by our chucking plastic supermarket bags in it?

[Brainteaserfan]

I applaud your good intentions.

 

But the oceans will probably get along all right by themselves, whatever humans dump in them.

 

For example, during WWII, German U-boats sank millions of tons of Allied shipping in the North Atlantic. As a result, the floor of the North Atlantic is today littered with thousands of wrecked ships. These ships contain highly noxious cargoes. Such as planes, tanks, petroleum, bombs, shells, explosives, and tins of US Spam.

 

All this huge mass of stuff has been in the ocean for well over half a century. And the ocean seems to have absorbed it without showing any distress.

 

So will the ocean really get distressed, by our chucking plastic supermarket bags in it?

Populations may decrease, but I doubt that species will actually go extinct unless we really step up our littering and polluting. Let's start building more nuclear power plants in order to decrease pollution from coal plants. I think that that is the "greenest" thing that we can do right now.

[Radrook]

Earth is finite as is its abilty to recuperate and accomodate. We only delude ourselves and will suffer the consequences by behaving as if it is otherwise. Already the icecaps are melting and the ocean levels are rising as are the atmospheric temperatures. We look at Venus and say that it could have once been more earthlike. We glibly speak about a runaway greenhouse effect which transformed it into the veritable hell it is today. Then we turn around and continue to mindlessly Venaform. Keep that word well in mind- Venaform, because that's exactly what we are doing-slowly but surely setting the conditions for earth to eventually become another Venus. But hey! We aren't gonna be around so let the next generation worry about it. So will the next and the next generation rationalize the Venaforming until our descendants curse us for our callous stupidity and selfishness.

 

Stephan Hawking calls it worse-case scenario.

 

 

BTW

Not everyone agrees that earth can literally become another Venus since there are vital differences between the two planets that might make that total transformation impossible.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Radrook

[Realitycheck]

Yeah, that's the ticket! We can have filet of lion fish! I hear it goes real well with sea cucumber hearts.

[Brainteaserfan]

Earth is finite as is its abilty to recuperate and accomodate. We only delude ourselves and will suffer the consequences by behaving as if it is otherwise. Already the icecaps are melting and the ocean levels are rising as are the atmospheric temperatures. We look at Venus and say that it could have once been more earthlike. We glibly speak about a runaway greenhouse effect which transformed it into the veritable hell it is today. Then we turn around and continue to mindlessly Venaform. Keep that word well in mind- Venaform, because that's exactly what we are doing-slowly but surely setting the conditions for earth to eventually become another Venus. But hey! We aren't gonna be around so let the next generation worry about it. So will the next and the next generation rationalize the Venaforming until our descendants curse us for our callous stupidity and selfishness.

 

Stephan Hawking calls it worse-case scenario.

 

 

BTW

Not everyone agrees that earth can literally become another Venus since there are vital differences between the two planets that might make that total transformation impossible.

Sea levels rising? Due to we "stupid and selfish" humans? News to me!

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/oceanlevel.html

[Dekan]

Yeah, that's the ticket! We can have filet of lion fish! I hear it goes real well with sea cucumber hearts.

 

Your mention of lion fish prompts a thought - perhaps we should dump more nuclear-reactor waste into the oceans. The radiation might generate exciting new marine organisms!

 

Like gargantuan 100-metre whale/tuna-fish hybrids! True, they'd probably have three heads. But the heads could be cut off before canning, so consumers would never know.

 

Should we lightly dismiss such potential atomic food supplies?

[Realitycheck]

At the moment, I believe I was alluding to the deterioration of the multitudes of popular game fish and fish stocks throughout the world. Wasn't really meant to be lighthearted.

[Arete]

And the ocean seems to have absorbed it without showing any distress.

 

Unfortunately this is incorrect, as deterioration of marine environments in response to pollution is directly observable.

 

http://www.sciencedi...025326X03005459

http://www.sciencedi...048969794900868

http://www.springerl...083v2650117222/

etc.

 

And the impact of these on humans is directly observable; e.g.

 

There are numerous specific examples of how marine environmental pollution or deterioration in ecosystem health results in impacts on human health. For example, sewage pollution and associated cholera and typhoid, toxic algal blooms, and chemical pollutant residues in seafood have been described as contributing to the global burden of disease (Knap et al., 2002).

 

http://www.sciencedi...025326X06003705

Should we lightly dismiss such potential atomic food supplies?

 

Fish exposed to radiation display increased mortality as a result (http://www.sciencedi...X03000304#toc12) and the fish left transfer accumulated radiation on to whoever eats them (http://www.osti.gov/...osti_id=4329874).

 

So, research would indicate that the net result of your suggestion would be less fish overall and the remainder becoming carcinogenic when eaten, which would strongly suggest it being a really bad idea.

 

Perhaps the efforts would be better spent in engineering fish which are more productive and resource efficient in aquaculture scenarios?

Edited July 27, 2011 by Arete

[Dekan]

Unfortunately this is incorrect, as deterioration of marine environments in response to pollution is directly observable.

 

http://www.sciencedi...025326X03005459

http://www.sciencedi...048969794900868

http://www.springerl...083v2650117222/

etc.

 

And the impact of these on humans is directly observable; e.g.

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedi...025326X06003705

 

 

Fish exposed to radiation display increased mortality as a result (http://www.sciencedi...X03000304#toc12) and the fish left transfer accumulated radiation on to whoever eats them (http://www.osti.gov/...osti_id=4329874).

 

So, research would indicate that the net result of your suggestion would be less fish overall and the remainder becoming carcinogenic when eaten, which would strongly suggest it being a really bad idea.

 

Perhaps the efforts would be better spent in engineering fish which are more productive and resource efficient in aquaculture scenarios?

 

Thanks Arete for your reply, and for the links you kindly supplied.

 

I have honestly tried to read the articles in the links. But the articles are hard to understand. They're written in a peculiar convoluted language. With an esoteric vocabulary, which seems designed to impress people by using big words. Rather than to express ideas clearly. Is this is done to hide the banality of the underlying ideas - by dressing them up to sound hi-falutin'. And so get a grant?

 

Anyway, that's going OT! If I may get back to my earlier point, about all the millions of tons of WW2 ships and U-boats sunk in the North Atlantic. Have they caused specific, noticeable, effects?

[Brainteaserfan]

Anyway, that's going OT! If I may get back to my earlier point, about all the millions of tons of WW2 ships and U-boats sunk in the North Atlantic. Have they caused specific, noticeable, effects?

AFAIK, we weren't monitoring the ocean nearly as much as we do today back then, so we really don't have much to compare to in order to answer that.

[Arete]

They're written in a peculiar convoluted language. With an esoteric vocabulary, which seems designed to impress people by using big words.

 

Do you generally read peer reviewed papers? If so, how are these different in terms of writing style from the ones you read elsewhere?

 

Anyway, that's going OT! If I may get back to my earlier point, about all the millions of tons of WW2 ships and U-boats sunk in the North Atlantic. Have they caused specific, noticeable, effects?

 

Say you have a party, 50 people come. They all track mud on your carpet. You tell one of your guests you're annoyed about it. He gets huffy and says "Show me exactly where I dirtied your carpet, then." It's a false proposition because each contribution is cumulative and disperses over time. Unless he just walked in, you'll be unable to find his precise footsteps whether or not he tracked mud in or not.

 

Given we know that the pollutants on those WWII vessels have a demonstrable effect on oceanic environments, it is logical to assume that they did. Examples of catastrophic releases of oil like the Exxon Valdez, Deep Horizon, e.t.c, and the immediate effects they have on the marine environment are in abundance. However as these effects were not measured during WWII, no one will be able to furnish you with facts and figures when they weren't recorded and a lot of other pollution has occurred since.

[Dekan]

Do you generally read peer reviewed papers? If so, how are these different in terms of writing style from the ones you read elsewhere?

 

 

 

Say you have a party, 50 people come. They all track mud on your carpet. You tell one of your guests you're annoyed about it. He gets huffy and says "Show me exactly where I dirtied your carpet, then." It's a false proposition because each contribution is cumulative and disperses over time. Unless he just walked in, you'll be unable to find his precise footsteps whether or not he tracked mud in or not.

 

Given we know that the pollutants on those WWII vessels have a demonstrable effect on oceanic environments, it is logical to assume that they did. Examples of catastrophic releases of oil like the Exxon Valdez, Deep Horizon, e.t.c, and the immediate effects they have on the marine environment are in abundance. However as these effects were not measured during WWII, no one will be able to furnish you with facts and figures when they weren't recorded and a lot of other pollution has occurred since.

 

Thanks Arete. About the writing style of scientific papers - you've hit the nail on the head, by referring to "peer reviewed". Scientific papers have to be written in that weird way. Otherwise the reviewers would reject them.

 

Regarding the WWII vessels. As you say, recent examples of oil pollution, such as the Exxon Valdez incident, caused immediate effects. That's because the oil was spilled on, or close to, the surface of the sea. So we could all see the damage caused. Whereas the sunken WWII oil-tankers, are out of view, thousands of feet below the surface, at the bottom of the Atlantic.

 

Down there, they may be causing some local effects on deep-sea fish. But I doubt they'll cause catastrophic effects on the ocean as a whole. The oceans are too big to be seriously upset by us puny humans fiddling around with them.

[Arete]

Scientific papers have to be written in that weird way. Otherwise the reviewers would reject them.

 

Not perhaps because they are written for an audience with an assumed level of knowledge and therefore expected to use technically correct terms?

Scientific articles are intended to add to the body of knowledge. They have a word limit. They assume the reader is scientifically literate and knowledgeable about the current state of the field. They therefore use technical terms to convey information and are densely written. If I review a paper and the author has used a whole sentence to explain something where a single term would suffice and be more technically correct, I edit it - e.g. "parapatric" rather than "the geographic distributions of the two entities had a partial area of overlap." Its more concise, more technically correct and the intended audience will know what it means.

 

That's because the oil was spilled on, or close to, the surface of the sea. So we could all see the damage caused. Whereas the sunken WWII oil-tankers, are out of view, thousands of feet below the surface, at the bottom of the Atlantic.

 

I used the Deep Horizon example too. I'm pretty sure 5000 feet below the surface of the ocean counts as not "on, or close to, the surface of the sea".

 

The oceans are too big to be seriously upset by us puny humans fiddling around with them.

 

Again, the fact we can observe detrimental effects of anthropogenic activities on a global scale renders this statement false.

I posted some scientific articles previously but here's some popular literature:

http://www.nytimes.c...nce/03fish.html

http://www.newscient...e-collapse.html

http://ocean.nationa...rine-pollution/

Edited August 2, 2011 by Arete

[Dekan]

Many thanks Arete, for your reply. With regard to the linguistic style of scientific papers, I fully accept the need for a scientific terminology. You're right, scientific terms are usually concise and exact. Whereas everyday words can be vague and capable of multiple interpretations. It's just that scientific terminology is often misused, for the purpose of dressing up simple ideas, to make them sound impressive. I'd like to discuss this subject further. However there don't seem to be any Linguistics forums!

 

Turning to the three further links you courteously provided - I've read them with interest.

 

The first two articles, from the "New York Times" and "New Scientist", deal with overfishing rather than pollution. Obviously, we humans bear the responsibility for overfishing. The depletion of oceanic fish-stocks shouldn't perturb us unduly though. We can always "domesticate" cod and salmon, and rear them in fish farms. But I'd certainly regret the casual extinction of marvellous wild creatures such as Blue Whales.

 

The third article, from "National Geographic", does deal with pollution. The pictures of damage are striking. They're pictures of surface damage though. And although the article claims that "pollutants collect at the ocean's depths, where they are consumed by small marine organisms and introduced into the global food chain", is that true.

 

Is there much interchange between really deep-sea organisms living not 5,000, but 20,000 feet down, at the bottom of the sea - and organisms living on the land?

[Arete]

Overfishing - noted it's not about pollution. The inclusion of those articles was a counter to you suggesting that human activities don't impact on the ocean - overfishing is an example of how human activities have had noticeable global impacts which have in turn, negatively affected the human population.

 

A couple of issues with your suggestion to domesticate fish stocks 1) Domestication is an exception rather than a rule: a very small percentage of species are suitable for human domestication and it is an unsafe bet to assume that domestication of a species is an alternative to wild populations. e.g. replicating the riverine breeding environment required by salmon and the oceanic feeding environment would be extremely challenging and captive breeding of Tuna is proving very difficult e.g. http://scienceline.org/2008/03/env-locke-tuna/ 2) Why domesticate when you can sustainably manage wild stocks? They're free, require no husbandry and provided you exploit them in a sensible fashion, perpetual.

 

As for the deep sea interactions - over 90% of marine organisms live in the "photic zone" or top 200m of the ocean where there is sufficient light for photosynthesis. As such in terms of biotic impacts this is the most important zone for pollution.

 

As for the deep sea, we know less about it than space, so in terms of trophic flows and the importance of the organismal interactions down there, I'm not sure anyone could claim to have robust data. Using the precautionary principle, using it as a dumping ground or ignoring the potential effects of anthropogenic on the abyssal ocean is not a good idea however.

[preciseenergy]

Oceans make a very important part of our universe.So we have to consider it as important as anything else.