Oyster 'seeds' are dying as Pacific Coast waters grow warmer.
QUILCENE, WASH. -- For decades, the unwritten motto at shellfish hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest was "Better oysters through science."
Scientists mated the heartiest, fastest-growing stock to produce plumper, sweeter oysters for slurping raw on the half-shell or frying up to dip in tangy sauces.
They probed the genetic code to select for the most desirable traits of the Pacific oyster, an import from Japan that now weighs in, pound for pound, as the No. 1 aquacultured crop in the world: 4.5 million tons a year (shells included) valued at $3 billion.
They even bred out sexual organs that at certain times of the year can take up more than a third of an oyster's body weight and give it a soft, mushy texture.
With selective breeding and genetic fingerprinting, they were on their way to developing a super oyster resistant to summer mortality, keeping one step ahead of a warmer, more polluted planet. Or so they thought.
Suddenly, oyster research bogged down as a riotous bloom of bacteria went on a West Coast killing spree, wiping out billions of oyster larvae.
The outbreak first shut down an oyster brood stock program run by Oregon State University in Newport, Ore., in 2005. "All we saw was our larvae were dying," said fisheries professor Chris Langdon, "and we couldn't put our finger on why."
Then the microscopic culprit overran commercial hatcheries in Washington and Oregon, crippling production over the last couple of years and causing a shortage of oyster "seed" needed to replant tideland farms from Southern California to Canada.
"It's pretty scary," said Sue Cudd, owner of Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in Netarts, Ore. The hatchery, she said, has been drowning in costs and failing to produce sufficient oyster larvae for West Coast shellfish farmers. "We almost decided to close, and people panicked. I realized if I go out of business, I take a lot of people with me."
Science has identified the culprit, a strain of bacteria called Vibrio tubiashii, which is harmless to humans but fatal to baby oysters. It attacks them in their vulnerable, free-swimming larval stage before they settle to the seafloor, latch onto rocks or other oysters and grow thick shells.
The Vibrio blooms appear to be linked to warmer waters in estuaries and the oxygen-starved "dead zones" that have showed up this decade off the coast of Oregon and Washington, researchers said.
These low-oxygen waters correlate with stronger winds coming from a warming planet.
Scientists note that Vibrio tubiashii has an advantage over other microscopic life in the sea. This bacterium thrives in oxygen-starved dead zones, feasting on decaying plant and animal matter littering the seafloor. And when brought to the surface with water welling up from the deep, it can switch survival strategies to flourish in warm, well-oxygenated waters.
Researchers were not surprised to find this type of bacteria in seawater but were stunned that it had become so dominant over other microbes: It was nearly a pure concentration of this one bacteria, one that happens to be deadly to oyster larvae.
"It seems to be logical that the dead zone is playing a role," said Ralph Elston, who runs a veterinary medical practice in Sequim, Wash., that offers advice to shellfish farmers. "It's the perfect bacterial setup, and we get these explosive blooms along the coast."
Edmund Jones removed a pinch of brown silt and smeared it across a glass slide. Tanks of seawater gurgled in the background. A salty tang hung in the moist air.
Jones, who manages Taylor Shellfish Farms' hatchery here on Dabob Bay, fiddled with a knob, bringing into focus a dozen or more 9-day-old oyster larvae.
He pointed out a few healthy ones, dark round discs scuttling around, propelled by hair-like cilia. Most didn't move at all. Light shined through them, revealing empty insides. They hadn't been feeding. If they weren't dead already, they were dying.
"When your job is to grow larvae and you see that on the screen," Jones said, "it's extremely frustrating to see. Unfortunately, what this tells me is we'll probably be dumping that tank tomorrow."
That meant jettisoning 30 million larvae.
Failures of this kind have become so regular that Taylor's hatchery is producing less than a quarter of its capacity, far short of what is needed to reseed its oyster beds or to sell to other shellfish farmers looking to do the same.
The shortage of oyster seed, or "spat," will have its greatest effect in several years, when oyster beds left fallow would otherwise be ready for harvest. That may set the stage for shortages and economic upheaval in the West Coast's $110-million-a-year shellfish industry, said Bill Dewey, a division manager at Taylor Shellfish.
"We don't have the seed to replace these crops you see here," Dewey said, standing on a Samish Bay tidal flat in hip-waders, watching a work crew fill baskets with 4- and 5-year-old oysters.
Shellfish growers, Dewey said, often provide "the first indication that there's a problem out there, because the animals we are farming are telling us that."
What the dead larvae are saying is that something is wrong with coastal waters, he said. "Whether it's climate change" or something else, he said, "it's likely something that man has done to our environment that is creating this problem for us."
Alan Trimble, a researcher at the University of Washington, has noticed similar problems in the wild. Sampling seawater in Willapa Bay, Wash., he found that the oyster and clam larvae had disappeared in the last two years from waters where bacteria counts had been high.
Hatchery operators inadvertently pump in the bacteria along with seawater they use to bathe their infant oysters and grow the green algae used to feed larvae. The microbes even drift in on the sea breeze, launched into the air by bubbles bursting at the ocean's surface.
The shutdown of Oregon State's experimental hatchery prompted university officials to develop a multistage filtering system that blasts seawater with ultraviolet light to kill bacteria, skims the harmful bacteria's lingering toxins and then reinoculates the cleaned water with a healthful balance of microbes.
The Whiskey Creek Hatchery has adopted the same filtering system, which helped revive half of its larvae production. The hatchery run by Taylor Shellfish, the largest grower in the country, is experimenting with similar techniques to get its production going again.
Growers have sought the help of university researchers and asked Congress for emergency funds to look for solutions.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which funds the Molluscan Broodstock Program at Oregon State's hatchery, is exploring microbial warfare.
Gary Richards, a USDA researcher at the University of Delaware, has been screening seawater samples to find a virus, or bacteriophage, that would seek out and destroy Vibrio tubiashii. Marine bacteria often have such natural enemies. An intervention, such as releasing the right "phage," as they are called, could avoid "an ecological disaster of monumental proportions," Richards wrote in an e-mail to scientists and hatchery managers.
As filter feeders, shellfish clean seawater of excess algae and nutrients, maintaining healthy coastal waters. When oysters disappear, as they did in the Chesapeake Bay, an estuary's water can turn murky and foul.
"With the loss of oysters, the water in the Chesapeake became more turbid, restricting light penetration to plants and sea life, and the higher nutrient levels made algal blooms more common," Richards wrote. "The West Coast needs to avoid this at all cost."
So scientists like Donal T. Manahan and Dennis Hedgecock at USC, among others, have spent decades hovering over bubbling tanks of oysters to improve on nature. They've been selecting stocks with more productive pedigrees that offer the double benefit of cleaning coastal waters and multiplying the bounty of this gastronomic treat.
"Our hybrids do better than wild oysters," producing two to three times more oyster meat per acre of shellfish beds, Hedgecock said. Yet as the bacterial outbreak reminded them, the first step of any successful breeding program is to make sure oysters don't die.
The episode has moved disease resistance to the top of the list of characteristics researchers want to tease out of the mollusk's genetic code, said Langdon, from Oregon State's hatchery.
"We need to find those oysters that are most resistant to this bacterium," he said. "This whole problem has created a new target for the selective-breeding program."
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
32 Comments so far
Show AllI used to go hiking quite a bit here in the Lower mainland simply to get back to nature...feel closer to it. become one with it. The sort of closeness I felt when I grew up on the farm.
I actually find such almost impossible to do these days. It seems going out to see nature is some sort of fad. People go out with digital cameras, cell phones, a GPS. They wear fancy wick type hiking clothes, wear sunscreen, hi-tech hiking boots...A few thousand dollars in gear to go look at the scenery.
They look like a bunch of Aliens from some distant planet rushing up the trail to get to its end...ohhh and ahh at the sites, then rush back to their cars before darkness hits.
I cant help but be reminded of that song Big Yellow taxi by Joni Mitchell.
>>They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
Our technology has set us APART from nature. We no longer are capable of understanding her, and reading her warning signals. Technology has made us blind to what we do to her.
I read this essay or opinion piece by some person whose name evades me at the moment . In it he claimed that the higher the level of our technology and the more reliant we grow upon it, the greater will be the collapse and die off when said technology fails. Who knows maybe it was a work of science fiction but in any case it made a heck of a lot of sense to me.
joneden, what do you mean by "backing down?"
north_coast.......i think the key phrase is "backing down"
Why should I give up my Hummer and personal jet when I don't even like oysters?
It seems like we've gotten ourselves into a situation where, whether or not we like technology (including computer technology that we're all so fond of here), we're pretty much stuck with it as our solution. Even if we wanted to return to preindustrial lifestyles, it would only be a minority of people in the industrialized countries willing to do so. Most still believe technology is not only wonderful, but that it is going to save us. Will it? We really don't know, do we?
All of us computer users should remember that we're using a dirty technology, that the manufacturing of computers is a very dirty process requiring large amounts of water and the use of toxic heavy metals. So, while we work to find solutions, we continue causing the problem. It's a vicious circle. Every day, I think of ditching my computer, but don't do it. I'm certainly as guilty as the rest of us.
But then, my intuition tells me that, as Jim Morrison said, "No one gets out of here alive."
That the Supreme Court--allegedly the King Solomon WISE souls of our times put this clan of misfits into office so they could rape resource after resource without the slightest accountability speaks for the disgusting state of justice in our land.
EARTH mother, the great equalizer (call it the revenge of Gaia if you want to) will once again have to teach the boys/oil rigs a lesson in those precious Gulf waters. Obviously Katrina, the "great flood" of the midwest and the fires burning in Cal produce NO intelligent changes in behavior. Bush and his oil cronies remind me of the driver so hopelessly lost who not only refuses to ask for directions, but accelerates on the same lethal course! Hail the chief... and those justices will reap what they have sewn in terms of penalizing the entire WORLD with this breed of vulture, a/k/a predatory capitalists, those bent on the new shock doctrine of so-called economics.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush planned to lift a ban on oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf on Monday as part of an effort to ease record high oil prices, the White House said."
Terrific side-effects. Big fat corporations — but, we're dying off ...
Global warming is a natural response to over population. There are just way too many human beings on this planet. That will change. When it does global warming will abate. Too bad Mother Nature is going to have to be a bitch to do it.
FV Horn,
Thank you. I've always had a hard time responding to MiMi as many times. His post may start out with a fair judgement and then devolves into a denial that warming is affecting our cosmos.
You really articulated reasoned argument and how from whence we came we should know better for where we are.
I am about through with the whole debate as I see humanity unable to cope with the degradation that surrounds it by making sound, viable choices. I live in the Gulfstream and swim daily in the waters of the Atlantic. I lived in the Pacific Northwest for twenty years and ate those Willapa Bay oysters. We were watching the problems erupting back in the mid to late 80's with salmon stock and oyster farming going bad.
We are a stubborn lot. Thinking a fix is out there while we continualy shit in our own nest. No other species does that. We will reap what we sow.
coco wrote:
"...i see now your problem with logging in…….that's never happened to me (yet!!!)..."
GOOD! (...Although, for the FIRST time today, I was able to get in without issue!!! ;)
"...and thankyou for your explanation/ideas in answering my question. but i can't for the life of me see any of those 'industrialized' bodies giving up their wealth in favour of the earth's health and well being..."
Not voluntarily!!! There are and have been long-fighting, long enduring cultural and social justice movements based on this very fight to stop them.
MiMiCcS Wrote:
greenspark says "That's why the industrial economy must be what we stop."
"..Wow. What was life in a pre-industrial economy like?. Do you know?..."
Uh--huh. And you would, too, if you'd get acquainted with what's left of the pre-industrial cultures that are still in existence on the planet that's being murdered by the industrial economy. One doesn't have to look to the past, unless one is wholly blind to the world outside one's own culture, and therefore unable to see the dying forest for the murdered trees.
The rest of what you wrote is not worth replying to, based on your own lack of information and lack of imagination. It's also insulting to the largest numbers of humans AND nonhumans on this planet who know how to live without fouling the water, air, land, and without destroying every other living being, withOUT industrialized ENTITLEMENTS. (Oh, and-uh: The air and water and land are fouled BECAUSE of industrialization...) Also, because you presume AND assume that the reason for your existence is based on natural evolution (in your words--and the words of the culture you OBEY, rather than take into your hands to SHAPE), which you call "development".... There is nothing that can be said to enlighten you, since your religion is unquestionable "science".
Pahlease.....
FVHorn wrote:
"...The fact is, our technology, our science, our agriculture, our civilization are allowing far more human existence on the planet than 'god' ever did, as you state about the bad old days. That old way was nature's plan, and kept human numbers low in a brutal and terrible fashion. We do not want to go back to those days...."
Oh, no of course not. Over-shooting carrying capacity is a natural and science-god-given right, eh? All cultures that existed for tens of thousands of years prior to the last 200 hundred petroleum-based industrial economy, and all cultures that currently exist (before the industrialized cultures try to destroy them for the last remaining land, air, water (oops-and oil, out of lack of imagination and respect), and knew and know how to live within the limits of reality, they just don't know how good over-population can be huh?
"...But we will destroy our Earth home like a pack of locusts if we overbreed as we used to do..."
Used to do????????????
"....Family planning is absolutely necessary, unless you want to wind up in those bad old days after the mass collapse of high civilization....."
HIGH Civlization? Assuming, once again, that the planet is destroyed just so you can sit on high watching the bleeding planet, as if the world was meant to die for your view "on high"....
"...So take your pick, socialism with family planning, or freewheelin' it back to the caves..."
Racist and classist ca-ca.
"...There are NO other choices..."
Perfect example of what I said above.
"...And according to one scientist, see OLDUVAI THEORY, it is already too late for any future but a big, fat die-off and back to the caves for the remnant of those idiotic sex monkeys, humankind. End of science, end of civilization...."
I'll take the end of civilization, so the world, human and nonhuman, can once again thrive, teaming with wildlife, verdant land, clean water, and fresh air--Two hundred to two thousand years from now.
Better yet, I won't TAKE it. I'll __choose__ it, and give it back to the planet which is responsible for my life.
I'll work for it for the rest of my life: The end of industrial civilization, thus the world can live again!!!!
GREENSPARK
i see now your problem with logging in.......that's never happened to me (yet!!!)
and thankyou for your explanation/ideas in answering my question. but i can't for the life of me see any of those 'industrialized' bodies giving up their wealth in favour of the earth's health and well being.
FVHORN
fucking well said. (excuse my french, but it is bastille day) that put him in his place..................
MiMiCcS says that, "the 'religion' of science can not be questioned, unlike real science. Question this science and you are a denier, just like those who questioned traditional religous teachings were called heretics. There is no difference between the two. They are both effective social control mechanisms. On the right we have the Christian Fundamentalists with the Hagees of the world, on the Left we have 'Religion of Malthus' led by Hansen and Gore."
What a load of Crap that is. Science is not religion, and takes nothing on faith. Just because Al Gore or even Hansen says something does not make it true, nor do they 'lead' anything, nor are they associated with Malthus. No one says this. And despite your politicizing the issue, with "Gore and Hansen on the LEFT!", like Bush does with science he doesn't like - those "leftist" scientists and "leftist" bureaucrats in the scientific institutions- there is no left or right in real science. There are facts and phenomena and numbers and yes and no and verification and duplication and reexamination. Only someone who does not like a result calls facts "leftist" in order to discard these 'inconvenient truths' unscientifically.
Gore did not pull his facts out of a hat, unlike some religions I could name. The facts were brought to his attention by eminent physical scientists with fifty years of research on this. Roger Revelle was one of these, from Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and he has a UCSD College of Science named after him. We must take the evidence seriously, because the facts lead up to the conclusions.
What kind of college is named after you, MiMi, maybe a small clown college? You must have some kind of religious bone to pick, because you seem to be a denier of a finite earth, a denier of any level of overpopulation that will destroy the very ecology supporting human life.
You started out rationally enough, saying that civilization AND SCIENCE and medicine and society has made life much better, and no one would want to go back to the bad old days. But then you lurched off the rails completely with a rant about Malthus and 'leftwing religion of science' and Gore and Hansen. You became nuts, apparently because you do not want to hear what science and common intelligence indicates about the human effects of global warming and human population growth. So you plug your ears and do the equivalent of 'lalalala I don't hear you lalalala'.
The fact is, our technology, our science, our agriculture, our civilization are allowing far more human existence on the planet than 'god' ever did, as you state about the bad old days. That old way was nature's plan, and kept human numbers low in a brutal and terrible fashion. We do not want to go back to those days.
But we will destroy our Earth home like a pack of locusts if we overbreed as we used to do. Family planning is absolutely necessary, unless you want to wind up in those bad old days after the mass collapse of high civilization.
So take your pick, socialism with family planning, or freewheelin' it back to the caves. There are NO other choices. And according to one scientist, see OLDUVAI THEORY, it is already too late for any future but a big, fat die-off and back to the caves for the remnant of those idiotic sex monkeys, humankind. End of science, end of civilization.
So you keep swinging for overbreeding and for continuing the burning of 4 million Barrels of oil every hour and the burning of 14 million Tons of coal every day NOW, MiMi, and keep wishing there will be no problem with, soon, ten billion consumers and more, on a planet running out even now of everything that sustains the quality of life for all, everything useful or beautiful, everything but dirt. And that too will have a high price on it.
Of course, if the warming increases to the point that all the methane gas frozen under the Arctic Ocean is released at once... then Earth becomes lifeless rock #3 in a small unknown solar system on the edge of a nameless galaxy, and all will be moot. But I guess you are up for that bet.
Because as you made clear at the beginning of your post, you want the good things science can bring, but in your excoriation of the scientists you don't want to hear, it is clear you do not want the responsibility the science demands. Sorry, it is a package deal. Oh, but you are a 'denier' and thus a co-destroyer of the world. You should be ashamed. As you are such, you should have the grace to remove yourself from the gene pool and from life, as you suggested others do in your post, because you will only continue to do more harm than good.
greenspark says "That's why the industrial economy must be what we stop."
Wow. What was life in a pre-industrial economy like?. Do you know?
Imagine your wife giving birth at home hemorrhaging with a doctor over 8 hours away and no phone. She dies. You bury her body in the ground in a grave you dig, perhaps with a casket, perhaps not. Deep enough not to be taken by scavengers.
Imagine your child with an infection, and no antibiotics, who dies, goes blind, or loses a leg.
Imagine having a life expectancy of 40, and for those living longer being in chronic pain due to one ailment or another. No aspirin, no fillings so no teeth. Imagine only 40% of people making it past the age 15.
Imagine raw sewage being emptied into the rivers from which you get your drinking water, and cities exploding with rats due to poor garbage disposal practices, spreading disease.
Imagine smoke and pollution so thick from burning wood and coal to keep warm that you can hardly see during the day.
Imagine 90% of the people you know who would never have existed (no, you can not pick and choose, perhaps you are not one of them)
For those who think they are smart because they have accepted as a matter of faith the neo-malthusian world view. Do something about it. If your "religion" and the high priests called "the consensus of science" tell you you are harming the planet, remove yourself and say good bye.
Man is an intelligent species. We are not meant to be beasts satisfied with grazing the pastures until some another animal comes along and takes us as food. We can create, so we do. We can develop, so we do. As we develop, life becomes better, and we live longer. Problems result that we analyze and then solve.
The problem is, the smartest of the human species have risen to the top, and they see many of us as beasts, using the planet as a feed lot. Industrialization has meant fewer people are needed to keep them comfortable. So much of what happens today is them trying to convince people to consume less, by making them unable to afford what they need to live well, knowing this will mean fewer people who will die younger, have less children. The problems that arise are not solved, just made worse, since this works for them.
Their plan is to reduce the populations of the beasts, that means you. Before doing so, they convince you that not only are you a beast, but you are the worst kind of beast. You accept this without question, since it is your religion, and you have faith when fat Albert tells you this while living in his mansion using electricty equal to what 1000 people in the developing world consume.
Traditional religion teaches people that they are born as sinners, and that they will go to hell if they do not obey their religous leaders, who speak with a consensus as to what is Gods will.
The Climate Change Science is a religion as well. It is based on the neo-malthusian belief, and those on the left who eschew traditional religion, and accept this new science based religion and their "consensus". They are told if they do not consume less they will be roasted alive by Global Warming and the world will flood. "Woe to Gaia" cry the beasts in terror. Take my carbon credits to support the Church of Science.
The religion of science can not be questioned, unlike real science. Question this science and you are a denier, just like those who questioned traditional religous teachings were called heretics.
There is no difference between the two. They are both effective social control mechanisms. On the right we have the Christian Fundamentalists with the Hagees of the world, on the Left we have Religion of Malthus led by Hansen and Gore.
Our choices for president comes down to neo-cons and/or neo-malthusians. Obama is looking like a double agent at this point. He might be both.
hahahhaa.. at least i amuse myself..
MiMiCcS, yes, it is global warming. the winds (off the pacific NW coast) correlate to decreased oxygen in the sense that: cold water currents have increased upwelling cycles from the winds and hotter surface temps., resulting in an OXYGEN RICH environment that creates a huge algae bloom. this bloom, which is baseline support for the rich life of offcoastal waters, is literally too rich. the nutrients are not consumed, the bloom dies off and as it biodegrades, it sucks the oxygen outta the water leaving a "dead zone" with almost no life. voila.
can you believe these dumbasses think adding other bacterium to kill the problem-bacterium will solve the problem? whole ecosystems have been destroyed by invasive species using that same tinkering, but lo, a new generation of corporate trained "scientists" with the same narrowminded anti-reality paradigms rotting their creativity, come up again with the same failed strategies to clean up their messes, as if ecology didnt work without them, as if no final lesson can be learned but stupidity through denile of Nature.
PShaw--
That's a good idea about refresh--I'll try that-Thank you! (Good to know it happens to others, tho, too!)
ezeflyer--
Yep--I'm a Firefoxer, too.
kayaker--
I tried that, too... Thank you!
coco--
I log in, with my username (greenspark) and then my password (not tellin'!!;), but then when I come to the article, CD tells me to log in if I want to comment. I already did. But I keep clicking on the hyperlinked word "logged in", about 10 times or more, and eventually it lets me have a comment box.
But, now I know it's not just me, so that's good, it's less important to me--Just a question I'd been meaning to ask...
And, coco--
You wrote:
"...HEDOLOGY
why do you think we haven't grasped this concept yet? where did we go wrong? i agree with you wholeheartedly but would like to know how we became/are so stupid…………...."
I'm not hedology, but I'm going to answer my own answer... For one thing, to answer your question, one has to define the "we". I'm speculating you mean "homo sapiens". However, I think it's not human behavior to act in a manner that destroys and disrespects all nonhuman life; which dominates all nonhuman life. True, humans more than any other beings, do this. BUT: There are only _certain_ humans who do this. Certain human cultures. There have been humans on the planet for 2 million years. Thousands of cultures existed for all that time without doing what's been done to the planet within the past 50-200, to perhaps the past 12,000. Prior to those general time periods, most humans lived in manner that respected a mutual relationship with the land. Not only in those time periods, but even now, traditional indigenous cultures know how to live in relationship to the land sustainably, without dominating it / other nonhumans...
It's the specific culture of industrial civilization that thinks it can magically invent (manufacture) "more" once the carrying capacity of a given landbase has been overshot. That's where some humans went wrong. That's why the industrial economy must be what we stop. That's why it's not humans per say, but the humans in the culture of industrial civilization (a culture of extraction, exploitation, and destruction), who do (went) wrong...
When we know that, then we know we need only ask the land, and those humans and nonhumans who do not depend upon civilization, for how to make it right. As long as "we" try to save civilization from collapsing, as long as we see civilization as the ultimate and grand pinnacle of human evolution, civilization with all its denial of death and therefore all natural processes, and all it glorification of endless consumption, we will lose time to being stupid...
--Which stupidity includes the absurd belief that we need to survive the mess we're in. The truth is, those NOT in civilization are the ones who need to survive. The truth is, we need to make sure generations of descendants survive well beyond us... And have clean air, clean water, livable land, and a thriving population of wildlife in the world.
The smartest humans are those not dependent on the destructive system of exploitation, exportation, and extraction (ie, civilization).
And those, of course, who are working to stop that system...
How many times and in how many different ways does it have to be said?
SCIENCE DOES NOT HOLD ALL THE ANSWERS!
Comodifying oysters through genetic engineering eliminated their diversity and therefore sustainability. It's always convenient to remember too that seventy percent of the oxygen we breath comes from the oceans. Harm the oceans and wake up chocking some morning.
It don't mean a thing (aim this tune at all those fuck with nature bio-engineers, nerds who probably have never HAD healthy sex!) if it ain't got that thing... doo dah doo dah doo dah.
I am hoping LUCKY LEFTY will fill in the next stanza.
Bees, bananas and shell fish... I'd say they miss those sex organs. Would YOU want to live without one?
Another local event being blamed on Man Made Global Warming. It's so tiresome
"low-oxygen waters correlate with stronger winds coming from a warming planet"
This makes no sense at all. Stronger winds allow oxygen to be transported to the ocean via convective mixing. Where do they get these brain dead reporters.
Lets look for an alternative explanation. Here is a clue.
"Better oysters through science."
Oysters from Japan introduced to the North West coastal ecosystem and genetically bred to be bigger and fatter, and they feed on algae, and their babies get killed off when swimming due to bacteria that thrive in oxygen depleted waters. Hmm.
One of the most important sources of oxygen in surface waters is photosynthesis, and algae is very important for the worlds surface water and even atmospheric oxygen. During cloudy weather, the intensity of light reaching surface waters is greatly diminished, resulting in a marked decrease in oxygen production from photosynthesis. Oxygen consumption, however, remains unchanged. This results in a net loss of oxygen over each 24-hour period if surface waters are calm (humid conditions suggest calm waters) , AND if you have LESS algae than you would normally have due to many big fat and hungry oysters to produce less oxygen. And if you have the right bacteria, you can get these blooms.
Seems to me the problem may be man made. But it has absolutely nothing to do with Man Made Global warming. It has to do with the low level of understanding of Science with regard to the ecosystem. The Oysters overpopulation of a species not native to these waters and genetically altered by man led to conditions that killed some of them off until they system can be balanced. This will be true with man as well, and it won't be due to CO2. Thats mother nature at work. It's a natural process.
living on the coast of southeast alaska gives a person the ability to never have to buy anything ever. one can live off the land(mostly the beach, shore, tidal areas) never have to go hungry. one bit of knowledge known to those that think about life is; if the oceans get sick or die there will be no more livin' off the land.
PSHAW
the 'edit' feature seems to work for you though...............most folks have a lot of trouble with that.
HEDOLOGY
why do you think we haven't grasped this concept yet? where did we go wrong? i agree with you wholeheartedly but would like to know how we became/are so stupid..............
When logging in it is always better to log in on an article that you are NOT interested in commenting on and then going to the one that you ARE interested in commenting on after you are logged in. For some strange reason the article that you log in on sometimes doesn't show a 'submit comment' box.
The planetary bio-engineers, for that is in effect what they do, think they can engineer all parts of the planet to suit just humankind without the different parts affecting each other. The problem is that the entire system of Gaia has builtin natural constraints of one part against another, that are only encountered when large man made changes occur. If change is pushed by us on one part of the system, the planetary system will push back in unexpected punishing ways.
GREENSPARK
on behalf of myself, spike and ezeflyer thank you for your vote of confidence. and your concise grasp of the problem facing the planet today. i've said it before and i'll say it again - greed, greed and more greed will be the demise of homo sapiens. just a shame we will probably take all the other innocent creatures with us............
as for your logging in problem - i don't understand what you mean by clicking logged in ten times etc. at the end of each article there is a notice that says 'join the discussion' and then you have to be logged in. so you click on that 'logged in'. and then another page comes up with your user name and password. you type those in and click log in. and voila, you are logged into the article you selected. (or not, as the case may be.) i agree there are some 'strange' times when 'strange' things happen. and it probably has a lot to do with mordechai shiblikov. (joke btw)
greenspark:
A tip of the hat to ya.
I'm no tecchie, but I use the Firefox browser (to protest Microsoft's monopoly) and have had few problems logging in.
greenspark -- I don't know why, but I often have the same trouble. What usually works (with internet explorer) is to go "Back" to the first time the CD page I am on was opened, then "Refresh".
I logged in to thank you first three posters, Spike, coco, and ezeflyer--Three of my favorites--For getting it, so very clearly... Brought a smile to my face, in the face of the truth, the horrid truth above. (Meaning: Ya want technology over nature?--This is the result. Ya want civilization over the world?--This is payback...) And the faster this nonsense collapses, the better, before the profiteers destroy everything in the world...
[ On another note: Does anyone know why I have to click "logged in" approximately TEN times (AFTER I've already logged in), in order to finally be acknowledged by Common Dreams as logged in already, in order to make a post??????? At least I am persistent... ]
We need just one more technological fix.
and another warning:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/21/salmon.jellyfish.ap/index...
Terrific side-effects. Big fat oysters -- but, they're dying off as spat. One more for those who see everything as more bux for themselves, no matter what the long term costs. You go!