Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati'Dead Zone' in The Gulf of Mexico Near Record Size
GULF OF MEXICO - The "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, an area on the seabed with too little oxygen to support fish, shrimp, crabs and other forms of marine life, is nearly the largest on record this year, about 8,000 square miles, researchers said this week.
Only the churning effects of Hurricane Dolly last week, they said, prevented the dead zone from being the largest ever.
The problem of hypoxia -- very low levels of dissolved oxygen -- is a downstream effect of fertilizers used for agriculture in the Mississippi River watershed. Nitrogen is the major culprit, flowing into the Gulf and spurring the growth of algae. Animals called zooplankton eat the algae, excreting pellets that sink to the bottom like tiny stones. This organic matter decays in a process that depletes the water of oxygen.
Researchers expected the dead zone to set a record -- even more than the 8,500 square miles observed in 2002 -- after the Mississippi, swollen with floodwaters, carried an extraordinary amount of nitrates into the Gulf, about 37 percent more than last year and the most since measuring these factors was begun in 1970.
The researchers set out July 20 aboard the Pelican, a 115-foot academic research vessel, and braved 12-foot waves and 35-mph winds from the outer bands of Dolly to take samples. The hypoxia began to appear about halfway to the bottom in waters ranging from 10 to 130 feet deep, said Nancy Rabalais, executive director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, which conducted the study. Some water samples from the bottom of the water column showed no oxygen at all, and instead bore the signature odor of hydrogen sulfide emerging from underlying sediments.
"It smells like rotten eggs," she said. "It's really nasty."
The dead zone has been known about for decades but has been studied carefully only since the mid-1980s, when Rabalais began making annual cruises in late July to measure its extent and characteristics. She said the dead zone has roughly doubled in size since 1985.
"I would think an area the size of Massachusetts where you can't catch any fish or shrimp, that's significant," Rabalais said.
The hypoxia tends to go away after October as cooler weather slows algae growth and storms mix the waters. Even so, there's a "legacy" from year to year, said Eugene Turner, a professor of coastal ecology at Louisiana State University who makes annual predictions of the size of the dead zone. Not all organic matter on the bottom decays in any given year.
"For the same amount of nitrogen going in one year, you'll get more hypoxia the next year," Turner said.
He said the entire Mississippi watershed, and not merely the Gulf, is suffering the effects of agricultural runoff. About half the streams and rivers in the watershed are unsafe for swimming, drinking, recreational contact or use as drinking water, Turner said. He said a major factor is intensified corn production, which relies heavily on fertilizer.
"The longer you wait to reduce the nitrogen, the harder it is to reverse course. It's like going into debt: You have compound-interest laws, and you have to back out of that. It's not good," he said.
The dead zone snakes east to west along the Louisiana and Texas coasts, starting near the mouth of the Mississippi. As the hypoxic region expands during the summer, commercial shrimpers and recreational fishermen have to find other areas to cast their lines and nets, typically farther out in the Gulf.
Wayne Keller, director of the Grand Isle (La.) Port Commission, said that in recent years many people along the Gulf coast have grabbed nets and poles to celebrate "jubilees" in which fish and shrimp seem to be rushing to the shoreline. But this was not a demonstration of nature's bounty, he believes:
"Unfortunately, what it was really showing was everything was going to the edge of the dead zone -- everything that could swim and go fast enough."
© 2008 The Washington Post
45 Comments so far
Show All.... cooler weather slows algae growth ....
hummm...and if the weather is warmer...or the water is warmer...
wish we would just stop using stuff invented by Union Carbide and their ilk....
As the Greenland ice cap melts and that fresh water floats out over what are now the best fishing waters in the world, a lot bigger, longer lasting dead zone could appear.
michaelc-
I'm sorry you felt attacked. I'm sorry you felt I didn't read your post. It was not an attack and I read the entire post.
Disagreement and attack are two different things.
Thank you.
-pUnk
Punkass - read the whole comment before attacking one sentence. Your example made no sense given what I said. Disaster is not just coming, it is here. Most of humanity will perish in the coming 'interesting times'. It is no longer a question of 'if' it will come, but 'when'. Those who are currently doing their best to reduce their impact on the earth are the ones most likely to survive, if any do. We are building lives that are not dependent on the consumerist-industrial machine. Throw out your television, unplug from the grid, build an energy independent life style. Eat locally and grow as much as you can for yourself. Stop eating dead animals. I tell my students that we are currently living on our wits, not unlike our hunter-gatherer ancestors did. They had to be smart to survive. They had to be scientists - observe, learn, experiment, live well. We must do the same. Stop using plastics and other poisons in your food. Stop having so many kids. One of the reasons the human population did not reach one billion for over a million years is that the stupid ones died young. [So did some of the smart ones, due to accident or hostility.] After the first billion in 1810 it has all been downhill. We not only keep the dumb ones alive these days, we put them in positions of power. Look at Washington DC.
Consumers can do a bit to help actually. Not buying any (or less) fertilizer for your plants will help, as well as refusing to buy products with high phosphate levels. Electrasol, for example, has a 4.9-8.7% phosphate concentration in its products. That's a lot, especially considering the limit is 0.5% for most other detergents.
Take a look at the boycott here: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/save-the-environment-by-boycotting-electra-sol-dishwasher-detergent
This is a serious problem that will have to be approached top-down by the government and NGOs but at the same time we should all be doing our part.
I hear from a friend in OR that there is a dead zone off that state's coast as well. And this year it is bigger than usual. Hmmmm.
"So what do the ZPG adherents propose? Since they brought up the problem, I'd like to hear their solution."
Step one would be to admit that population is a problem. There is furious resistance to the idea. Stop making excuses and face reality.
....at least the ones that are left. I doubt very much that the killing off of tribal humans that are left will be a relief to other creatures. I doubt they were relieved during all the periods of time when civilization has eradicated primitive peoples.
My question is this:
Do we wait for (civilized)humans to be "killed off" for the destruction to end?
Or do we stop the destruction in defense of those who are victims of (civilized) humans?
Maybe if we defend the polar bear with an "any means necessary" spirit today, there will be polar bears around tomorrow. Maybe if they are around tomorrow, they will be alive in five years.....etc
Why wait for us to die so that they might live? Why not use the experience available to us and live in a manner that works?
There is an axe-murderer standing over your loved ones, hacking, hacking, hacking. What is stopping you from stopping the brutality? Do we just wait for the axe murderer to die, comforted by the knowledge that when that happens, then there will be peace? Or do we stop the murderer by whatever means necessary?
Inaction is an excuse. The salmon don't give a shit for philosophy. They just want dams to be removed. Now. In the present.
Thank you,
-pUnk
To Wilmoor; SiouxRose; and so many others---
"For as Long as the Waters Flow"
What you write about is the awakening of what most traditional tribal people understand as the ancient concept of the "Sacred Circle".
We are all connected by our being trapped on this planet and dependant upon it's mineral and water components that are part of our bodies---and which we could not exist without. In particular the "waters".
Over the many years I have shard this concept with others by explaining the "way of the water".
The "way of the water" is simple, and typical of what the Native Peoples all over the world learn through "observation" of the natural world, and in spite of many "religious traditions" that teach that human beings are "above" nature--- the "traditionals" all over the world still practice their ancient beliefs. We are all connected by the water.
The scientific community understands that there is a "finite amount of water" on this planet; and they are not sure where it originated from; but that it "arrived" sometime after the "conception" of the planet. The phrase "as long as the water flows" which is an integral wording of all of the treaties signed with the Western Tribes of the USA in the late 19th century had a very deep meaning to our people.
"The way of the Water"
When water is exposed to sunlight and other heat, it begins to vaporize and turn into steam. Which is lighter than air and rises to a height where it cools and begins to condense. It then travels with the wind and collects in locations where it falls back to the Earth in the form of rain. Then it collects into pools, in the form of lakes and ponds and so forth or it collects in small streams, then begins to flow down hill into creeks , then ever larger streams and into rivers and then to the ocean where it pools and flows and starts the process all over again. It collects in bodies of the creatures and no creature can live without it and when that creature no longer lives the water that was part of its existence then joins the other waters and becomes part of the process. So it is true that the water inside of our bodies presently may well have been inside of another creature, or plant, or rain cloud, or river---stream ---ocean----or it very well could have been inside of a Dinosaur, that lived millions of years ago. The very same water.
So we are all connected, by the water----and if the water is dirty it will make us sick and if sick enough "our water will join the great waters"------we will die.
No religion that teaches that human beings are special or apart from this one truth---no government that imagines itself exempt from this one truth----no individual who thinks themselves apart from this truth----will ever survive this truth: We are all connected.
Taking the life of another may be necessary to survive as in to eat, or even to defend oneself from being eaten. But to kill for sport, or because the Spider is in your home, or because Americans need the jobs and so need to pollute------is to ignore that one truth: we are all connected.
"For as long as the waters flow"
If more people were aware of this one truth, there would be not dead zones in the waters anywhere. Human beings are creating these dead zones and if not stopped, those dead zones will kill off the humans---which may be a relief to the other creatures.
Thanks for your time.
JAY BONES: Lovely & lyrical! And, yes, so true.
Organic farming is the place for me.........I've been eating some fruits, and vegetables all spring/summer and hopefully fall and winter. No ferts, used, only organic materials (non-animal) in my gardens.
Now if we could get other people/countries to make the switch......better waterways and drinkable water, no more dead zones (other than between politician's heads) ah imagine.
It can and is done on large scales in many farms. Just not enough of them. It could be a good start to helping the planet back to being chemical free.
People are pithed!
Good. So they should be. To think that this could have been prevented if the human race actually had some intelligence instead of just an avaricious nature that is apparently unable to be curbed or disciplined and which is obviously far more cunning than a human reason can possibly fathom.
The Gulf of Mexico is the petro-capitalist's toilet bowl. Notice that most of the petro-chemicals are applied in O'Bama's state of Illinois where the global grain casino is also located. Nice graphic.
Today, July 31, was a perfect summer day where I live.
I climbed up a grassy mountain and looked out over the huge valley that almost invisibly holds my town and is ringed by lush forested foothills far away in the distance. Everything was so achingly beautiful, it seemed this part of the earth was momentarily happy with itself. Happy with its perfect contours, with its impossibly graceful blueing dome, with its capture of sweet smelling sunlight that gently cooks infinite dreams made of stardust.
I know the earth can be monstrous and ugly as well.
There is no point in denying it. It can kill thousands of us humans in a flash, with no more apparent concern than we humans swat gnats or step on anthills -- yet all the while, episodically feeding us dizzying glimpses of transcendant beauty.
What are we to make of all this? It is not inconceivably mysterious?
In the end, I think it is no maddness to apprehend the earth as a supra-conscious living entity with its own cosmic interests; a meta being incomprehensibly deeper and wiser than the human race it sponsors.
Even if we can't always treat this earth with the unqualified love borne of a perfect summer day, it will always be in our interest to treat it with the greatest care and respect.
punkass- Until the last 12,000 years, we had 100,000 years of an ice age. Life was tough then.
Frankly, we have only been "civilized" for 6000 years. Thats when the aliens decended as angels and genetically improved us to make us smarter and more war like, and this is when man of today was "created". Instructions were given to globalize the planet within 6000 years, when ET comes back to utilize an industrialized man as slave labour to exploit our resources for their galactic empire. Agents left behind operate in the shadows to guide the elite who maintain the alien bloodlines in the form of European royalty and other wealthy illuminati families, to accomplish the 6000 year old mission. Mission is almost accomplished.
wcdevin-I am not a ZPG alarmist. The 3rd world needs to control their population for their own welfare. However, we have been subjecting them to what amounts to a genocide with famine and internal strife we help create to impede their development and to facilitate the galactic trade in genetic material (joking). Read Kissingers NSSM 200. Mans population will naturally reach an equilibrium with it's environment. Man does not need to constrain mans population or development and living standards, which they are trying to do by creating myths like AWG and overpopulation. Let free markets work (LOL).
Migration of populations from undeveloped areas into developed nations results in a net increase in population in the developed areas. This creates the impression even the developed nations are increasing in population and should be controlled. I have seen many comments on CD where the ZPG alarmists call for Americans to have fewer children. Back in the 60's people had 5-8 kids, and could afford them. Today, people have 2 and go into debt to send them to college, and population grows due to immigration. The migration of immigrants also masks the fact that our economic growth is not due to increased productivity and standard of living, but is essentially population driven. Living standrds on average have declined over the past 35 years. Immigration is needed in an expanding productive economy such as we had up to the mid 20th century. Immigration to mask a declining "real" economy such as we have had for 35 years is counterproductive.
MiMi - Thanks for your response, although I don't read you as one of the ZPG alarmists. Clearly, migration of already existing populations does not qualify as an net increase in population. And it does seem that the population bombs are in the lowest-life expectancy and poorest areas of least consumption as I postulated and you seem to concur. So what do the ZPG adherents propose? Since they brought up the problem, I'd like to hear their solution.
Civilized man is not a species.
Hello?
What is not to understand about the fact that primitive humans lived successfully with their non-human cousins.
Why is it so hard an idea to grasp?
We as a species, humanity, human kind, already proved a way of life that works.
I see those terms thrown around almost to a person in our society. People ignore the truth. They really believe that humanity started 12,000 years ago. Most people really think that "our species" means civilized man.Most people really think that human kind is civilization.
What is so hard about this? It's basic math.
12,000 years of exploitation and destruction = civilization
100,000's of years prior = tribal existence.
Do the math.
I am proud of my species.
It's civilized man that I despise.
About fifteen years ago I began to be compelled NOT to kill the ants, the spiders, and all the creepy crawlers and fliers. It wasn't anything I'd done, or ever thought about. It began like a whisper in my head, but growing until it reached the point where it it's now completely impossible for me to intentionally kill anything. And I have to say, the spider I once was terrified of are now like welcome friends.
I don't know that many people, and live pretty much as a loner, but in the past fifteen years, everyone who has known me has changed in the way they look at stomping a spider just because it's there. And the majority of them have happily related how they'd "saved" a spider instead of stomping it. And they tell people they know how I save these creatures, and of those they tell, some will listen, and start saving the creatures too, and I can envision it becoming a chain that will circle the earth, around and around, continuing long after my time here is over.
I have little, but I count myself rich because I have all I need, and when I find someone in need I share what I have. I also do all I can to protect this beautiful earth, and pass those feelings on to anyone who crosses my path.
Between this dead zone and the continent of plastic we created to despoil the oceans, plus the toxins, plus the fishing to extinctions ... I know I'm proud of my species!
wcdevin said - "Seems to me the population is growing where humanity is already stressed to its survival limits - Africa and Asia - and among its poorest populations"
This is an example of quality vs quantity. Look at Africa and South Asia. Populations growth is definitely a problem, it keeps them poor. By keeping them poor, we reduce their life expectancy and they are unable to consume resources we have our eye on. This is part of the elites imperialist strategy. It is why the Smiling Pope was assasinated in 1978. He was going to approve Catholics use of contraceptives. Can't have that. His successor was Pope John Paul II, an ultra conservative. The liberal cardinals were bribed in order to swing the vote and 2 billion went missing from the vatican bank. Presumably they used that money to help their native countries with the population problems they were concerned with, and it was not for enriching themselves.
Compared to the average American or European, Africans and South Asians consume about 1/4th what we do over their life. So more people does not necessarily mean more consumption.
The US and Europe have stable populations, as does much of the developing East Asia (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea). These areas are developing while populations are stable due to lower fertility rates. The populations there are living longer and consuming more as their wealth increases.
The population growth in the US and Europe is due to immigration of those from populated and less developed areas. Reducing immigration is key, since these people end up consuming more when living in the developed world, and they suppress wages and technological innovation by providing a surplus of low cost labour, which hurts the local economy.
Global consumption growth seem to be primarily in the developing Eurasia/East Asia, and Latin America, and the migration of these surplus populations into Western Europe and the US. I do not see that we have any right to say they can not develop, but we can control immigration a bit better.
As for the topic at hand, it seems the problem was due to the floods which led to excessive fertilizers dumped into the Gulf. Fortunately, we have plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere to provide an enhanced fertilization effect, which reduces the amount of fertilizer which otherwise would be needed.
I ran into an interesting stat, man emits 0.6 GTon of Carbon as CO2 per year by exhaling. Thats about 8% of what we emit burning fossil fuels.
Http://www.whyplankton.com
.......along with millions of other species.
When the ocean dies, we do too.
Part of this evil is the attitude that it won't affect me, personally. Yes, this is more or less apolitical, an outgrowth of unregulated consumerism. The results of centuries of overconsumption and pollution will be starvation and death, slow misery. It's believed throughout much of the US that individuals bear no responsibility for the fates of those whom their decisions affect. It's simply easier to live in denial than to confront the collective impact that our individual decisions make.
I'd be very cautious in proclaiming a message of gloom and doom. People will simply turn off if 1) they think their actions will make no difference and 2) the standards of change and perfection are crafted too high. People need to know that even a few little changes can make a big difference--this is the flipside of the large negative collective impact that individual decisions can make.
If people are subjected to scorn for being anything less than vegetarians who ride their bikes and don't use fossil fuels, the target audience will not IDENTIFY with the environmentalist or the alternative model they are offering. People need small, tangible steps, which they're taking, though they are coming at a pace far too slow to stop all damage. This is in large part due to the anti-regulatory (Chicago School of Economics) viewpoint that predominates. Still, if you want worse, look back at 1880s America. Change and hope for a better world are possible, unless we just give up and abandon the possibility of change, which is tantamount to letting evil win.
Seems to me the population is growing where humanity is already stressed to its survival limits - Africa and Asia - and among its poorest populations. Birth rates in the USA and Europe are near or below ZPG rates. So if you want to halt population growth you've got to do it in regions where illiteracy, superstition, distrust of science, and religious influence hold even more sway over the populace than in the USA. This means the first world has to interfere in the second and third world, a tactic we have seen never really works. How can we keep the third world from drowning in their own offspring? Education is the only answer I can see, but it is a long term solution. And since it is always a low priority, I don't see it helping anytime soon. What ZPG solutions do you adherents have?
"Fertilizer use has much more to do with how we produce and distribute food (i.e. capitalism), then it does with how many people are on the planet."
Capitalism and maldistribution and greed all contribute to the problem but under ANY system the earth has limits. And we are well beyond them, as is evidenced all around us. Open up your eyes and see the environmental degradation, the wacky weather, the species extinctions, the obscene cost of housing, the conflicts over diminishing resources, the hunger and starvation, etc. How can it be good to keep adding more and more people to the mix? We have to stop population growth sometime. When do you propose we do it? Why not NOW?
Dear wilmoor-
You said:
"Planet Earth will begin the healing process, first by getting rid of all (most) signs of humankind having been here."
God I hope not. Humankind has a much longer track record of not killing the planet, not poisoning everything, than it has of doing so. Civilized humankind is roughly only 12,000 years old. Humankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Also, there are still indigenous tribal cultures struglling to survive us. I just bring this up because I don't want to dishonor the vast majority of humankind that knew how to live in the world. I don't want to be dismissive of those who I'm sure enjoyed life just as much as any critter that ever walked, swam, flew, breathed, ate, shit, procreated and died.
Sometimes it seems that we'd rather die than give up our TV's, cars, Big Macs(or veggie burgers( oh find me a vegan meal in Inuit country please?)), for perhaps a way of life that tribal people knew/know and have enjoyed for a hell of a lot longer than us.
Dear michaelc-
You said:
"We humans are not killing the planet. Gaia will survive."
This sounds like existentialist speculation. My response would be, "Whatever helps ya sleep at night." While it is comforting to believe it'll all work out in the end, that kinda takes the responsiblity away.
Actually, I believe it will all work out too. But, my instincts are to fight also. I mean, if I smashed yer hand with a hammer, how valuable would it be to you if I said, "Don't worry. Gaia will survive."? Well that's what's happening to the oceans right now. They're being hammered. I should think youd do everything in your power to stop me hammering yer hand.
The pain is real. The pain is now.
As to the "we humans are not killing the planet", as Derrick Jensen says,"Give me a threshold. What will it take for you to fight back? What will it take for you to called it apocalypse? 90% of large fish gone? 200 species extinct each day? Deforestation? Top soil depletion? Mountain tops blown to bits? Nuclear power plant accidents?" If this is not killing the planet what would you call it?
As long as we are able to tell ouselves it's okay, or not that bad even, we will do nothing.
Thanks folks,
-pUnk
"Yes, Garvey, overpopulation IS a very big part of the problem. Chemical fertilizers are another. Without overpopulation, there would be no need for the fertilizers. There is more to life than food, and there is more to overpopulation than aggregate food supply."
Fertilizers are used to get a larger yield of food. Its users (from small farmers to multi-nationals) could careless if each apple it produces goes to a different person, or if one person buys all their apples. Fertilizer use has much more to do with how we produce and distribute food (i.e. capitalism), then it does with how many people are on the planet.
So, without CAPITALISM there would be no need for [industrial] fertilizers (as people would produce for subsistence and perhaps barter any surplus).
We humans are not killing the planet. Gaia will survive. We won't - and neither will a lot of species that we are impacting. Teachur - your post is wonderful. I teach similar things. I will soon be back afloat in a sailboat [no engine save for electrical] all run on solar power and wind power. I don't eat meat. If everyone put their actions where all these mouths are, and if all of us demonstrate to our neighbors that you don't need junk food and junk lives to be happy, we could maybe save some of the species. Most are doomed, I think. Some are worth saving. This is not a republican problem. They are simply the outgrowth of consumerism. It is a problem of all people, everywhere, being tooo greedy for all the wrong things. It is a problem of the overpowering influence of television on human minds. Throw out your television. Oh, say many, it can be a useful tool. Bullshit. Throw it out. Your life will get a whole lot better almost immediately, and the corporations will have one less family in their pockets.
Can we throw Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz,and Bush into the Dead zone? Let the Earth get the revenge on them for their deregularization of our laws that protect our environment! We would be rid of them once and for all.
Humans are killing the planet, and themselves, very-slowly in planet time, very fast in human time. And when we're all dead, or at least the majority of us, Planet Earth will begin the healing process, first by getting rid of all (most) signs of humankind having been here.
"Among other ways, nature is trying to get rid of our excess population by cutting off our food supply."
I disagree. This has very little to do with nature. "Fertilizer and sewage" has little to do with natural cycles. Humans are poisoning the planet. The planet is being killed by humans. I doubt nature would willingy kill over 200 species a day just to starve humans. Nature does not view non-human life as a human "food source" only.
This view seems to imply that sea life is nothing more than something for humans to eat.
But I think more realistically, non-human life is more in touch with community as praxis than civilized humans ever can be.
We have forgotten our place in nature and see ourselves as seperate from, even above it's law. We forget that we are animals too.
Thank you.
pUnk
ps. this has nothing to do with nations. It is agriculture and other pollutant bi-products of civilization that have been destroying healthy land bases since the days of the so-called "fertile crescent". The cradle of civilization. One can be as angry as one likes at one nation or the next. But it's all the same mentality - convert the living to the dead.
wasnt there something written in Revelations about the dead rising?
I guess if the Gulf is already dead, then there should be no concerns about drilling.
Yes, Garvey, overpopulation IS a very big part of the problem. Chemical fertilizers are another. Without overpopulation, there would be no need for the fertilizers. There is more to life than food, and there is more to overpopulation than aggregate food supply.
The "dead zone" is certainly nothing new. There are over 300 of them around the world, so it's not just the short-sighted Americans. It IS, however, symbolic of the thoughtlessness of modern humans.
Why have we had to eradicate 90% of ocean life to make us pay attention to the rape of the oceans? Why do people still buy gas at ExxonMobil stations when they just posted the highest corporate profits in history AGAIN, while we peons struggle to fill our gas tanks? Why did farmers in the Midwest ignore complaints from practically every corner since the 1970's about all the chemicals they were putting into the environment (until that poison started affecting their OWN children, that is)? Now they're using even more, thanks to agribusiness.
Even with the grimness of food shortages (American,"WHAT food shortage?), genetically modified Frankenfoods, the patenting of life itself (MADNESS!!!!), we can still do positive things in our lives.
Most of all: PAY ATTENTION! Get your head out of the electronic drugs you're so addicted to and start using them to become informed. Learn to take care of yourself and your family. Start learning to grow simple things to get back into an understanding of the reality of living things. Learn to take care of yourself and loved ones WITHOUT electricity and your normal supply lines (try it sometime.And before you ask, yes I have done all these things and much more). Attend Preparedness Seminars without feeling you're some kind of kook. Buy books to educate yourself and keep them for reference.
But most of all--keep your mind clear and your heart strong; develop an intentional "family" of like-minded folks who are willing to learn from and teach each other. Go to the Red Cross and get all their brochures on preparedness (they're excellent) and DO what they say. DON'T just talk about it--DO IT--NOW!!!
Find those who have empowered themselves and learn to empower SELF! (and have fun doing all this, which sounds crazy, I know, but it can be.I've taught thousands of folks and we have FUN doing it!)
wcdevins-- Ain't it a shame how people are always so ready to see the down side?
The way I look at it, Mother Nature is giving us the gift of an ideal site to dispose of our once & future nuclear waste!
One more very direct consequence of failed farm policy, especially regarding biofuels.
ezeflyer is right about cutting off the food supply. Of course, fat ass Americans will be okay since we only spend 15% of our income on food. Americans won't starve, but not so in much of the world. We've taken food off the market by subsidizing food burning (biofuel) amd thereby increasing food costs while destroying fisheries in the process.
this zone of death seeping out from the us is a metaphor for all the death and disease that is the one true export of this hateful, immoral sorry excuse of a republic
the citizens need to wake up and take some action before they are herded off to the fema prison camps
god knows there are enough peasant latinos ready to step in to take your place
you will hardly be missed
maybe china would be interested in leading a coalition of peaceful nations and finally take on this cancer that is the us
the us only makes war on defenseless nations like iraq and afghanistan but would be scared shitless to get into a real fight against china and russia
this gutless bully restricts itself to the panamas, guatemalas, and the grenadas
they got their asses kicked in vietnam, are losing in iraq against unorganized irregulars
so much for the imperial army
they would piss themselves and run home if faced by a real enemy
cowards and bullies are like that
Nothin' to see here. Just another natural process in no way influenced by man. Just the way the world has always worked. Pay no nevermind to that liberal nitrogen build-up baloney; it's just another lefty way of undercutting our economy and blaming agro-business. Growing corn to make ethanol for our Hummers until we can start drilling in ANWAR is the patriotic American thing to do. I don't even like shrimp anyway, so who cares?
Aggregate food production continues to outpace population growth.
The global population growth rate is decreasing (though much of the decrease is due to increased death rates).
Source:
Jim Peron, "Exploding Population Myths," Fraser Forum, October 1995, Fraser Institute
The median number of children born to any given woman has decreased from approx. 5 (in the 1950s) to 2.7 in the 1990s. (source: davidsuzuki.org).
Given these trends, is the problem really overpopulation? Or, is the problem one of overcrowding, overconsumption (and the distribution of that consumption)?
Soon the Gulf dead zone will be as large as the one between a Republican's ears.
Bend over and kiss it goodbye!
Save the world! Move the Dead Zone to the Red States.
Among other ways, nature is trying to get rid of our excess population by cutting off our food supply