Environmental News Item

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH

/science/08/04/environment.deadzone.reut/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/04/environment.deadzone.reut/index.html)

[koolking1]

perhaps this explains the

huge number of sharks in Tampa Bay as well. When I lived there I used to love going to the beach and swimming (warm

water, yes!!!) but every now and again I would get these ear aches and sore throats from the water - it's a damn

shame.

[DrSmellThis]

The size of that completely

dead, oxygenless zone doesn't speak well for the rest of the Gulf, which must be extremely contaminated. When I was

a kid we had a house in Clearwater, Fla., and I loved eating the seafood there. Now you'd have to think twice about

eating seafood caught anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico, huh? But don't worry, it's not really affecting our

food supply! :sick:

[koolking1]

I think I've tasted shrimp

from most waters of the earth and there is none better in my opinion than Gulf Coast shrimp, reputedly the high

iodine content of said shrimp is what makes them so good. You rarely see them at the supermarkets here in New

England. I do buy them when I see them but their general unavailability up here may be keeping me healthy.

[a.k.a.]

We're doomed.

[DrSmellThis]

Show of hands: Who

thinks the GOM is the only section of ocean with this kind of problem? Who would like to do the math of what is

happening? Saltwater fish is soon to become an ex-food, for one thing.

It is extremely important to

have earth friendly leaders be in power now, even more important than having leaders with good foreign and

domestic policies!

Many anti-environmentalist "conservatives" (quotes indicate deeply ironic construct) are

getting even more rigid in their thinking; due to the war and it's primitive emotions; the unfathomable power of

human denial; lies from our politicians; and media deception on this issue. So called conservatives never even bring

this stuff up, proving they aren't very concerned about it; and proving that political affiliation can and does

destroy mental integrity. So for humanity to have a chance, those who favor corporate polluter freedoms and status

quo energy policies need to be marginalized relatively quickly; or die off and be replaced.

When our planet's

oceans are rapidly losing one of their abilities to support life, and we sit watching -- stone faced -- what does

that suggest about us? Are we as a species just tired of living? There may well be an unconscious death wish

in our cultural psyche that we are not dealing with. We are afraid of letting go of our lifestyles,

boundaries against others; of cooperating with foreigners, of change, of taking responsibility and looking at

ourselves -- of something!

I humbly implore any conservatives reading this to please consider revising your

thinking about the world to be consistent with the realities of 21st Century Earth! Your mindset is currently

harming yourselves and others. Unfortunately, no one can change your minds; except you.

[koolking1]

the Gulf is my pet peeve

but there's other disasters - the Aral Sea comes readily to mind. Personally, I think it's going to take a very

major problem within the USA itself (IE: people dying in droves - Love Canal was too much of a slow process) before

the greedy take notice and they won't take notice until we make them.

[belgareth]

DST,

Not to minimize the

terrible things we are doing to this planet or the politics involved but there are several things left out of that

article. The dead zone in the gulf has been around far longer than nitrite fertilizers. I first heard about the dead

zone in a science article about 15-20 years ago. The author discussed reports dating back to the 1730's of a dead

zone there. It was not the magnitude it is now but it was there. He was urging study then of both the dead zone and

the ramifications of the increased nutrients released into the sea as the plankton was dispersed by ocean currents

after the fall die off. Plankton are at the bottom of the food chain and provide a rich source of nutrients to a

wide range of sea life. The recent article is more than a little one sided and alarmist.

With all due respect

intended, the liberals are using ecological issues as a springboard and, the same as the conservatives do, are

exaggerating many of the issues. Nothing new here and I am not advocating unlimited exploitation of our environment.

Frankly, when I went to the gulf for the first time in many years I was disgusted by the degree of pollution. All I

am asking is for all the honest facts to be published instead of, like so many other environmental issues, only a

biased and one sided argument designed to demonize the opposition.

[koolking1]

Anyone who grew up in

Niagara Falls like I did doesn't care about the politics of pollution, we only care about living in a safe/healthy

environment. The companies there that polluted were supported in one way or another by both the Dems and the Reps.

We all lost; we're all still losing; it's just that some of us live in great mansions and others of us don't.

Perhaps you have heard this: "The meek shall inherit the earth, or, what little is left of it".

[belgareth]

The companies

there that polluted were supported in one way or another by both the Dems and the Reps. We all lost; we're all

still losing; it's just that some of us live in great mansions and others of us don't.
That's my

point! It's not any one party, its an attitude and it is endemic in our society. "It isn't our fault, it's

their's. They're the evil ones." It's all pure bullshit. The fact is that it is all of us who allow it to go on

while throwing recriminations back and forth and lying about who is at fault. We can't even agree on what the

frippin' problems are because we are so busy exagerating our claims to make the other side look bad.

So what

happens? Matters continue to get worse because nobody is really interested in a solution, only in making sure their

side wins.

[koolking1]

Belgareth, that's just

the way it is, isn't it. It's too fffffing bad. Some of us can only make a small difference, it's going to take

all of us. My hat's off to you!!!

[belgareth]

Belgareth,

that's just the way it is, isn't it. It's too fffffing bad. Some of us can only make a small difference, it's

going to take all of us. My hat's off to you!!!
Koolking,

Thank you. It's nice to hear from somebody

that sees reality. So, maybe I'm not the only Fool on the Hill?:frustrate

[DrSmellThis]

Belgareth, I don't get how

it's constructive or helpful to anyone to label this expression of concern as "liberal" politics. That is both a

negative (both culturally and in your collected posting) and innaccurate label. When you characterize this concern

as liberal politics, that thought reduces the concern to "nothing", even though you say you don't want to minimize

things. For what it's worth, I identify in every case of every issue, and every post in the forum, with something

larger than politics. I've never identified with a political party. For that matter, most people with environmental

concerns don't call themselves "liberals", in my experience. I think "liberal" is largely a conservative term. But

many "conservatives" label themselves as such gladly. I'm assuming it's a sign of respect to call them what they

prefer to call themselves. Otherwise I'd drop that label too.

With all due respect, you seem to be looking at

almost every current events issue posted here recently as primarily an "anti-two party" issue, so you end up

attending to "liberals" as much as issues. Could you be exaggerating, pidgeonholing and mischaracterising

environmental concerns as something like, "those damn liberal manipulations again," in service of your own political

views? Otherwise, where on earth are you getting the idea that the Reuters article distorted and neglected facts?

Reuters is the same news service used by the Wall Street Journal and other consevative newspapers.

The dead

zone was first noted in about 1970, and has since been attributed to fertilizers first used in 1930. I haven't seen

anything suggesting a significantly large Dead Zone before then. Concentrations of nitrate and phosphate in the

lower Mississippi have increased proportionately to levels of use of fertilizers by agriculture since the 1960s,

when fertilizer use increased by over two million metric tons per year. Regarding recent trends, the dead zone has

doubled in size since 1993, but was even larger in 1999 at its peak of around 7800 square miles.

Has the food

supply been affected? Consider that one half of the shellfish producing areas along the gulf coast have

either been permanently closed or declared indefinitely off-limits by health officials as a result of pollution. The

Gulf is responsible for 40% of the seafood consumed in the US. Unfortunately, denial is indeed in full force.

Nine out of ten polled residents of the Mississippi Basin were unaware that the Dead Zone problem exists.

Incidentally, we're seeing a similar thing happen in Oregon with salmon, which until recently was the food staple

of the Pacific Northwest.

This is not about politics. Registered Democrats are guilty too, and often

hypocritical about the environment; but in general less so. That's also just the way it is, sir. Conservatives

really don't talk about the environment much. That is a fact, not demonization, or "bullshit". People who call

themselves conservatives need to suck it up and look at the environmental situation. The scientific evidence

supporting the reasonableness of being "alarmed" is absolutely overwhelming from every angle! Alarmist ~

scientist -- where the environment is concerned.

Additional

references:
http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.htm

l (http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html)
http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envir

obio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm (http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm)

[belgareth]

Doc,

The dead zone in the

gulf was first reported by fishermen in the 18th century. They discovered that during the summer months there were

places in the gulf where you could not catch any fish. By their somewhat vague reports it is guestimated that the

dead zone was much smaller then.

It has grown and it is cause for deep concern but the article is misleading.

The first I saw of it was at least 15 years ago in a scientific article discussing the whys and why-nots of it in

scientific terms. Not just the bare fact of its existance and the short term impact on the gulf but the long term

ramifications. It was not intended to scare people, it was intended to open discussion. Unfortunately, it failed at

that.

The tone of your post was that the dead zone is another reason to get the conservatives out of office,

that was what you said and that is what I was addressing. You made it a political point, I only followed your lead.

Koolking is right in stating that the both the democrats and republicans have supported polluters and they both

continue to point the finger at the other side.

In my case, you have the cause and effect backwards. This is

just another example of what has turned me away from party politics and created my deep distrust for all claims made

by both sides of the environmental debate. I personally don't give a frip what party you or anybody else is on but

am getting sick of seeing valid, even grave issues used as political tools instead of addressing the issues. It is

bullshit when we allow our so-called leaders to play these games while our planet is slowly made uninhabitable. It

is also bullshit when so-called scientists and research is used to further political agendas. All sides are guilty

of that time and again. It's a sad state when you have to spend hours researching any claim just so you can get an

inkling of who is lying about or exaggerating what.

[DrSmellThis]

Yeah Bel, I still don't see how the current posted article is alarmist or misleading. I think

the article seriously underestimates (or "misunderestimates", as Bush says ;)) the danger our oceans are in -- that

danger being dying. There are an awful lot of Dead Zones globally, and the amount of plastic in our oceans is

an even bigger problem. Such "more alarmist" aspects weren't mentioned in the article; nor was the effect on

fishing. This is not a natural phenomenon like the relatively miniscule natural historic dead zone you noted

(nothing near 7000 square miles), even if it appeared in the same general vicinity during some other cycle.

"Natural", typically less extreme dead zones can be caused by cold, nutrient-dense water rising from the ocean floor

due to wind conditions and the earth's rotation. Those aren't quite so devoid of oxygen. This one is caused

primarily by nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides, and the accompanying algae that die off, decompose, and further

deplete oxygen. On the other hand, scientists now think that global warming, (with its atmospheric and wind changes,

and bigger land vs. sea temperature differential) also contributes to dead zones, even ones that otherwise appear

"natural". So there are multiple things humans do to cause them, not just fertilizers.

BTW, if political talk

frustrates you, you're in for a world o' hurt right now, with the most important election in the recent history of

the world looming on the horizon. There is a time and a place for politics -- now. (That is not to say the

above concerns can be fairly called mere politics, distorted, or 'liberal'.) I'm OK with being called

"anti-right wing". Right-wingers like Bush do tend to support environmentally destructive policies, for

political/monetary reasons. Facts are facts. It would be silly to think that focusing on substantive issues like

dead zones in the context of an appropriate, necessary political discussion before an election weakens either the

political talk (it strengthens it), or even the discussion of those specific issues. On the contrary, it would be

intellectually dishonest to exclude politics from this discussion; to treat the political aspect as somehow

artificially independent. There is no environmental issue that isn't also a political issue. It is good for those

who fashion themselves as apolitical to keep in mind that there is no such thing as a neutral discussion anyway. I

do get and appreciate your point about stupid, annoying politicians who politicize everything to the max

regardless of context, though. It's all somewhat relative, and dependent on focus, priorities, nested contexts, and

one's concept of "politics".

***

So how's the Dead Zone in your neighborhood doing?

There are at

least 30 dead zones in various ocean waters, such as off the Pacific coast of South America and the Atlantic coast

of southern Africa. Here off the coast of Oregon, we just recently "discovered" our dead zone in 2002, located sort

of parallel to the span (but longer) between Salem and Eugene where Bruce lives. Though less than 1000 square miles,

it's appeared every year so far since then, and hurting coastal Dungeoness crab fishing. An unusual number of dead

fish are washing up on beaches as well. Marine biologists here at Oregon Health Sciences University who are closely

monitoring the phenomenon suspect it is a more or less permanent shift in ocean conditions, rather than any natural

or temporary cycle, due to the small statistical odds of observing this all of a sudden every year.

[DrSmellThis]

Somebody at CNN today wrote

about the Oregon Dead Zone:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08

/13/oceandeadz.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/13/oceandeadz.ap/index.html)

[DrSmellThis]

So our ocean food is in

trouble. What about fresh water?



http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/sci

ence/08/25/bc.fish.pollution.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/25/bc.fish.pollution.ap/index.html)

Could humans let water cease to become a source of food? Might

leadership, or lack thereof, be an important factor in how all this turns out?

[belgareth]

The point was and still is that

you are using environmental damage as an excuse to get the republicans out of office. The reality is that the

democrats aren't likely to do much more for the environment. They talk and make rules but the net effect is about

the same, both parties are supported by those whose interests are directly affected by pollution rules. They'll

continue to make and enforce rules based on their pockets.

We are destroying our environment while people argue

the merits of two parties who have both demonstrated that they will continue to do virtually nothing to protect the

environment other than posture.

[Mtnjim]

The point was and

still is that you are using environmental damage as an excuse to get the republicans out of office. The reality is

that the democrats aren't likely to do much more for the environment. They talk and make rules but the net effect

is about the same, both parties are supported by those whose interests are directly affected by pollution

rules....

As much as I dislike the current administration, we can't always say only the Democrats

take care of the environment and the Republicans destroy it. After all, it was a Republican (Nixon) who created the

EPA!

[belgareth]

As much as I

dislike the current administration, we can't always say only the Democrats take care of the environment and the

Republicans destroy it. After all, it was a Republican (Nixon) who created the EPA!
The current

administration is pretty bad but I don't believe Kerry would be any better. They are opposite sides of the same

coin.

[DrSmellThis]

Belgareth, you are the one

stuck making a political point -- the same one, over and over. Your repeated implications that I am not concerned

about the environment (or other world issues) but only want Bush out are a little bit offensive, frankly. How

superficial do you think I am? The acute state of the world is the only reason it is necessary to care about

politics right now, but it is a powerfully sufficient one. Though historically independent and politically

openminded, I'd now like Bush out; for good reasons that have almost nothing to do with two party politics.

Deal. I am participating in my political system.

If you try to derail efforts to get this maximally corrupt

politician out of office everywhere you see them, what great mission are you accomplishing? Anyone who thinks

leadership is irrelevant to the environment, or that this election is irrelevant, does not recognize the

acuity of the world situation. And regardless of party affiliation, Kerry is enormously different from Bush on the

environment! Who could suggest otherwise? To say the parties aren't near as different as historically supposed is

reasonable. To say there's no significant difference between the candidates, especially on this issue, is

silly, black and white extremism. There is no reason to believe such a thing. The obvious fact that both parties are

way too influenced by special interests is relatively trivial right now, through November. Like it or not, there are

two options right now, Bush or Kerry.

[DrSmellThis]

As much as I

dislike the current administration, we can't always say only the Democrats take care of the environment and the

Republicans destroy it. No one is saying that here.

[belgareth]

Belgareth,

you are the one stuck making a political point -- the same one, over and over. Your repeated implications that I am

not concerned about the environment (or other world issues) but only want Bush out are a little bit offensive,

frankly. How superficial do you think I am? The acute state of the world is the only reason it is necessary

to care about politics right now, but it is a powerfully sufficient one. Though historically independent and

politically openminded, I'd now like Bush out; for good reasons that have almost nothing to do with two

party politics. Deal. I am participating in my political system.

If you try to derail efforts to get this

maximally corrupt politician out of office everywhere you see them, what great mission are you accomplishing? Anyone

who thinks leadership is irrelevant to the environment, or that this election is irrelevant, does not

recognize the acuity of the world situation. Regardless of party affiliation, Kerry is enourmously different from

Bush on the environment! Who could suggest otherwise? To say the parties aren't near as different as historically

supposed is reasonable. To say there's no significant difference between the candidates, especially on this

issue, is silly black and white extremism. There is no reason to believe such a thing. The obvious fact that both

parties are way too influenced by special interests is relatively trivial right now, through November. Like it or

not, there are two options right now, Bush or Kerry.
You misinterpret me. I never said or meant to imply

that you don't care about the environment. I believe you do but disagree with your solution to the problem. I also

do not believe Kerry would be any better than Bush or Clinton or Bush senior. I don't like that there are only two

bad choices and I didn't like it in the last election either. My goal is to continue to point out that we need to

make a bigger change than swapping one corrupt politician for another and that is exactly what we are doing. Call it

extremist if you like but voting for what you hope is the lesser of two evils is always a losing proposition. We

need to change the way we are doing things if we are to ever put an end to the continuing corruption and apathy

towards the environment that only seems to get worse with each election. You may be able to swallow the crappy

choices we have but I can't!

[DrSmellThis]

It's illogical to think you

disagree with "my solution" because I haven't talked about one. I've merely identified some problems,

unfortunately. Getting someone with a horrendous environmental record out of the driver's seat, someone who clearly

does not care, is just a preliminary step in the big picture; not a solution. Our oceans will still be dying in

January, when Kerry would take office. Voting for the best available candidate is being a good citizen. Now you're

criticizing those who vote?

[belgareth]

Now you're

criticizing those who vote?
Of course not, that's absurd. I am criticising the choices we have, the

choices we allow to be rammed down our throats. I am frightened that we are going to blithely continue along our

merry way allowing this to continue until our world is dead or nearly so. Each and every one of us has to work to

put a stop to it and simply voting for the lesser of two evils is not a move in the right direction, it's just

business as usual.

Didn't you say it was important to have earth friendly leaders in place? Do you honestly

believe Kerry is going to fight against those who helped him get elected? Maybe you were right when you suggested

that our society has a death wish. I don't personally and don't believe that by continuing the way we are going

that the real, critical problems are going to be addressed. As others have pointed out in this thread, the

republicans have done things for the environment and the democrats have done things to harm it. The issue is not

clear cut nor is it a party issue. It's a problem with the system itself that we need to fix if we are going to

stop destroying our world.

I'd like to continue this debate but would appreciate if you would keep the personal

attacks out of it. Let's stick to the issues instead of trying to make it a personal thing, ok?

[DrSmellThis]

What are you talking about

with getting personal? I will not stop responding to statements I find to be unfair attacks, such as that I have

merely been "using environmental damage as an excuse to get the republicans out of office"; by remarking that they

are offensive. You genuinely sounded like you might be down on voting in that post. I didn't know. I'm glad

you're not. But from your responses, I can't tell what your central point of contention really is. I've never

said anything black and white about Democrats and Republicans, or been anything but critical of the corporate system

that puts leaders in place. All that is presumed true underneath everything I say, so I am totally confused

why you would bring up an issue that we agree on as if it's a point of contention. It is irrelevant right now. The

cold fact is that having Kerry in buys the planet a bit more time as compared to Bush -- time that might be used to

fix the system.

Plus, you are acting as if Bush is a mere typical Republican, and he is not. The point isn't

that he is a Republican at all. He is super duper corrupt! Why do you think he spent a half hour

reading at the school and completing a photo OP before first attending to the devastating suprise attack on

our country?? OMG. That would be utterly psychologically impossible unless he was severely corrupt(or

severely mentally incapacitated, like with a stroke)! There is no third scenario! That is a professional opinion you

can take to the bank. Believe me, I wouldn't be nearly this passionate if we were talking about a Jerry Ford, Bob

Dole, Jack Kemp, or Colin Powell. I've nothing against people who believe in certain classic republican principles

like fiscal conservatism and federalism.

Kerry is closer to a typical Democrat, but he doesn't sound as bad

that way as I expected him to be, so far -- from his words. Everything he says could be a lie, though I doubt

it; but I've no control over that for the time being.

But even on your dimension, Bush is way more beholden to

nasty corporations than is Kerry. When they both came to Portland to campaign last week, Kerry had a huge, open

public rally downtown on the river and talked to tens of thousands of people, while Bush spoke in a top secret

location open only to business leaders and select loyalists.

The Sierra club, and every other environmental and

peace organization are feverishly working to get Kerry elected. I have no problem with him returning some favors to

them, since we all share some of those "special interests" at this moment. I'd rather be beholden to who Kerry is

than who Bush is.

[belgareth]

Ok, I surrender. You and I are

never going to agree and I doubt that I have enough words to express how badly this system and the attitude I see

every day frightens me. To say that the system is broken is an understatement. To continue with the same old push

and pull between parties with only their self interests at heart is disappointing. Neither side is interested in

solving the problems.

[DrSmellThis]

I'm happy to cordially "agree

to disagree" on something, good sir, but I'm still genuinely confused. What exactly was the point of disagreement?

Is it, say, that I think there are sometimes crucial differences on issues between candidates that happen to be from

opposite parties and you don't? In other words, does the mere fact that people belong to parties mean there can be

no practically relevant differences among them: They are "party members", and that's all we need to know? Am I

"anti-party" in believing the current system is anti-democratic, but just not "anti-party enough"? Do you have some

solution in mind that I'm supposed to disagree with? I'm all ears. How do we get from here to where you want to go

without things getting irreparably bad in the meantime? Or are things already so irreparably bad, we should just

"off ourselves" or take drugs all day? Or is it that you've examined both candidates' positions in detail and

determined they are practically the same in those details? If so, how are they the same, other than coming from the

same political system? :confused: If I said I agreed with you that neither party really cares about true solutions,

which I do in most respects, would that help something? What if I agreed we need to change ourselves, as we are all

responsible? What if I promised to vote for Belgareth in 2008, and to wash your limo? ;)

***
BTW, did you see

The Corporation? I bet that one would get a rise out of you! If you haven't, please go see that movie, which

looks toward some of the core problems in the current system -- probably some of the same ones you have in mind.

Then we might have more common ground from which to talk about real, if partial, solutions; such as reforming basic

corporate law (e.g, the charter process and charters themselves). I don't think logical alternatives are that hard

to identify, if you go back to the basic, original ideas and processes that gave rise to corporations; and recognize

how what we see today is a logical outcome of them.