'Dead zones' - coming to a coast near you
The 'dead zone' that's making life difficult in Chesapeake Bay for blue crabs, fish and shellfish has plenty of company, it seems. A new study led by a Virginia marine scientist reports a one-third increase worldwide over the last 12 years in the number of such dead spots on the sea bottom - where there's too little oxygen in the water for most fish and shellfish.
The study published in the Aug. 15 issue of Science found 405 dead zones in coastal waters globally. The total sea bottom deprived of life-sustaining oxygen is about 95,000 square miles - roughly the size of New Zealand.
The authors, Robert Diaz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Swedish researcher Rutger Rosenberg, say dead zones are the "key stressor" in coastal waters, on a par with overfishing, habitat loss and toxic algae blooms.
The biggest dead zone in this country is in the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Missisisippi River, the report notes. The one in the Chesapeake forms every summer and spreads over up to 40 percent of the main bay's bottom.
Dead zones form when too many nutrients - nitrogen and phosphorus - get into the water and feed algae blooms. The massive growths of tiny water-borne plants suck the oxygen out of the water after they die and sink to the bottom, where they decompose. The nutrients come from fertilizer and human and animal wastes getting into the water, along with fallout from burning coal, oil and gasoline.
Dead zones were once rare, the researchers say. The first one in the Chesapeake, for instance, was reported in the 1930s. Go here to see a Google map showing the zones around the world.


Comments
We are doomed by our way of lazy thinking. Humanity does not care enough to save nature, thinking wrongly that they can postpone corrective action and reverse the damage at the last minute, which will unfortunately be THE LAST minute. There is a point of no return.
Posted by: Robert | August 15, 2008 11:59 AM
Your wrath comes to destroy those who destroy the earth - Revelation 11
Posted by: Sons of Thunder | August 15, 2008 12:18 PM
Yet, people continue to think they need a perfect green lawn free from those pesky flowers called dandylions. Screw the Jones's and stop fertilizing/spraying/mowing!
Posted by: Joe | August 15, 2008 12:18 PM
Why should humanity care at all? We didn't create life, or earth. I just don't care. We exist, and it doesn't seem to be our fault. The environmentalist way is to just reduce demand on resources etc. Ultimately the only way to do this is to reduce the population to a more earth friendly level. We're dead either way, but I know for sure that I would rather succumb to earth and it's natural causal tendencies than to the whims of other people and their flawed ideologies. So who really cares? Not me. Life is competition, better to prepare for the fight than to prepare for the death, since death is inevitable, but living is a choice. Ultimately, humanity will not fail, but freedom of choice may falter before the correction.
Posted by: X | August 15, 2008 12:24 PM
Did you ever stop to think that nature does not care enough to save us, either?
Posted by: x | August 15, 2008 12:26 PM
Bush did it. Or I should say bush didn't do it. Let me clarify. As we approach what I believe will be known as the 11th our, the world hasn't changed. Bush the world leader has failed us and many believe perhaps rightly that we are all doomed. In many respects the current bush administration is not at fault. If you play with fire your going to get burned and unfortunately the rest of the world got burnt. Lesson....don't play that game and don't feed the animals....next time if there is a next time the rest of the world has to change the rules of this very destructive game and remove the players who can not see that this path is doomed and who insist to keep playing. We all went away from god really and this from an atheist. My god is free will and instinct. Oh the opposable thumb how much wrath you have created
Posted by: dave kentra | August 15, 2008 12:39 PM
We would be pleased to relieve the Bay area of 100,000 tons of poultry litter and human waste per year. We are capable of turning it into clean, renewable electrical energy and heat for local processes.
Our previous studies have indicated that removal of this volume of nutrients from the watershed should have significant impact on water quality.
If the residents, industry and government desire such a project we would be happy to comply.
www.Biotenpower.com
Posted by: Neal Van Milligen | August 15, 2008 12:40 PM
Nature should save us?? We destroy nature and you still say that it should, somehow, save us from the danger we ourselves created? How old are you?
Posted by: Luiz de Andrade | August 15, 2008 12:48 PM
Revelation 8:9 KJV "And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed."
Posted by: Jeremy | August 15, 2008 12:53 PM
X is correct - only a reduction in human population can effectively address these issues, but X is also wrong that we didn't create life. His/her parents didn't create him/her? Ultimately, humanity will fail if we continue to think and believe as X describes. Try www.npg.org
Posted by: Paul from New York | August 15, 2008 12:53 PM
Why should we care? Because these types of events trickle back up. I like eating fish. If dead zones swallow the oceans, I don't get to eat fish any more. That's the result of externalities generated by farmers and coal plants inhibiting my ability to eat fish (the global population gets 20% of its protein from fish). Cosmetic industries lose their access to seaweed, which is worth $400M/year to them.
Added to these direct costs is the indirect costs of extinction higher up the food chain. Birds, grizzly bears, and myriad other non-aquatic animals depend on fish. These animals also provide valuable economic services, which we lose if they go extinct. Narrowminded people often lose sight of the tremendous costs imposed on others by the ecologically irresponsible. Farmers using too much fertilizer don't have to pay for the extra costs imposed by their destruction of the oceans and watersheds, but you know who picks up the dime eventually: you and me, the taxpayers. I'd rather the farmers foot their part of the bill up front, and pass a price increase on to me in the cost of meat. Plus sustainably grown beef straight up tastes better.
There are definitely enough resources on Earth to sustain the current population, we just need to be smarter about using them. Just because we currently use resources in a manner that causes them to be depleted doesn't mean we couldn't use sustainable practices instead. It might mean eating 2000 calories a day (the doctor recommended intake) instead of 3600 calories (the average US intake), but it's very, very doable.
I agree that freedom of choice is important, and we need to choose things like sustainable agriculture before we lose that freedom and all end up eating nasty tofu grown in vats.
Posted by: Ian | August 15, 2008 12:58 PM
Well said, X...very well said. I have spent my life working in paid positions to save the enviroment because the money is good and the work rewarding. But do I care if I throw a plastic bottle in the trash or spray some chemicals on my lawn? Not at all. We didn't start the fire and we sure can't put it out. Live life and enjoy freedom while it still exsists.
Posted by: T | August 15, 2008 12:59 PM
On a good note you are making oil for future generations.
As the algae dies and sinks, year after year you are starting the process of making an oil field correct?
Posted by: J Rojas | August 15, 2008 1:47 PM
"Why should humanity care at all? We didn't create life, or earth. I just don't care. We exist, and it doesn't seem to be our fault." ...etc.
Well Well. Your view is so narrow and excludes our responsibility for all this.
How about this. Take all your trash your
personal human waste/ excrement and and leave it in your backyard without giving any attention to it. The next real leaders in the world are going to address these issues in a real way and the people are going to listen to them WAKE UP
Posted by: james thomas | August 15, 2008 1:58 PM
Everyone who writes here selfishly is right! Everyone else who take the tree hugging approach is in denial. Cause the bottom line is that no human functions for reasons other then selfishness. Even if you are doing a totally charitable dead you are doing it ultimately because it makes YOU feel good, which is selfish . . . that means you tree huger!
Ian, the guy who likes eating fish also has a good argument about long terms effects. He also doesn't try to deny that his motivation is selfish which is spot on.
In the long run we're all just spec in the grand scheme of things. So be thankful you're here long enough to enjoy what is around.
Posted by: X Rocks! | August 15, 2008 2:35 PM