|
Post by Rich Fisher on Jun 12, 2007 12:00:10 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 12, 2007 12:26:47 GMT -4
I'm sure I'll lose more karma for this, but here goes anyway... from the linked article: "The report by the federal-state agency charged with monitoring bay restoration also predicted a "moderate-to-high" chance of a harmful algae bloom early this summer in the Potomac River, with the bloom stretching 10 miles to 20 miles. Algae blooms can cause beach closures or fish kills, such as the one seen last week in Baltimore's Inner Harbor." I highlighted that paragraph because, in my opinion, it is indicative of the type of thinking that is killing the Bay, along with the Great Lakes, the Grand Banks, and most other bodies of water in the world where some possibility of human consumption can take place... How? Because the great concerns over the algae are the possibility of "beach closures"! Oh, and of course fish kills. When we start to accept that human entertainment and profit margins can't be placed above natural sustainability, we *might* just start getting somewhere in reviving the health of the bay. Until we're willing to tell the watermen to stow it when they complain about crab and oyster and rockfish restrictions, and tell the consumers that crab prices are high "too bad" then we're going to keep hearing this useless whining about the health of "our" Bay. People can't seem, as a whole, to accept that nature's got the right to live as well. It truly is a shame to hear of largespread anaerobic conditions, algea blooms, and large fish die-off, but it's even worse when the same people doing the lip-service thing are too ignorant to stop and think about whether they really need to take that extra bushel of crabs on a weekend. (pet peeve? who? Me?) Thanks for the link, Rich.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Jun 12, 2007 14:49:57 GMT -4
What size was the "dead zone" 100 years ago?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 12, 2007 16:15:56 GMT -4
bchevy, I don't have the textbook answer at hand, but I'd be lying if I said I suspected anything other than that there were no dead zones 100 years ago; at most, I'd suggest it was a rare phenom rather than something we predict yearly like hurricane season. The Bay's health has deteriorated to the point where we have to guess, not whether there will be fish kills and dead zones and red tides, but the how bad they'll be and to what extent.
That said, I'll see if I can find any scientific source for that... it's a curious question, but sadly I think it does little more than deflect or redirect our energy away from the problem. (shrugging)
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Jun 12, 2007 18:23:42 GMT -4
IT's just curious to me. "Dead zone back again" makes it sound a little normal?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 13, 2007 9:33:49 GMT -4
I think that's the irony... I think "back again" makes it sound, as you say, normal, when they should certainly NOT be normal.
Not intended as conspiracy theory, but using such language is sort of like subliminal numbing of the reader - a basic assumption on reading the headline is that it's "again"and therefore normal.
Am I making sense? The entire premise of the attached article does little more than report a major problem as a common thing, so it automatically subdues any reaction by most readers.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Jun 13, 2007 18:31:08 GMT -4
Makes total sense.
|
|