[Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water THE REAL CAUSE OF CORAL REEF DEMISE
Alina Szmant
alina at cisme-instruments.com
Tue Aug 16 21:14:33 UTC 2022
Dear Steve:
Well reasoned response to what I am seeing as knee jerk reactions about causes of coral death that are poorly thought out with regard to data. But I want to amend one sentence/paragraph you wrote:
"Unfortunately, we are at a point in the history of our reefs where a focus on one or two local port expansions takes attention
away from the proximal cause that has killed or will kill our coral reefs – global warming" ... YOU STOPPED WRITING TOO SOON.
I would replace 'global warming' with "... the continued increasing human population size and the economic activities needed to provide for the SOON TO BE 8 BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH [MILESTONE COMING THIS NOVEMBER]. Our numbers are increasing by 83 MILLION humans per year; 227,397 humans PER DAY. Some consume more than others but all aspire to shelter, food (requiring more deforestation or habitat conversion to grow food; more overfishing, more pollution from growing more meat animals); clothing, sources of energy for all our activities, whether renewable or fossil fuel (including deforestation for making charcoal in poor areas), and the list is endless.
Instead of worrying about ship ballast water and port expansion, I suggest folks worry about the root cause: why do we need so many ships and bigger ports? To transport food and other goods for human consumption for people who live far away from where the goods are produced. If every human had to survive on only what could be acquired with a 100 mile radius from home, all the global environmental problems we are facing would quicky disappear along with much of humanity, and our use of fossil fuels directly responsible for about 1/3 of global warming. Yes it would be terribly messy especially in all the larger cities... but then no pain, no gain. 😊
Of course, I am not expecting many people to accept this as a realistic solution. I pose this to point out the hypocrisy of folks trying to blame any one or more human activities or enterprises for coral reef demise when the cause started ca. 10,000 years ago when humans began to domesticate plants and animals (especially food animals). More dependable food supply lead to population increase; farming crops lead to human settlements which grew over time from small communities to cities of many millions. And every additional human added to the impact of humanity on not just coral reefs but all terrestrial and marine ecosystems. As technologies became sophisticated and required electricity to function, the rate of humanity's impact of global environments AND INCLUDING GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE accelerated, until here we are with a hot mess on our hands. All of this in less than 10k years.
I don't see a realistic way of putting this genie back in the bottle without (a) doing something dramatic about human population size: preventing ALL unwanted births would make a huge dent! I've seen figures that globally over 40% of births are unwanted. (b) incentivize smaller family size instead of handing out tax credits and welfare to women having more than 2 children, regardless of cultural mores, or the stupid "I just love babies". (c) reduce consumerism which is destroying the global environment by mining for metals, petroleum products and other raw materials needed to manufacture all the stuff we surround ourselves with.
Since I know none of the above would ever be considered by either the elected officials that run our governments or the people being governed, I think most efforts to save this species or ecosystem don't have any chance of long term success. As soon as one problem is 'fixed' it will be undone by the 83 million new people per year needing resources.
As Pogo famously stated on the first Earth Day in 1970 when there were 'only' 3.68 BILLION of us on Earth (fewer than half the numbers of humans alive today): "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US".
If only we had listened back then....
*************************************************************************
Dr. Alina M. Szmant, CEO
CISME Instruments LLC
210 Braxlo Lane,
Wilmington NC 28409 USA
AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee
cell: 910-200-3913
EMAIL: alina at cisme-instruments.com
CISME IS NOW SOLD BY QUBIT SYSTEMS; https://qubitbiology.com/cisme/
**********************************************************
Videos: CISME Promotional Video 5:43 min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAYeR9qX71A&t=6s
CISME Short version Demo Video 3:00 min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa4SqS7yC08
CISME Cucalorus 10x10 Sketch 4:03 min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12sAV8oUluE
-----Original Message-----
From: Coral-List <coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> On Behalf Of Steven L Miller via Coral-List
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 7:39 PM
To: Ligia Collado-Vides <colladol at fiu.edu>; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water
Dear Ligia
A quick note in response to your comments about my post. If you want to continue the discussion, then please contact me directly.
Why am I certain there is no link between SCTLD and the Port Miami
dredge project? That's not what I said. Certainty in science is a rare
thing, especially in ecology. Instead, I said that there's nothing
published that conclusively ties the project to the coral disease. There
are dozens of relevant articles in a recent edition of Marine Frontiers
in Science and dozens more published elsewhere. None link SCTLD to the
dredging project. Good science exists on the subject, and we will learn
more over time.
Regarding your comment about what might be in the canal sediments and
Miami River, dredging did not occur in the canals and river.
Interestingly, the "urban corals" described by Colin Ford are in the
port. They are in excellent condition, including no SCTLD.
Also, the dredging operations that deepened the channel removed mostly
chopped rock and suctioned materials. You may know that some dredge
operations use dynamite to blast the rock. Indeed, earlier phases
(2005-2006) included dynamiting. However, using a cutter-head to chop
rock has a smaller environmental footprint than dynamite. So, while I
can't speak for fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles, I assume dynamite
is not a favorite.
The important question is, "Why do stories continue to show up that link
the Port Miami dredge project to SCTLD – and not part of this thread but
also to killing large numbers of corals?" On the latter, significant
publications conclusively point to SCTLD as killing large numbers of
corals close to the dredging project (including control sites) and
throughout the region, rather than dredging and its plumes. The
literature on coral mortality during the dredging project is maturing.
The outcome is clear and conclusively points to SCTLD as the significant
source. That's not to say that dredging did not kill any corals.
Fortunately, Port Miami included the most comprehensive coral reef
monitoring program ever conducted in association with a dredging
project. It is fair to say that science has prevailed on this topic, not
newspaper headlines.
Dredge projects attract much attention, as they should. However, I think
it's reasonable to point out that these projects are also easy targets.
They look bad, can make big messes, and some have done significant
damage. But each project needs to be evaluated on its merits and risks.
That provides an opening that some environmental groups use to help
raise funds, expand membership lists, and try and slow coastal
development. Unfortunately, we are at a point in the history of our
reefs where a focus on one or two local port expansions takes attention
away from the proximal cause that has killed or will kill our coral
reefs – global warming.
It's important to note that Port Miami and Port Everglades (expansion is
in the planning stages) are found adjacent to habitats with extremely
low coral cover. Specifically, hard bottoms with naturally low coral
cover of a few percent – or less. They are still productive habitats and
ecologically important, but not the same as the iconic locations that
previously described Florida's offshore coral reefs.
Additionally, the seascape-scale changes to Port Miami started about 120
years ago when Government Cut was first dredged. As a result, the area
is unrecognizable today compared to its natural condition.
Finally, high mitigation costs are associated with dredging projects
based on predicted and documented environmental damage. Therefore, it
matters what killed the corals.
Best Regards
Steven
smiller at nova.edu <mailto:smiller at nova.edu>
On 8/11/22 12:01 PM, Ligia Collado-Vides wrote:
> Dear Dr. Miller
>
> Thank you very much for your response and thoughtful comments. I appreciate your call for caution.
>
> My intention is to bring to our attention the need to have a forensic perspective in our approaches when asking questions about causes of diseases, and others. I am not an expert at all in this issue, but I have been in the region and had the great opportunity to experience a living healthy reef in the 80's, and also long enough to see how we concentrate in few causes and do not address some more controversial perspectives. Some might be very difficult to publish.
>
> I do agree that if we do not make the distinction between working hypothesis and explanatory narratives we can create problems. However, I do think we cannot stop asking ourselves about all possible related events that can be involved in a problem of this dimension, that goes beyond the Keys, and its causes.
>
> We have background information that we can use to establish working hypothesis and if tested properly we can at least have some information to avoid even larger impacts from our human need of expansion.
>
> Dr. Miller, may I ask why you are certain that there is no link at all between SCTLD with the Miami dredge project? Please take this question from a scientific-hypothesis driven perspective. I really would like to know that there is not link in there.
>
> " To my knowledge, nothing conclusive exists that ties SCTLD to ballast water or the Miami dredge project. Testable hypothesis could be framed related to ballast water. I'm not sure the same can be said related to SCTLD and the dredge project. After all, the Miami sewage outfall is in close proximity to the dredge site and outflow from the Miami River is through the dredge channel. Both contain a thick stew of anthropogenic bacteria and viruses and who knows what else."
>
> I agree 100% we do not have any conclusive study to link SCLTD to the above mentioned events. Do we have other certain and clear links that can help the community understand the process?
>
> I agree also 100% on the use of the precautionary principle. If we already know that the Miami Port is localized in close proximity to polluted outflows such as Miami River, is it wise to support, or well, not oppose or at least ask the potential harm a dredging activity can cause? We do not have, in my knowledge, data about what is accumulated in the sediments close to all the canals, and Miami River. Science will never bring the 100% certainty, nature and interconnectivity of events is incredible complicated, however, we can get closer to one and more potential causes of problems, we do not need to eliminate, with the same lack of evidence potential stressor.
>
> I do not want to make this conversation too long. Thanks for the call for caution, I do still think we need to have multi-causal perspectives and a forensic approach, complex yes, important yes.
>
> I hope you have all access to this web site, interesting spread from 2014..... just that site can open minds to many working hypothesis, what background we will use to decide to eliminate some and think others are workable? Our challenge as scientists in a rapid changing world and limited resources are huge.
>
> https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/coral-disease/disease.html
>
> Thank you all for your input, I hope you read this with the same intention is expressed.
>
> Best
>
> Ligia Collado Vides
> Teaching Professor
> Marine Macroalgae Research lab
> Florida International University
> Miami, USA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Coral-List<coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> On Behalf Of Steven L Miller via Coral-List
> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 3:38 PM
> To:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water
>
> Dear Dr. Collado-Vides
>
> I am a long-time fan of Shifting Baselines, which your first point addresses. Our views are shaped by slow motion change and forgotten history. But to your second point, if you are suggesting that the Miami dredge project has something to do with SCTLD, then you are mistaken.
> While you acknowledge "no proof of anything," I'm concerned that many on this List will infer a link between the dredge project and SCTLD based only on your links to decade-old newspaper stories.
>
> To my knowledge, nothing conclusive exists that ties SCTLD to ballast water or the Miami dredge project. Testable hypothesis could be framed related to ballast water. I'm not sure the same can be said related to SCTLD and the dredge project. After all, the Miami sewage outfall is in close proximity to the dredge site and outflow from the Miami River is through the dredge channel. Both contain a thick stew of anthropogenic bacteria and viruses and who knows what else.
>
> This thread was started when the precautionary principle was cited as a reason to address ballast water and SCTLD. That is, act based on the idea of not doing possible harm instead of having to first prove damage.
> In this case, while it'snot harmful to suggest (hypothesize) such a linkage to dredging, without context and facts (and testing) a false narrative can easily arise.
>
> I apologize if I misunderstood and you weren't suggesting a link between dredging and SCTLD.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Steven Miller, PhD
>
> Senior Scientist
>
> Nova Southeastern University
>
>
>
> On 8/5/22 6:29 PM, Ligia Collado-Vides via Coral-List wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> We have no proof of anything, published papers can wait for many years, or never publish because we do not have the people at the right time. We need more forensic perspectives in the way we address the environmental problems.
>>
>> However memory is also something we lose very rapidly, Dredging for the huge enlargement of the Port of Miami 2018-2019, spread to the lower Keys, Caribbean.... years after....
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://maritime-executive.com/article/con
>> struction-begins-at-portmiami-on-u-s-s-largest-cruise-terminal__;!!Fju
>> HKAHQs5udqho!N_1stqx5lewtX-UoBuBLGnpAo46b6Ox4TThg6BpwWNUKb2d0SG2oRZyZc
>> IsyA7laWQHZxpCQow6HzvJo0A$
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://maritime-executive.com/article/construction-begins-at-portmiami-on-u-s-s-largest-cruise-terminal__;!!FjuHKAHQs5udqho!KV_SnyTil-umd_TTEZ-mnp55wd_y9xV0o4VTcTnst1NGwv_sONSLXMXhSJKDtnLwM9QtMI69_2AvZWedzzyTRN1-BDScQQ$
>> Construction Begins at PortMiami on U.S.’s Largest Cruise Terminal
>>
>>
>> U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Takes a Prominent Role at RIMPAC. Published Aug 2, 2022 9:44 PM by The Maritime Executive This year's Rim of the Pacific naval exercise has received considerable attention ...
>> maritime-executive.com
>>
>> Draconic events need to be documented, we tend to totally forget traumatic events, and of course request accountability...
>>
>> Best
>> Ligia
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Coral-List<coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> On Behalf Of
>> Eugene Shinn via Coral-List
>> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 3:46 PM
>> To:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> Subject: [Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water
>>
>> Note: This message originated from outside the FIU Faculty/Staff email system.
>>
>>
>> I scanned the interesting research paper that blames coral disease is spread by ships ballast water. It is a reasonable hypothesis. However, I agree with Alina Szmant. I too have not seen the proof. She pointed out that the paper was not peer reviewed. The first thing I noticed in the papers title were the words, “simulated ballast water.” If I were a shipping company owner and that study was being used as proof my ballast water was the major spreader and cause of coral reef demise I would surely have my high paid lawyers go on the attack. They could quickly point out that the study of simulated ballast water does not prove my ballast water causes disease. That otherwise excellent study made me wonder why did the authors not sample water from actual ship ballast tanks? Why use simulated ballast water? At the same time I have to agree there is no evidence that real ballast water is not a carrier of coral disease. Ballast water may actually be spreading coral toxins from reef to reef. However, the real question is If there are disease organisms in ballast water, where did they come from in the first place. Clearly once these agents are in the water column they can easily be moved along with water currents. They do need ballast water for transport. The major current flow directions in the Caribbean are well known and the strongest of these currents flow past the Belize and Florida Keys reefs.
>>
>> As many list readers know I have been advocating since the 1980s that disease agents in the Caribbean were originally brought to the western Atlantic/Caribbean in dust clouds transported by the Tradewinds. Dust particles carrying disease causing agents are constantly dropping out as the dust clouds move along. Many even cross over into the Pacific. Once corals and other organisms including /Diadema/ and Seafan diseases become established they are easily transmitted down current to affect other marine organisms. I have often suggested the demise of the staghorn fields at San Salvador in 1983, was a starting point for such transport.
>>
>> Back when my USGS dust study team was active in the late 1990s they
>> cultured and identified around 200 microbes and fungi that were being
>> transmitted in African dust clouds. At the time we knew asthma was
>> rampant in children on those windward islands in the Bahamas. Even
>> Puerto Rico is well known for its respiratory diseases. In those days
>> it baffled me why so many competent scientists rejected the dust
>> hypothesis. Later as I matured I realized it was all about politics
>> and funding. I suppose blaming coral diseases on ballast water these
>> days is politically correct. Gene
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listin
>> fo/coral-list__;!!FjuHKAHQs5udqho!IigoUmYtS9GmQw81Y5taBVO048hO7uBHJjfh
>> vrpK5Kmp35TuH6yn8D-JoC3dnjww4oXtpXstekSDTcoB6M6dc1r8bZZkoQ$
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listin
>> fo/coral-list__;!!FjuHKAHQs5udqho!KV_SnyTil-umd_TTEZ-mnp55wd_y9xV0o4VT
>> cTnst1NGwv_sONSLXMXhSJKDtnLwM9QtMI69_2AvZWedzzyTRN3MNkd_Sw$
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list__;!!FjuHKAHQs5udqho!KV_SnyTil-umd_TTEZ-mnp55wd_y9xV0o4VTcTnst1NGwv_sONSLXMXhSJKDtnLwM9QtMI69_2AvZWedzzyTRN3MNkd_Sw$
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list