Transcript
Science: Marine Mammal Deaths
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Monday, March 26, 2007; 12:00 PM
Washington Post science writer Juliet Eilperin was online Monday, March 26 at Noon ET to discuss why marine mammals are dying off the Southwest Florida coast:
Read more in today's article: Working to Diagnose Marine Animal Die-Off (Post, March 26)
The transcript follows.
____________________
Chapel Hill, N.C.: Several years ago I did some research on Naval LFAS and its effects on whales and dolphins, and it seemed obvious that LFAS not only highly irritated these animals--enough for them to vary their routes and feeding routines--but, in certain cases where LFAS was close or frequent enough, caused physiological damage such as ruptured ears, and death. I don't understand why this is still debated or how the Navy is still allowed to use this technology. If they were doing the equivalent, on land, causing the same damage to, say bears or something, there'd be an outcry. What will it take for the Navy to stop testing LFAS and develop alternative technologies that do not harm the denizens of the deep?
Juliet Eilperin: I've spoken to scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on this, I know that folks there still think there needs to be more data collection on this subject. And of course, the Navy has argued their activities do not seriously harm marine mammals. So I would expect you would see more research on this before we resolve the debate.
_______________________
Ferndale, Calif.: No matter how many articles I read pertaining to the devastation of different ecosystems and the resulting loss of life, it unequivocally amazes me that not one biologist, ecologist, botanist or columnist ever blatantly proposes we begin to address the real problem: over population of the human species. We can alter, modify, prohibit, allow, reduce, increase or legislate whatever remedies we need to temporarily mitigate the ecological issue of the day, but until we deal with the worst predator ever on this planet: human beings, this once pristine planet and all its beautiful, innocent, magnificent other species will surely die. RESTRICT HUMAN POPULATION. Every other species adjusts appropriately to its dire circumstances based on availability of sustenance. We, however, in our consumer driven hubris just don't get it do we?
And we think we're the superior species?
Every morning I say a prayer for this planet and all other species that one day we finally wake up.
As with every other story of this magnitude, I was deeply saddened to read about the marine mammal deaths. Thank you for addressing this story.
Elizabeth
Juliet Eilperin: There is one British journalist who has addressed this question as it pertains to oceans: Charles Clover, whose book "End of the Line" just came out in the U.S. So that's a book you may want to read.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Based on the recent rate of these deaths, what are scientists most fearful of? Also the article mostly focuses on Dolphins. What other mammals are being affected? And could whatever is harming these mammals eventually affect humans?
Juliet Eilperin: Scientists are worried about a few factors. The are concerned about the marine mammals themselves, as well as what these deaths may say about the state of our oceans. The article focused on dolphins since those are the mammals dying in large numbers at the moment off the Texas and Louisiana coasts, but it also mentions sea turtles, sea lions and other creatures, and of course, fish are dying in large numbers during these incidents. In some cases the illnesses affecting marine mammals could affect humans, but it's fairly rare.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Could other toxins be involved, such as insecticides?
Juliet Eilperin: Usually when you're talking about massive die-offs it's something bigger than an insecticide, it's a toxin caused by an algae bloom or a virus that's spreading from animal to animal.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: The Gulf of Mexico has a large degree of human activity - oil drilling, fishing, coastal development, to name a few. It seems that these activities are occurring without enough study of the cumulative impact of all these activities on marine life. In your research for this article, what would you suggest as the best way to provide better coordinated governance of these activities, so that polluters are held accountable for their impacts?
Juliet Eilperin: You raise an interesting point. There are a number of environmentalists and ocean experts who have started pushing for "ocean zoning" as a way to better oversee what is happening at sea, and how it is affecting marine life. The Ocean Conservancy and Resources For The Future are two of the groups studying this issue, and I hope to write about it at some point. As Randy Wells noted in my piece, at times it is hard to know exactly what is the critical factor in a marine mammal's death, since there are so many pressures on them.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.: Do we think the deaths are related to global warming? As in could they be a direct or indirect result of it?
Juliet Eilperin: There is some evidence that suggests global warming could be linked to the increase in harmful algae blooms that are harming marine mammals. So in that way there could be a connection.
_______________________
Temple Hills, Md.: When marine mammal death is due to algae blooms, are the algae blooms a result of human practices?
Juliet Eilperin: Algae blooms are often linked to the nutrient runoff that comes from human activities such as putting fertilizer on fields, and to a lesser extent, sewage that flows into the ocean. U.S. agriculture is clearly having an impact on our waterways, both in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay, both of which have experienced serious algae blooms.
_______________________
Boston, Mass.: To your knowledge is anyone working on cleaning up the existing pollution in the oceans? Is creating more stringent regulations the only option? Or are there ways to reduce some of the harm that is already done?
Juliet Eilperin: There are a lot of scientists who are concerned about the level of pollution in the ocean, which is affecting whales, turtles, dolphins and other marine mammals. We have some federal regulations that curb water pollution-I don't know if there is a serious drive to tighten these rules.
_______________________
Juliet Eilperin: Thanks for all the questions, I'm signing off now.
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.



