backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by Shadowmaster62.. on Oct 9 at 2:53 PM


Shipwrecks litter the coastal waters of the U.S.  (Source: Travellingblog.org)
Arggh yee, maties, she be a toxic PCB drifting off the starboard bow!

DailyTech has previously reported about the rising epidemic of tech trash.  The export of tech trash, largely from the U.S. to third world nations, has become an international problem which has gotten so bad the U.S. Congress is considering tough new measures to curb the effects.  However, while some tech trash may be getting dumped on foreign soils, there's another major realm of tech trash that is only now beginning to be fully recognized -- the sea.

Every year boats, barges and ships sink in coastal waters around the U.S. due to accidents, weather damage, age or an owner's financial duress.  The majority is never recovered and lay rotting on the seabed.  The problem has taken on high-tech ramifications, as modern boats often have onboard computers and circuitry, much of which contains toxic chemicals.

Doug Helton, acting director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program describes, "You go to any harbor or shoreline in the country and you'll find derelict and abandoned vessels."

There may be as many as 10,000 sunken vessels surrounding the U.S. coast, with 400 to 500 being sunk in 2005 alone, with the arrival of Hurricane Katrina.  The wrecks typically leach toxic petroleum into the surrounding areas says Mr. Helton.  And while the petroleum chemicals will drift away, the PCBs onboard the ships will not and continue to leach toxic chemicals.  Mr. Helton says that these chemicals move up the food chain and are likely to eventually be ingested by humans.

The wrecks can also destroy local ecosystems.  The leaching iron can attract corallimorph, organisms in the same family as corals and sea anemones, which attack and kill corals and other sea life.  This phenomenon was recently verified by Thierry Work, a wildlife disease specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey, and his colleagues, in the journal PLoS One. He describes, "It's a carpet of living animals that destroyed all the other organisms underneath.  We were able to show man-made structures were responsible for the growth of these organisms."

The wreckage can also directly kill fish and other sea creatures.  According to Keith Criddle, a marine policy professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks the leading killer of endangered monk seals is fishing equipment aboard wrecks.  A 2004 report titled "An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century," the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy found that more than 267 different species were being adversely impacted by derelict fishing gear.

Professor Criddle and others have called on Congress to improve efforts to remove the marine trash, particular the fish equipment and toxic tech trash.  They say the biggest need is for a cohesive plan as their currently is a lack of organization in efforts.  While many states have fines for abandonment, often they are not strictly enforced and it’s less costly to take the fine that take apart the ship.  Breaking down a 40 foot yacht can cost as little as $5,000 to $10,000, but often it can cost up to 100 times that amount. 

Recently, Washington State has funded some efforts for boat removal and the U.S. Congress has given the NOAA some funding to remove boats from coral reefs.  While these efforts are helping, they cannot keep up with the pace of sinking ships, without more help.

One additional undesirable side effect of the PCB leaching has also surfaced -- "increased catchability".  While this may sound like a good thing, it’s a headache for fishers, as it causes regions to quickly be depleted of fish and lowers their overall revenue.

Mr. Helton says that with new government efforts technology aboard the ships and any fishing gear could be secured so the ship was not harming the environment, even if there were not funds to totally dismantle the ship.  He urges citizens as well to remember, "when a vessel is lost it's not gone."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: First global warming
By NullSubroutine on 10/5/2008 1:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
melting ice caps slowly raising the sea level

Cap s ?

Try this at home, take a cup full of water and drop an ice cube in, now does it overflow the cup after it melts? That's right it doesn't. The Artic Ice cap (which is just ice frozen in the north pole) melting will not raise sea levels.


RE: First global warming
By foolsgambit11 on 10/5/2008 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely true. Except for everything you said. Ice caps, technically, refer to small permanent ice found over land (large permanent ice formations are called ice sheets). If we assume the OP meant 'polar ice caps', then, while a large portion of the Arctic polar ice cap is pack ice (that's the ice that's over the ocean, which wouldn't substantially affect sea levels), there are substantial regions that are over land, such as in Greenland. Those areas have lost ice coverage since the start of the satellite age. (I'm not going to debate about how they've been losing glacier coverage since the Maunder Minimum, &c.... This is just about the continued impact of the trend we see right now.) The only reason people may not include those areas in the 'Arctic polar ice cap' is because they aren't connected to the North Pole by a continuous layer of ice. But, of course, they used to be just a few years ago. Cleverly warmed out of including them in the strictest definition, we are.

Additionally, although the Antarctic ice cap isn't currently melting (it seems to be growing, in fact), were it to melt, it would be responsible for sea level rise. (You do know there's a continent down there, yes?) I assume that's what your bold 's' caps comment was alluding to? His post did make the assumption that global warming would occur, and logic would dictate that, given that assumption, the southern ice cap would also be affected in the future.

So if you want to argue against his statement, you should go after the weak point. I think we can all agree that if the ice caps (and yes, there are two of them) melt, it will result in sea level rise, crust rebound notwithstanding. And we can agree that at some temperature, the ice caps will melt. The point you should contradict is the argument that we will see those temperatures thanks to global warming.

Just a suggestion.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki