Get a FREE Issue of Earth Island Journal
Sign up for our no-risk offer today.

Go Back: Home > Earth Island Journal > Latest News > Post and Comments

Latest News

Impact of Last Year’s Rouge Ocean Fertilization Experiment Still Unclear

Abundant fall salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest is helping research group’s uphill battle to regain legitimacy

Last year, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC), a Canadian scientific research group, dumped 100 tons of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean in a known salmon migration route in order to spawn a plankton bloom that would absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientists and environmentalists were shocked. Environment Canada investigated the legality of the experiment particularly with regard to potential violations to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the London Convention. And the media documented the whole sordid affair. It was a mess. But a year later, it’s still not clear whether the experiment did harm or good.

algal bloom off of VancouverPhoto by Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFCHaida Salmon Restoration Corporation says it was trying to see if adding iron to a high-nutrient,
low-chlorophyll cold core ocean eddy situated in the middle of a known salmon migration route
would cause phytoplankton to grow.

We have learned that HSRC is no longer working with controversial Californian Russ George of Planktos Inc., though he apparently remains a shareholder. We have learned that the organization is disputing the validity of an Environment Canada search warrant in court. The group is still under investigation by Environment Canada over the legality of its experiment as it pertains to the London Convention.

Currently Jason McNamee, HSRC director and operations officer is engaging in a long and uphill battle to regain some legitimacy for the group by attending conferences, speaking to a number of groups and organizations, and generally preaching the HSRC gospel in addition to continuing to analyze and compile the research findings. Coincidentally, this past fall the entire west coast of North America was positively chockablock with pink salmon, with some states recording the largest runs ever recorded.

McNamee's message is this: Oceans matter, but their importance is being overlooked by those battling the climate crisis. According to him, we don't understand nearly enough about the largest ecosystem on the planet and how it can help fight climate change, and we need to. He would like to see a blue carbon credit program to fund oceanic research projects that provide data and remove carbon from the atmosphere. Makes sense, but how you get there is also part of the equation.

In 2012, McNamee had a plan for just such a project, the aforementioned iron dump. And how he got there made a lot of people very angry, despite McNamee's claims that it is all about the science.

"It is an ocean research project and we're trying to understand that ecosystem," says McNamee. "We had a hypothesis: Does adding iron to a high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll cold core ocean eddy situated in the middle of a known salmon migration route cause phytoplankton to grow, yes or no. And what are the resulting environmental benefits or costs."

In July 2012, HSRC proceeded with its experiment and fertilized a 5,000 square kilometre slice of the Pacific Ocean 200 miles west of the British Columbia coast.

The only permit granted to the organization was from the small town of Masset in Haida Gwaii off the coast of Northern British Columbia. HSRC was criticized by scientists and environmentalists and dragged through the proverbial mud by media for defying convention and operating without regard for international regulations set down by the UN. Even the UN weighed in on the issue.

McNamee admits, in retrospect, that it might not have been the best way to proceed, but says it was necessary to operate the way they did.

"We had a very limited budget and you know, there are two things," says McNamee. "One, the village of Masset went through a plebiscite vote on the project and went and issued … resolutions to enable the project and they also issued us permits. That's a real and valid way of doing things. However, as you suggest, it didn't stop the press from going all nuts on us and everything. The other thing is there really is no process by which to get a permit (through the United Nations). It doesn't really exist.

"If we had gone that route, we'd have used up most of our budget trying to figure out how to get a permit," he continues. "We never would have got it done at all."

For the better part of 2013, McNamee has been dealing with the fallout by speaking about the HSRC fertilization project at everything from international conferences such as Oceans 13 in San Diego as well as local community meetings in small towns such as Squamish, BC attempting to explain why they did what they did and why more experiments of this nature are needed in the future.

Recently, McNamee ventured to the Warsaw Climate Change Conference (COP19) in Poland where he was surprised to see oceans almost entirely ignored.

"In the whole two weeks in Warsaw, there were only two events in which the ocean was mentioned," McNamee explains. "An ocean acidification side event with maybe 60 people…. The other event where the ocean was mentioned was a panel event at the University of Warsaw on the nexus of climate change, governance, and gender. The only reason the ocean came up in that panel was because I was on it."

McNamee is passionate when he speaks about what he calls the largest ecosystem on the planet and why it cannot be ignored if we are going to make any headway in tackling climate change.

Part of his defense of the HSRC's iron-fertilization experiment is the lack of information demonstrated at COP19 and by those who criticized his project. Critics suggest his experiment could have resulted in any number of harmful or potentially devastating consequences, such as produce toxic algal blooms or increase ocean acidification, but, according to McNamee, there is no evidence of any of the proposed consequences that were bandied about in the media.

The campaign of public engagement and education seems to be helping in the PR department, potentially smoothing the way for further experiments in the future. Parting ways with Russ George who – based on his past exploits in areas such as the Galapagos Islands where he planned a similar experiment in 2007 before it was shut down, and has long been a lightning rod for controversy – also helps. But what has really helped alleviate some of the scorn HSRC has had to endure is the aforementioned massive pink salmon runs from Oregon right up the coast to Alaska.

Although there is no way to prove that this particular iron fertilization project helped raise the pink salmon numbers, it isn't hurting McNamee's case.

"I'll go on record as saying that coincidence does not equal causality," McNamee says. "I don't believe in any way, shape or form that we definitely contributed to that salmon run. The question I have for salmon experts is this: 'What changed in the ocean in 2012, the year prior, that had the potential to contribute to this massive return?' The answer is I don't know, but certainly our project may have contributed."

In McNamee's ideal scenario, an experiment such as his would provide vital research data on how our oceans can aid in climate change solutions. In addition, sequestering carbon in the seas would provide a revenue source for further projects. And, if the rebound in the salmon runs is indeed connected to the iron sulfate dumping, it could help local communities by promoting healthy fisheries. (Read my previous post about this here.)

But all that is a long way off.

With regard to the current experiment, there will be no carbon offsets because HSRC has yet to "quantify in a verifiable manner what that volume [of carbon sequestration] is." Though he hasn't shut the door completely, McNamee says there is currently no trading scheme that would accept this type of offset.

"We are working on alternative solutions, but that requires the sort of things I've been doing: talking to people, going to COP19, speaking at UBC, talking to governments, and other markets that might have an interest in purchasing blue carbon," says McNamee. "But we always knew we were going to have to invent this stuff."

Would HSRC like to do further testing in the future? Sure. But currently, McNamee is still busy poring over all the data from the 2012 experiment and hoping to make it public in the future.

"I'm working on making the data available," he says, before refusing to go on the record about what is holding up that process. "We need open data and open discussion or there will never be a reasonable solution. The ‘us against them’ thing doesn't serve anybody. There is massive political and social value to making that data public."

Are HSRC renegades or groundbreakers? So far, a bit of both, but this story is far from over.

Ron Johnson
Is based in Toronto, Canada, where he is an editor for Post City magazines and contributes to The Globe and Mail, Maclean’s, The National Post and the London Business Times.

Email this post to a friend.

Write to the editor about this post.

Subscribe Today
cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJFour issues of the award-winning
Earth Island Journal for only $10

 

Comments

@ Bhaskar

You are a chronic liar. You previously linked a study and claimed that the study proved that dumping iron into the ocean was not harmful, however even that study indicated that it would harm wildlife. One of the examples it gave was that the resulting algae blooms would reduce the light going to lower depths;

Its normal for salmon populations to very. It’s normal for wildlife populations to cycle. There is nothing proving that the alleged increased pink salmon runs are from the iron dumping. Even if the iron dumping did increase the pink salmon population, what about all the other wildlife populations that have decreased. What about the massive fish kills shortly after the HSRC dumped iron into the ocean? Was the drop in sockeye salmon because of iron dumping?

Why were deep ocean fish washing up on shore shortly after the HSRC dumped iron into the ocean? If it’s safe to assume the pink salmon increase is from the iron dumping, then it’s safe to assume that all of the fish that were killed were from the HSRC iron dumping into the ocean! Some of the fish kills that washed up on the California coast, were cold water fish. It’s quite likely that the cold water fish were driven south and died because of the the HSRC iron dumping. It’s quite likely that the deep water fish that died shortly after the HSRC dump, had their habitat destroyed like in the study that you posted indicating that iron dumping can harm the Deepwater environment.

You are making false claims, that’s not science, that’s fraud. Many of your claims are quite ignorant as well as dishonest.

By R Smith on Sat, January 25, 2014 at 4:49 pm

This news report starts with the sentence -

“Abundant fall salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest is helping research group’s uphill battle to regain legitimacy.”

This is contrary to your statement that massive fish kills took place.

We are perhaps the only people earning a living selling Iron and other micro nutrients to grow Diatom Algae in ponds and lakes. So we know how safe and beneficial it is.

Our product Nualgi has been in use since 2005 and is being used all over the world.

By Bhaskar on Mon, January 20, 2014 at 7:14 pm

@ Bhaskar

Again you are wrong. You are batting zero.

The document that you linked, indicates that the iron dumping harmed ocean wildlife. Your prejudice and lack of knowledge is quite clear. Just one example. The algae blooms reduce the amount of light reaching deeper into the ocean.

That may be part of the reason for the massive fish kills that started washing up on western shores of North America shortly after Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation dump iron into the ocean. It upsets the environmental balance.

Scientists are against this pollution because it can harm the environment and can contribute to climate change.

HSRC allegedly has skipped out on its rent. In my opinion HSRC and Russ George are not credible.

We shouldn’t let them play Russian roulette with our environment. They are not using proper scientific principles.

You should stop supporting scientific fraud, you could be supporting killing the world.

By R Smith on Thu, January 16, 2014 at 10:02 pm

Smith

You said -
“There should be some legitimate and comprehensive studies done before fertilizing the ocean.”

The Haida Nation experiment of dosing 100 tons of Iron Sulfate in 10,000 sq kms of ocean with a budget of about $ 2 million, is a legitimate and comprehensive study.

Just because it was done on private initiative and not by a research institution or government agency does not make it illegitimate or illegal.

The science behind Iron Fertilization is now quite well proven. None of the other 13 experiments causes any negative impact. Please read the UN CBD Report on these.
http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-45-en.pdf

Your prejudice is quite clear.
Haida Nation is now concerned about Climate Change, they only want to restore their salmon catch.

Fertilizing lakes and oceans is a legitimate solution to grow more fish.

This is similar to farmers fertilizing fields to grow more grass and crops to feed cattle and people.

Farmers use N P K and Fishers have to use Iron and other Micro-nutrients.

Many modern technologies and products have problems, cars crash everyday injuring tens of thousands.

Please stop driving your car, you may kill someone.

It is basic science that fertilizing is more beneficial and less harmful than driving cars.

By Bhaskar on Tue, January 07, 2014 at 7:05 pm

@ Bhaskar

The article expresses some of the same concerns and skepticism’s that I have expressed. The article supports my arguments and undermines your arguments.

Is it really worth risking the environment to let greedy corporations pollute to exploit a carbon credit scheme?

You don’t seem to understand the article or science.

The last decade or so the climate has been cooling anyway. Climate change hysteria, is not science.
,
There should be some legitimate and comprehensive studies done before fertilizing the ocean. It’s stupid to risk our environment to let corporations recklessly dump iron into the ocean.

Analogy. In the 1920s x-rays were used to remove unwanted hair. There was delayed consequences. Many of the women that received these treatments developed side effects years later. Some of the side effects were severe and some even fatal.

We only have one earth, it’s foolish to recklessly and unscientifically geo-engineer. You should stop following in the footsteps of Russ George.

By R Smith on Tue, January 07, 2014 at 3:34 pm

@ Bhaskar

Many people say that the iron dumping is an illegal and unscientific scheme for profit.

Google:
“World’s biggest geoengineering experiment ‘violates’ UN rules”

Google:
“The First Geo-Vigilante”

Google:
“A California Businessman Illegally Attempted The World’s Largest Geoengineering Project In The Pacific”

Google:
“The Haida Gwaii iron-dump disaster”

HSRC, Russ George and you have chosen to defy international law and the scientific community, seemingly because the related international laws essentially have no teeth (because you can get away with it).

Scientists object to ocean iron dumping.

Google:
“Scientists warn iron dump could have serious consequences for ocean”

HSRC employed Russ George. You are following in his footsteps of junk science.

Google:
“Investigations of Russ George’s Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research (LENR) and Plankton Carbon-Credit Activities”

By R Smith on Tue, January 07, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Smith

The EIFEX experiment was conducted in 2004 and the report was published in 2012, after 8 years.
http://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028

The Haida experiment is just 1.5 years ago.

It was a low budget ( relatively speaking )private experiment, so I would not be surprised if the data collection was not on par with other experiments.

Farmers use about 100 million tons of Urea and 30
million tons of Phosphate fertilizers per year. After about 50 years of use of large quantity of chemical fertilizers the problem of nutrient pollution of water is now becoming a serious issue.

Please read about Algal Blooms, Fish Kills, Dead Zones. All these are caused partly by fertilizer use by farmers.

One solution to this problem is micro nutrient fertilization of waterways to balance the excess nutrient input.

So Iron and micro nutrient fertilization of lakes and oceans should be encouraged, even if some of the experiments are not well regulated or documented.

By Bhaskar on Tue, January 07, 2014 at 10:06 am

If the iron dumps were legitimate scientific research, where is all the data and scientific research? I haven’t seen any significant substantive science from the so-called “research”. Recklessly dumping iron into the ocean, ignoring bad things, yet claiming anything supposedly good that happens to be the result of the iron dumping; isn’t science. It’s witchcraft.

Google:
Ocean-fertilization firm faces legal battle with former board member

How do you know the fish kills and rare species that died and washed up shortly after the iron dumps, were not the result of the iron dumps? Its normal for specie populations to boom and bust. How do you know that the few species that have recently boomed, are the result of the iron dumps? Those things haven’t been explained, therefore your rhetoric is not science.

Russ George are pointing fingers at each other as to who possesses what little so-called research Russ George & Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation allegedly did.

How could they come to conclusions if they don’t even have their data?

If they were a legitimate scientific organization, they should have made their data public to hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Google:
Ocean-fertilization firm faces legal battle with former board member

By R Smith on Tue, January 07, 2014 at 5:44 am

James Watt’s steam engine did not have a safety valve.

Otto Benz did not have a driving license when he built the first car.

The regulations on steam boilers and motor vehicles were put in place AFTER the products were invented and started to be used widely.

Today inspite of strict regulation of engines,  cars, electrical equipment, etc., millions of people are injured or killed due to these.

Ocean Fertilization is no different, it beneficial but may cause some unintended damages.

All the experiments done till date and the basic science behind fertilization indicates that the benefits far out-weight the problems, that is why I am canvassing for Ocean Fertilization.

By Bhaskar on Mon, January 06, 2014 at 10:04 pm

Smith

The issue is not Russ George.
The issue is iron and micro nutrient fertilization and Diatoms.

There is no law against it as of now -

Please see this on IMO website -

http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/45-marine-geoengieneering.aspx

Marine geoengineering including ocean fertilization to be regulated under amendments to international treaty

The amendments, adopted on Friday (18 October)  by Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, add a new article 6bis which states that “Contracting Parties shall not allow the placement of matter into the sea from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea for marine geoengineering activities listed in Annex 4, unless the listing provides that the activity or the sub-category of an activity may be authorized under a permit”.

The law is being drafted and may become effective in a few years.

Every shrimp hatchery uses silica and micro nutrients to grow Diatoms, we are just doing something similar on a much larger scale - ponds, lakes and oceans.

We are not talking theory, we have been growing Diatoms in ponds and lakes since 2005.

Pleas see this blog report on CSE website -

http://www.cseindia.org/node/3791
Nualgi Technology

By Bhaskar on Mon, January 06, 2014 at 7:49 pm

@ Bhaskar

Your assertions are false and unscientific.

Iron and most other minerals and nutrients get into our waterways naturally, agriculture, and industry like mining. Many lakes and waterways have so much iron, that it has a horrible taste.

Google:
“Investigations of Russ George’s Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research (LENR) and Plankton Carbon-Credit Activities”


Google:
“CBC-TV Investigates Former LENR Researcher Russ George”


Google:
“Here We Go Again With Dumping Iron Into the Ocean”


Google:
“World’s biggest geoengineering experiment ‘violates’ UN rules”


The research claims are contradicted, by trying to get carbon credits for profit. The claims of research are also contradicted by the lack of actual legitimate research. Jargon, hype and rhetoric is pseudoscience, not legitimate scientific research. The iron dumping “research” is much like Nazi racism “research”. You criminals pollute enough, now you’re trying to get money polluting.  If HSRC was a legitimate scientific community, it would not have hired Russ George.

By R Smith on Mon, January 06, 2014 at 4:17 pm

Smith

>According to many, Russ George and the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation violated international law by dumping iron into the ocean for a profit scheme under the guise of research. Regrettably for the most part, that law has little teeth.

You are factually incorrect.

There is no law in any country that prohibits ocean fertilization.

The LC / LP is an non binding agreement among countries not to dump Iron, except for research.

100 tons of Iron in 10,000 kms of Ocean is just an experiment.

Canada does not have any law that prohibits such experiments in its waters or that originates from its ports or is conducted by its citizens.

So the Haida Nation did not violate any law, either Canadian or international.

Their experiment is a legitimate scientific and perfectly legal experiment.

You should not critise the Haida for a valid experiment, just because Russ George has a bad reputation due to his past work on Cold Fusion and Planktos.

The Haida are merely trying to save their lively hood, that you are partly responsible for destroying due to all the pollution you create.

By Bhaskar on Fri, January 03, 2014 at 8:15 pm

Smith

You are confusing yourself.

>Minerals, including iron is often used as an agricultural, garden, and home fertilizer.

Exactly, micronutrients are used in agriculture, on land, BUT these do NOT flow into water.Unlike the Nutrients.

You are NOT able to understand the difference.

N and P are soluble in water, so they end up in water.

Silica and Metals are not EASILY soluble in water, so they do NOT end up in water.

That is why the scientific issue is that FARMERS have to use more of nutrients, N P K via Fertilizer and manure, to grow more crops and FISHERS have to use more Micronutrients, Fe, etc., to grow more fish.


>I’m surprised you support destroying our environment by dumping iron into the ocean. There should be legitimate scientific research on first to determine if the process is legitimate or not. You are supporting similar recklessness that contributed to the dust bowl, under the guise of agricultural science.

Our work is legitimate science and we are solving problems based on legitimate scientific research.

The dust bowl may have been a problem, but food production and population increased in the US INSPITE of this.

Any human endeavor has side effects and problems, what is important is the end result and the cost benefit.

>There should be a comprehensive study to see how such iron dump’s would affect wildlife and the balance of nature. Just because a few species might thrive, it doesn’t mean the rest would. Just because there might be some short-term gains, doesn’t mean it might not cause major long-term harm.

Exactly what we are saying, but people like you are blocking legitimate research with irrational objections.

>The iron dumping process is essentially reversing the process that helped higher life forms evolve. Evolutionary scientists believe that the first organisms to inhabit Earth were chemoautotrophs that produced oxygen as a by-product form iron oxide.

Iron plays a very crucial role in photosynthesis and hemoglobin in human blood, in the oxygen Carbon dioxide transfer. Iron is required by all higher life forms, that is why it is consumed and exits the water and food, so fresh iron supply has to be added to balance the nutrients we are adding.

Diatoms account for about 50% of photosynthesis in water, this is about 24% of ALL photosynthesis on Earth. Diatoms require Iron and other micro nutrients. We have proven this over the past 8 years.

Diatoms are the last / most recent phytoplankton to have evolved about 200 million years ago, therefore they are the best phytoplankton.

By Bhaskar on Fri, January 03, 2014 at 8:03 pm

@ Bhaskar

Quite the contrary. Your post is not factually correct or scientific.

Minerals, including iron is often used as an agricultural, garden, and home fertilizer. Ranging anywhere from blood meal to powdered iron. The government and chemical companies are even trying to push farmers to use sulfur that has been scrubbed from smokestacks as a fertilizer, even though there is little science to suggest that it is a necessary supplement for most agricultural purposes. Microbes are often added to help absorption and decomposition.

I’m surprised you support destroying our environment by dumping iron into the ocean. There should be legitimate scientific research on first to determine if the process is legitimate or not. You are supporting similar recklessness that contributed to the dust bowl, under the guise of agricultural science.

There should be a comprehensive study to see how such iron dump’s would affect wildlife and the balance of nature. Just because a few species might thrive, it doesn’t mean the rest would. Just because there might be some short-term gains, doesn’t mean it might not cause major long-term harm.

The iron dumping process is essentially reversing the process that helped higher life forms evolve. Evolutionary scientists believe that the first organisms to inhabit Earth were chemoautotrophs that produced oxygen as a by-product form iron oxide.

By R Smith on Fri, January 03, 2014 at 2:45 pm

@ Brad Cunnin

According to many, Russ George and the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation violated international law by dumping iron into the ocean for a profit scheme under the guise of research. Regrettably for the most part, that law has little teeth.

If the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation was about science and research; it’s doubtful that they would hire or could be fooled by the likes of Russ George. Where is all the results from the scientific alleged scientific research from the iron dump? A lot of shallow pseudoscientific rhetoric, but I haven’t seen anything substantial that would hold up in the legitimate scientific community. Science and facts are not on your side.

Many salmon runs are down, especially sockeye salmon. Some canneries have had to shut down since the iron dump.

Your claims are unscientific, ignorant and dishonest. You are the typical type of person that supports polluting the ocean under the guise of science and environmentalism. There should be legitimate and better research done before moving forward.

I made a typo. If you were into oceanography you should know that the rare sabertooth whales, oar fish, and many other fish kills started to wash up on the US WEST Coast shortly after Russ George and the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation dumped iron into the ocean.

If Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation was a legitimate scientific entity doing legitimate scientific research; they sould have not of hired Russ George.

By R Smith on Fri, January 03, 2014 at 2:18 pm

@ David Lewis

The posted “scientific data” is quite sparse and unscientific. Reminds me of the “science” of Nazi eugenics. They seem to be out to advance an agenda, rather than to conduct science.

By R Smith on Fri, January 03, 2014 at 2:07 pm

R Smith

Your post is factually incorrect.
Human action is resulting in increase in NUTRIENT input into waterways, i.e., of Nitrogen and Phosphorus and decrease in Silica and MICRONUTRIENT input.

Dams impound water and SILT, silt contains Silica and micro nutrients. Dams result in more agriculture, farmers use fertilizers and manure and grow more crops and feed more people. The more people produce more sewage.

The fertilizer run off and sewage contains N and P but not Si, Fe and other Micronutrients.

The reason for this is simple biology.
Plants require N P K and Micro nutrients.
Diatoms require Silica in addition to these.
Animals including fish and people do not need N and very little P but require micro nutrients.

So all the N in the food we eat is excreted as Urine ( Uric Acid, Urea )and a lot of the P is also excreted. But ALL the micro nutrients in the food is retained by us since we need these. Iron goes to make Hemoglobin in Red Blood Corpuscles, etc.

So the Nutrient to Micro nutrient balance of water has been upset. This has resulted in growth of unwanted algae and weeds.

If the Nutrient to micro nutrient balance is set right by fertilizing waterways with micronutrients,  good algae will grow i.e., Diatoms and these consume the nutrients and diatoms are consumed by Fish. So the nutrients are utilized to grow more food instead of being treated as pollutants.

Please think - what would happen if farmers used NPK fertilizers and grew grass instead of rice, wheat, corn, etc., or if a dairy farmer grew weeds instead of grass.

Fishermen too have to grow the right algae in ponds, lakes and oceans to get more fish.

No fisher is doing this - this is the ONLY problem.

By Bhaskar on Thu, January 02, 2014 at 11:09 pm

Reading some comments from R Smith, I suggest a little (or a lot of)science and geography are in order, in addition to history. The iron fertilization happened in the PACIFIC OCEAN.. (East Coast Whales dying?!)  Far from killing wildlife, it appears from the size and location of the bloom that it created a lot of life, and the SCIENCE says that the similar but larger algae bloom after the Kasatoshi Volcano eruption was the most likely cause of the LARGEST SALMON RUN in the last century. Killing Coral? The ocean is 3-5 KILOMETRES deep there, coral grows in 3-10 metres, you are 2 orders of magnitude out.

Change Ph, yes… but this would change it in the right direction, from overly acidic from absorbing the worlds excess CO2 (so much so that mollusks and crustaceans are already having trouble building shells with the extra ions in the water) to the more balanced PH levels.

Poisonous algae blooms?  Closer to shore, in warmer, stiller waters with too much phosphate.. (which you correctly referenced), not in the deep gyre current that they used.
The execution was done without ‘permission’, but from whom? Turns out the UN and London Protocol has no mechanism for ‘permits’, and was not ‘binding’ but a ‘protocol’ (hence the name). Which has some self appointed, well meaning, but un-knowlegeable folks bent.

So far all the science and anecdotal evidence says this was most likely a good thing for the planet, but the media and environmentalists it is just sensational.

By Brad Cunnin on Thu, January 02, 2014 at 3:09 pm

You state that McNamee is “still poring over all the data”.  The way you phrase your opinion of why “all the data” isn’t yet available, i.e. McNamee refuses “to go on record about what is holding up that process”, hints that you know something you aren’t telling us. 

What is your opinion of the “Scientific Data” page ( http://www.haidasalmonrestoration.com/index.php/science/scientific-data ) on the HSRC website?  A casual visitor to that page might assume that an awful lot of “the data” is available now.  What’s your problem with it? 

Are you wondering why “analysis” of “the data”, as opposed to “all the data”, is not yet available, or are you saying in your hint, hint, way, that McNamee is holding something back?

By David Lewis on Thu, January 02, 2014 at 11:55 am

Environmentalists say that fertilizers and micronutrients are harming our ponds, lakes, creeks, rivers and oceans. Yet we are supposed to believe it is good for greedy corporations to dump iron in the ocean?

Fertilizers and micronutrients are often blamed for destroying our ponds, lakes, creeks, rivers and oceans. Fertilizers and micronutrients are often blamed for disrupting the balance of nature; triggering poisonous algae blooms, silting up ponds, lakes and the ocean.

Many think it is no coincidence that after rogue “scientists” dumped iron in the ocean, that sockeye salmon have declined and rare species started washing up on our shores.

I think it is contradictory that the EPA considers fertilizers and micronutrients as pollutants, yet we are supposed to believe that greedy people should be subsidized for dumping it the ocean.

The EPA is making laws and regulations to try to limit and reduce the amount of fertilizers that farmers, gardeners, homeowners, and lawn care companies use.
http://farmfutures.com/story-streams-rivers-suffering-fertilizer-runoff-epa-says-0-96533

Are you too young to remember, when phosphates essentially outlawed for use in laundry detergents because they were polluting our ponds, rivers, and oceans by fertilizing them?
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/94-54.htm

Do some research. One of the values of studying history, is the knowledge can help people from repeating the same mistakes.

It’s foolish to recklessly dump large amounts of iron or other fertilizers in the ocean without doing proper research. It amazes me what crackpots like Russ George, try to portray as science and research.

By R Smith on Thu, January 02, 2014 at 11:12 am

We routinely fertilizer ponds and lakes with micro nutrients ( Iron and 9 others ) to grow Diatoms.

Diatoms keep the water clean and well oxygenated.

By Bhaskar on Thu, January 02, 2014 at 5:40 am

The sockeye salmon are largely on the decline, iron dumping may have contributed to the decline of the premium salmon. Iron dumping can contribute to poisonous algae blooms. Iron could set off the pH, and can be destructive to coral and other sea life. Iron dumping might deplete oxygen from the ocean and atmosphere. Shortly after the rogue “scientists” dumped tons of iron in the ocean, rare species, like the sabertooth whale washed up on East Coast beaches. Oar fish that normally are only found in deep ocean, started washing up on the America East Coast. Scientific studies should be done to evaluate the risks, before tons of iron are recklessly dumped into the ocean killing off wildlife.

By R Smith on Tue, December 31, 2013 at 8:24 pm

Leave a comment

Comments Policy

Remember my personal information?

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

View Posts by Date View Posts by Author

Subscribe
Today

Four issues for just
$10 a year.

cover thumbnail EIJ

Join Now!

 
Go Solar with Earth Island Institute!

0.1548