Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (16432)	9/27/2007 11:00:43 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36917

netl.doe.gov scientificblogging.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (16432)	9/27/2007 1:06:16 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

But if you're going to treat the patient, first you have to understand what the disease is. We couldn't agree more on that. But I don't understand why my previous post didn't respond to your comment that iron fertizilation was being ignored. It isn't being ignored, people are testing it, probably even as we write our (apparently mutually incomprehensible!<ng>) messages back and forth. I don't doubt that dead zones in the ocean are one important factor. If you read a book like The Control of Nature by John McPhee, you'll see that one important factor of a very large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is runoff from the Mississippi that includes all sorts of agricultural and industrial pollution. I doubt whether iron fertilization will help that area much. That isn't to say that IF doesn't deserve a hearing and isn't a part of any solution to the problem. Nor is it to say that the reduction in phytoplankton growth isn't an important factor. I don't say either one of these things. I am saying that the problem has multiple causes--including the one you suggest--and has to have multiple solutions. I know that it isn't very satisfying to leave it at that, but I'm afraid it will have to do for now.