Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Marine biology wikipedia , lookup
Pacific Ocean wikipedia , lookup
The Marine Mammal Center wikipedia , lookup
History of research ships wikipedia , lookup
Environmental impact of shipping wikipedia , lookup
Marine pollution wikipedia , lookup
Ecosystem of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre wikipedia , lookup
Love Canal Summary Love Canal is a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York, which became the subject of national and international attention, controversy, and eventual environmental notoriety following the discovery of 21,000 tons of toxic waste that had been buried beneath the neighborhood by Hooker Chemical.. Hooker Chemical sold this site to the Niagara Falls School Board with a deed explicitly detailing the danger contained within the site[citation needed], and including a liability limitation clause about the contamination. The construction efforts of housing development, combined with particularly heavy rainstorms, released the chemical waste, leading to a public health emergency and an urban planning scandal Early history The name Love Canal came from the last name of William T. Love, who in the early 1890s envisioned a canal connecting the two levels of the Niagara River separated by Niagara Falls. He believed it would serve the area's burgeoning industries with much needed hydro electricity. His plan was never realized. He began digging the canal and built a few streets and homes when his fund were depleted With the project abandoned, the canal gradually filled with water.[5] The local children swam there in the summer and skated in the winter. By the 1940s, Hooker Electrochemical Company (later known as Hooker Chemical Company) founded by Elon Hooker, began searching for a place to dump the rampant amount of chemical waste it was producing. Hooker was granted permission by the Niagara Power and Development Company in 1942 to dump wastes in the canal. The canal was drained and lined with thick clay. Into this site, Hooker began placing 55-gallon metal or fibre barrels. The City of Niagara Falls and the army continued the dumping of refuse.. This dumpsite was in operation until 1953. During this time, 21,000 tons of chemicals such as "caustics, alkalines, fatty acids and chlorinated hydrocarbons from the manufacturing of dyes, perfumes, solvents for rubber and synthetic resins" were added After 1953, the canal was covered with soil, and vegetation began to grow atop the dumpsite. Sale of the site At the time of the dump's closure, Niagara Falls was entering an economic boom and the population had surpassed 85,000, with the population expanding at record percentages. The Niagara Falls City School District needed land to build new schools, and attempted to purchase the property from Hooker Chemical that had been used to bury toxic waste. The corporation refused to sell, citing safety concerns, and took members of the school board to the canal and drilled several bore holes to demonstrate that there were toxic chemicals below the surface. However, the board refused to capitulate.[10] Eventually, faced with the property being condemned and/or expropriated, Hooker Chemical agreed to sell on the condition that the board buy the entire property for one dollar. In the agreement signed on April 28, 1953, Hooker included a seventeen line caveat that explained the dangers of building on the site. Hooker believed it was thus released from all legal obligations should lawsuits arise in the future.[11] Hooker stated that the area should be sealed off "so as to prevent the possibility of persons or animals coming in contact with the dumped materials."[12] Construction of the 93rd Street School and the 99th Street School Despite the disclaimer, the board began construction of the 99th Street School in its originally intended location. Upon completion in 1955, 400 children attended the school, and it opened along with several other schools that had been built to accommodate students.. That same year, a twenty-five foot area crumbled exposing toxic chemical drums, which then filled with water during rainstorms. This created large puddles that children enjoyed playing in. [2] In 1958, a second school, the 93rd Street School, opened six blocks away. In 1957, the City of Niagara Falls constructed sewers for a mixture of low-income and single family residences be built on lands adjacent to the landfill site. The school district had sold off the remaining land, and homes were to be built by private developers, as well as the Niagara Falls Housing Authority, who planned to build the Griffon Manor housing project. Health problems, activism, and site cleanup Reporter Michael Brown investigated potential health effects by carrying forth an informal door-todoor survey in the early summer of 1978, finding birth defects and many anomalies. On August 2, 1978, Lois Gibbs, a local mother, began to further rally homeowners. Her son, Michael Gibbs, began attending school in September 1977. He developed epilepsy in December, suffered from asthma and a urinary tract infection, and had a low white blood cell count,[17][18] all associated with his exposure to the leaking chemical waste. Gibbs had learned from Mr. Brown that her neighborhood sat on top of 21,000 tons of buried chemical waste.[19] According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1979, residents exhibited a "disturbingly high rate of miscarriages... In one case, two out of four children in a single Love Canal family had birth defects; one girl was born deaf with a cleft palate, an extra row of teeth, and slight retardation, and a boy was born with an eye defect.[21] A survey conducted by the Love Canal Homeowners Association found that 56% of the children born from 1974-1978 had at least one birth defect.[22] . The school was closed and demolished, but both the school board and the chemical company refused to accept liability. The 93rd Street School was closed some two years later due to concerns about seeping toxic waste.. By 1978, Love Canal had become a national media event with articles referring to the neighborhood as "a public health time bomb," and "one of the most appalling environmental tragedies in American history." On August 7, 1978, United States President Jimmy Carter announced a federal health emergency, called for the allocation of federal funds and ordered the Federal Disaster Assistance Agency to assist the City of Niagara Falls to remedy the Love Canal site.[26] This was the first time in American history that emergency funds were used other than for a natural disaster.[27] [Aftermath Today, houses in the residential areas on the east and west sides of the canal have been demolished. All that remains on the west side are abandoned residential streets. Some older east side residents, whose houses stand alone in the demolished neighborhood, chose to stay. It was estimated that less than 90 of the original 900 families opted to remain.[26] They were willing to remain as long as they were guaranteed that their homes were in a relatively safe area. The legacy of the disaster spawned a fictionalized made-for-TV film entitled Lois Gibbs and the Love Canal (1982). A documentary entitled In Our Own Backyard was released in the U.S. in 1983 EXXON VALDEZ SUMMARY The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m 3) of crude oil.[1][2] It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.[3] As significant as the Valdez spill was—the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill—it ranks well down on the list of the world's largest oil spills in terms of volume released.[4] However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane and boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline,[5] and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km 2) of ocean.[6] Timeline of events Exxon Valdez left the Valdez oil terminal in Alaska at 9:12 pm on March 23, 1989, bound for Long Beach, California. The ship was under the control of Shipmaster Joseph Jeffrey Hazelwood. The outbound shipping lane was obstructed with small icebergs (possibly from the nearby Columbia Glacier), so Hazelwood got permission from the Coast Guard to go out through the inbound lane.. The ship was on autopilot, using the navigation system installed by the company that constructed the ship. The ship struck Bligh Reef at around 12:04 a.m. March 24, 1989.[5] According to official reports, the ship was carrying approximately 55 million US gallons (210,000 m3) of oil, of which about 11 to 32 million US gallons (42,000 to 120,000 m 3) were spilled into the Prince William Sound.[ Identified causes Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident: Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this was wide spread throughout industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry. [13] The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[13] Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh reef by detecting the "radar reflector", placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping boats on course via radar. [14] CLEAN UP EFFORTS Exxon was widely criticized for its slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, the mayor of Valdez, has said his community felt betrayed by Exxon's inadequate response to the crisis.[21] More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try to restore the environment. Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the oil collected, the decision was made to displace it with high-pressure hot water. However, this also displaced and destroyed the microbial populations on the shoreline; many of these organisms (e.g. plankton) are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g. certain bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the biodegradation of oil. At the time, both scientific advice and public pressure was to clean everything, but since then, a much greater understanding of natural and facilitated remediation processes has developed, due somewhat in part to the opportunity presented for study by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite the extensive cleanup attempts, less than ten percent of the oil was recovered and a study conducted by NOAA determined that as of early 2007 more than 26 thousand U.S. gallons (98 m3) of oil remain in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.[22][23] Effects of Spill Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied.[25] Immediate effects included the deaths of, at the best estimates[citation needed], 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 Bald Eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs. [8][26] The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years [quantify] afterwards. Overall reductions in population were seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations. According to several studies funded by the state of Alaska, the spill had both short-term and longterm economic effects. These included the loss of recreational sports, fisheries, reduced tourism, and an estimate of what economists call "existence value", which is the value to the public of a pristine Prince William Sound.[46][47][48] The economy of the city of Cordova, Alaska was adversely affected after the spill damaged stocks of salmon and herring in the area. Several residents, including one former mayor, committed suicide after the spill Alaska regulations In the aftermath of the spill, Alaska governor Steve Cowper issued an executive order requiring two tugboats to escort every loaded tanker from Valdez out through Prince William Sound to Hinchinbrook Entrance. As the plan evolved in the 1990s, one of the two routine tugboats was replaced with a 210-foot (64 m) Escort Response Vehicle (ERV). The majority of tankers at Valdez are no longer single-hulled, Congress has enacted legislation requiring all tankers to be double-hulled by 2015. The Exxon Valdez supertanker was towed to San Diego, arriving on July 10. Repairs began on July 30. Approximately 1,600 short tons (1,500 t) of steel were removed and replaced. In June 1990 the tanker, renamed S/R Mediterranean, left harbor after $30 million of repairs.[42] It was still sailing as of January 2010, registered in Panama. The vessel is currently owned by a Hong Kong company, who operates it under the name Dong Fang Ocean. THE GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH SUMMARY The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also described as the Pacific Trash Vortex, is a gyre of marine litter in the central North Pacific Ocean located roughly between 135° to 155°W to 42°N.[1] The patch extends over an indeterminate area, with estimates ranging very widely depending on the degree of plastic concentration used to define the affected area. Although many media and advocacy reports have suggested the patch extends over an area larger than the continental U.S, recent research sponsored by the National Science Foundation suggests the affected area may be twice the size of Texas. The Patch is characterized by exceptionally high concentrations of pelagic plastics, chemical sludge, and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre DISCOVERY The existence of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was predicted in a 1988 paper published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States. The prediction was based on results obtained by several Alaska-based researchers between 1985 and 1988 that measured neustonic plastic in the North Pacific Ocean.[7] This research found high concentrations of marine debris accumulating in regions governed by ocean currents. FORMATION Like other areas of concentrated marine debris in the world's oceans, it is thought, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch formed gradually as a result of marine pollution gathered by oceanic currents.[14] The garbage patch occupies a large and relatively stationary region of the North Pacific Ocean bound by the North Pacific Gyre (a remote area commonly referred to as the horse latitudes). The gyre's rotational pattern draws in waste material from across the North Pacific Ocean, including coastal waters off North America and Japan. As material is captured in the currents, wind-driven surface currents gradually move floating debris toward the center, trapping it in the region. SIZE The size of the patch is unknown, as large items readily visible from a boat deck are uncommon. Most debris consists of small plastic particles suspended at or just below the surface, making it impossible to detect by aircraft or satellite. Instead, the size of the patch is determined by sampling. Estimates on size range from 700,000 square kilometres (270,000 sq mi) to more than 15,000,000 square kilometres (5,800,000 sq mi) In August 2009, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography / Project Kaisei SEAPLEX survey mission of the Gyre, found that plastic debris was present in 100 consecutive samples taken at varying depths and net sizes along a 1,700 miles (2,700 km) path through the patch. The survey also confirmed that while the debris field does contain large pieces, it is on the whole made up of smaller items which increase in concentration towards the Gyre's centre, and these 'confetti-like' pieces are clearly visible just beneath the surface. SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS There is strong scientific data concerning the origins of pelagic plastics. The figure that an estimated 80% of the garbage comes from land-based sources and 20% from ships, is derived from an unsubstantiated estimate.[17] Ship-generated pollution is a source of concern since a typical 3,000 passenger cruise ship produces over eight tons of solid waste weekly, a major amount of which ends up in the patch, as most of the waste is organic. [18] Pollutants range in size from abandoned fishing nets to micro-pellets used in abrasive cleaners.[19] Currents carry debris from the west coast of North America to the gyre in about six years,[20] and debris from the east coast of Asia in a year or less.[21][22] An international research project led by Dr. Hideshige Takada of Tokyo University studying plastic pellets, or nurdles, from beaches around the world may provide further clues about the origins of pelagic plastic.[23] EFFECT ON WILDLIFE Some of these long-lasting plastics end up in the stomachs of marine birds and animals, and their young,[9] including sea turtles and the Black-footed Albatross.[29] Besides the particles' danger to wildlife, the floating debris can absorb organic pollutants from seawater, including PCBs, DDT, and PAHs.[30] Aside from toxic effects,[31] when ingested, some of these are mistaken by the endocrine system as estradiol, causing hormone disruption in the affected animal.[29] These toxincontaining plastic pieces are also eaten by jellyfish, which are then eaten by larger fish. Many of these fish are then consumed by humans, resulting in their ingestion of toxic chemicals. [32] Marine plastics also facilitate the spread of invasive species that attach to floating plastic in one region and drift long distances to colonize other ecosystems.[19] Research has shown that this plastic marine debris affects at least 267 species worldwide and a few of the 267 species reside in the North Pacific Gyre. [33] CLEAN-UP. In April 2008, Richard Sundance Owen, a building contractor and scuba dive instructor, formed the Environmental Cleanup Coalition to address the issue of North Pacific pollution. ECC collaborates with other groups to identify methods to safely remove plastic and persistent organic pollutants from the oceans.[36][37] The JUNK raft project was a trans-Pacific sailing voyage from June to August 2008 made to highlight the plastic in the patch, organized by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation.[38][39][40] Project Kaisei is a project to study and clean up the garbage patch launched in March 2009. In August 2009 two project vessels, the New Horizon and the Kaisei, embarked on a voyage to research the patch and determine the feasibility of commercial scale collection and recycling. [41] THERE IS STILL LITTLE CLEAN-UP BEING DONE SINCE THIS IS A FAIRLY RECENT DISCOVERY