Ecocentric

This Year’s Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Could Be the Biggest on Record

The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico—a growing and shrinking region of oxygen-free water—could be the largest on record this summer, thanks to flooding and fertilizer runoff.

  • Share
  • Read Later
NOAA

The dead zone, indicated in red, is filled with low to no-oxygen water, causing nearby fish to flee or die.

The near record-breaking Midwestern drought of 2012 shriveled corn crops and toasted pasture land. But it did have one positive side effect. The drought significantly reduced the size of the seasonal Gulf of Mexico dead zone. Less rain led to less fertilizer runoff—the dead zone is fed by a buildup of nitrogen-based fertilizer in the Gulf—which meant that the 2012 summer dead zone measured just 2,889 sq. miles. That’s still a zone the size of the state of Delaware, but it was the fourth-smallest dead zone on record, and less than half the size of the average between 1995 and 2012.

This year will be different. Heavy rainfall in the Midwest this spring has led to flood conditions, with states like Minnesota and Illinois experiencing some of the wettest spring seasons on record. And all that flooding means a lot more nitrogen-based fertilizer running off into the Gulf. According to an annual estimate from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sponsored modelers at the University of Michigan, Louisiana State University and Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, this year’s dead zone could be as large as 8,561 sq. miles—roughly the size of New Jersey. That would make it the biggest dead zone on record. And even the low end of the estimate would place this year among the top 10 biggest dead zones on record. Barring an unlikely change in the weather, much of the Gulf of Mexico could become an aquatic desert.


(MORE: Visualizing the Anthropocene)

The nitrogen nutrients that flow into the Gulf, especially during the rainy spring season, encourages the growth of explosive algal blooms, which feed on the nitrogen. Eventually those algae die and sink to the bottom, and bacteria there get to work decomposing the organic matter. The bacteria consume oxygen in the water as they do, resulting in low-oxygen (hypoxic) or oxygen-free (anoxic) regions in the bottom and near-bottom waters.

That’s what a dead zone—water, essentially, without air. Sealife—including the valuable shellfish popular in Gulf fisheries—either flee the area, much as you or I would if someone were to suck all the oxygen out of the room, or die. That’s why the dead zone matters—the larger it is, the greater the populations of fish that might be affected. With commercial fisheries in the Gulf worth $629 million as of 2009—and still recovering from the impact of the 2010 oil spill—the dead zone means business.

The major factor driving the size of the dead zone—beyond changing flooding patterns—is the use and overuse of fertilizers in America’s rich Midwestern corn belt. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 153,000 metric tons of nutrients flowed down the swollen Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers during May—a 16% increase over the nutrient load average seen during the past 34 years. And as James Greiff of Bloomberg points out in a recent piece, those nutrients are used disproportionately to feed one particular crop:

The culprits behind the dead zone are many, but one deserves special attention: corn. Unlike, say, soybeans, which can grow without fertilizer, corn can’t grow without it. It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer to grow an acre of corn.

And the U.S. grows a lot of corn — more than any other country. What’s more, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is devoted to making ethanol, which fuel companies must blend with gasoline under a congressional mandate. The Gulf dead zone is yet another reason for Congress to kill that mandate.

A state-federal task force was actually set up in 2008 with the aim of reducing the nutrient flow in the Mississippi by 45% by this year—but as the numbers demonstrate, there hasn’t been much success. Farmers could be encouraged to use fertilizer more efficiently—Greiff suggests ending the practice of applying fertilizer to fields in the fall after crops are harvested, and instead laying it down in the spring. They should also limit the amount of water running off their land, much of which ends up in the rivers and then the Gulf.

Of course, Midwestern farmers care chiefly about the crops in their own fields, not what might be happening in the Gulf of Mexico, hundreds of miles downstream. (And the American farmer is just a bit more politically powerful than Gulf fishermen, let alone environmentalists.) But that invisible telecoupling is what make today’s environmental threats—climate change, ocean acidification, the wildlife trade—so devilishly complex. Just thinking about it is enough to suck the oxygen right out of the room.

(MORE: The New Science of Telecoupling Shows Just How Connected the World Is—For Better and For Worse)

62 comments
FormerEPAer
FormerEPAer

The problem was actually recognized much earlier and an Action Plan devised and submitted to Congress in 2001. Lack of $ and will have hobbled its implementation, along with the Fools Gold of corn-based ethanol as a fuel additive. Every politician looking at the Iowa Caucus genuflects at the altar of corn. The Gulf Dead Zone is just one of several undesirable consequences.

AbinicoWarez
AbinicoWarez

And what happens when the entire planet is a dead zone?

junktex
junktex

After the BP disaster,the Gulf is dying

PaulMueller
PaulMueller

If the algae is thriving on nitrogen, why aren't we harvesting the algae for fertilizer/compost. Looks like an opportunity to solve multiple problems

HilaryGroom
HilaryGroom

It's not just fertilizer, it's animal waste.  There is lots of phosphate in animal waste.  There's an obvious solution here, the suggestion to reduce meat consumption doesn't need anymore arguments for it.

Onepatriot
Onepatriot

Seems last year would have been a perfect time to try to deal with this since the waters were at low levels in the river and upstream.  So tired of seeing the inactivity in Washington in addressing any of the serious problems that we created, facing this beautiful  country.

I was under the impression that there were buffer zones required for these farmed fields next to streams.   Is anybody policing that? Or is that another voluntary compliance in lieu of , heaven help us, "regulations".  

alvarez.t3
alvarez.t3

B.P , Terrorist Oil Corporation killing our Oceans .

KatieGibson
KatieGibson

I think it's important that we note farmers aren't the evil ones in this situation. Yes this is a bad consequences directly related to their actions but to solve the problem we have to look a little wider. Farmers are often just attempting to survive life like most people. Just trying to keep their houses, land, families together. This is a systemic issue. We also have a tendency to instead of fix the systemic problem create a patched solution. Something that only fixes the whole that we created, instead of the bigger issues. It's gotta change at the top if you want the bottom to be different. 

jota511
jota511

Ah, those pesky "unintended consequences" of Congressional do-gooders. To those in Congress: It is better to do nothing and be thought a fool than to act and remove all doubt. (paraphrase of a quote by others).

OccamsRazor1349
OccamsRazor1349

"It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer to grow an acre of corn" . . . This is one reason (of many) why corn-based ethanol is a complete scam and waste of money.

PaperlessLess
PaperlessLess

Can Sea food from the dead zone be responsible for Republicanbigotism in the Bible belt?

drdev
drdev

Gaia Water Ltd has a technology can take oxygen out of the atmosphere and pressurize it into water.  This process is patented and can help solve dead zone areas related to algae.  www.GaiaWater.com

diad
diad

You forgot to mention how much of that corn is grown only to feed animals raised for human consumption.   Eat less meat, or no meat, if you want to make a difference.

Enjoyer
Enjoyer

Help me understand something. When there were millions of American Bison (buffalo) on the prairie of the central US, and all that excrement was washed down the Mississippi, didn't that also result in a dead zone? True, many of the sponges absorbing animal waste (aka swamps) are gone, but my bet it the nutrients from the buffaloes made it to the Gulf in huge quantities. Is there anything in the Gulf sediments that comments on this?

STS
STS

Shocking!!!!! F'ing BP blasts millions of barrels of oil into delicate ecosystem, then comes out with 'green' commercials, everyone completely forgets the massive catastrophe. What??? What the.....??

Then Japan nukes the Pacific Ocean a few weeks later. The planet is dying.

sciguybm
sciguybm

Really. Fertilizer.  Not the millions of tons of atrazine? Not the millions of tons of roundup? (yes, I said tons, not pounds) No, they blame fertilizers.  Well folks: that's why you are all getting cancer and your children are all gay. Enjoy.

FormerEPAer
FormerEPAer

Actually animal waste, and human sewage, are significantly smaller factors than nitrogen fertilizer for corn. Restoration of wetlands and construction of treatment wetlands could remove much of the nitrogen before it reaches the Gulf.

FormerEPAer
FormerEPAer

@Onepatriot 

Buffer zones can be effective, though tiled draine fields, common in Ohio, Illinois and Indiana mainline excess water to ditches, creeks, streams, then the rivers and gulf.  Unfortunately, buffer zones are voluntary and encouraged with lease payments. when corn prices are high, or Congress fails to authorize these or adequately fund them, the economic choice is to plant and plow right up to the edge of the stream.

FormerEPAer
FormerEPAer

@KatieGibson 

The Gulf Action Plans recognize that and recommend a range of actions to curb the problem.  Just need a functioning Congress and the will to make it happen.  Tens of billions are spent to keep commodity prices high while hundreds of millions are spent to on incentives for farmers to voluntarily reduce adverse environmental effects.  If we faced the fallacy of corn-based ethanol as a fuel additive it would help.

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@KatieGibson Granted. However, it's also important that we start working with the farmers -- and especially the giant farm corporations which cover most of the territory and tend to be more likely to over-apply fertilizer.  Everyone realizes that farmers are going to fertilize, but there are ways and times of doing it where more ends up in the rivers, and ways/times where less ends up in the rivers.  Since it's more cost-effective for the farmer to keep his fertilizer on his property, it's good for him as well to use the minimum amount of fertilizer at the most efficient times/methods.  Which would also help reduce the size of the "dead zone" in the Gulf.

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@OccamsRazor1349 Agreed.  It was a reasonable hypothesis originally, but it's been demonstrated to be a failure in ohhhh so many ways over the last decade.  Time to pull the plug and turn corn back into something that people and animals eat, and that's all.

Hyperion
Hyperion

@diad If we all stopped eating meat there would not be enough space to grow food for everyone. Energy biomagnifies as it moves up the food chain, meaning that meat is more nutritious and contains much more energy per unit of consumption. If we all ate plants, let alone, unfertilized plants, we would have an even larger amount of people going hungry because to feed each person it would take 5 to 10 times the amount of land.

sanguinesolitude
sanguinesolitude

@Enjoyerbuffalo poop and concentrated artificially produced amonium nitrate fertilizer are very different.  On a healthy grassland poo doesnt travel very far when it lands. It is rained on and soaks into the soil. On cropland all the grasses and plants that would take in the nutrients are blasted away by roundup, and pure fertilizer makes it into the water supply through rain runoff. Very different situations.

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@STS Not sure what you're ranting about, but it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with this article.  The Gulf dead zone has been a known scientific problem for at least two decades now.  It's got nothing whatsoever to do with BP or Japan.  Try staying on topic, please.

MikeKelter
MikeKelter

@sciguybm Roundup is a popular herbicide--about 82,000 tons per year are applied throughout the US.  Like any herbicide, you have to follow label directions.  Yes, studies at Ohio State have shown that Roundup can cause blue-green algae to grow, since the glyphosate molecule has one phosphate atom and one nitrogen atom.  

Environmental whackos in Ohio have been trying for years to pin Lake Erie algae blooms on Monsanto. Given the mass of algae that grows from time to time on Lake Erie, that claim would be pretty ridiculous.  They have other phosphate problems in Ohio.

Roundup, as a major cause of algal bloom in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico is an even more ridiculous, given the assimilative capacity of salt water for phosphorous compounds.  It takes much more phosphorous to trigger algal blooms in marine water such as the Gulf than it takes in fresh water such as Lake Erie.  I don't think enough Roundup is applied in the South, next to waterbodies draining to the Gulf to cause the kind of algal blooms I've seen.  There are other sources of phosphate that would be more likely culprits.

Keep in mind that the phosphorous atom is relatively heavy (atomic weight=30.97) so it tends to sink in water and get sequestered in the muck.  Unless you stir it up, it doesn't go very far.  Because of the nature of the Roundup product, the glyphosate molecule is absorbed into the root system, where it remains in the soil and is thus very immobile.

Yes, Roundup is very toxic to people.  I don't think it causes your kids to be gay although, coincidentally, there is a dead zone around Key West and lots of gays on that island.



RangerDOS
RangerDOS

@sciguybm How am I ever going to tell my kid's spouses that they are gay!!!??? And the grand kids what do I tell them?  Can they catch stupid too?  Like from people like you?  Maybe they should wear a surgical mask and a tin foil hat!!!!

SwiftrightRight
SwiftrightRight

@sciguybm So your saying i can catch the "gays" from atrazine and round up??   Let me guess your one of those types who believe the earth is flat, rests on the back of a giant turtle and thats its turtles all the way down?

FrankFMoore
FrankFMoore

Yes,  really.  The chemistry of this has been known for several decades.  It was occurring before Round-up was on the market.  And neither Atrazine nor Round-up cause algal blooms.  Additionally...
Your comment about gays desplays an even greater degee of ignorance.

diad
diad

@Hyperion  

  The plant food used to feed animals would feed a whole lot more people.

michael_mcc
michael_mcc

@Hyperion @diad Actually, energy decreases higher up the food chain. Americans eat way too much red meat and corn. A better solution would be some corn along with beans, cucurbits (squash), wheat, and meats like chicken and fish. 

MikeKelter
MikeKelter

@sanguinesolitude @Enjoyer I can tell you don't do much farming.  Nitrate in buffalo poop is no different than nitrate in fertilizer.  Ammonia in buffalo pea isn't any different than what you buy in a bag.  The concentration is different, so you use less when you buy by the bag.  

Buffalo herds trampled the bejeezus out of the prairrie lands, allowing for massive erosion when it rained.  Farmers typically till fields to minimize erosion by following the contours of the land and provide for buffers to collect sediments and nutrient runoff.  

Only a city-slicker would think that farmers spend their money to buy expensive fertilizer just to waste it during rainstorm.  

This article seems to link Gulf of Mexico "dead zones" with low dissolved oxygen content.  In the last five years US EPA has tried to link low DO with nutrient levels, much as they have tried to single out CO2 as the only cause of global warming.  This is a huge mistake.  Nutrient levels CAN lead to low DO levels, but most often low DOs are scientifically attributed to a larger range of issues, including cyclic water temperature anomalies in a water body--which is proving to be the one of the main driving factors.  

As the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation reached its peak warming over the past couple of years, a warming anomaly of 1 degree celsius has appeared in the Gulf of Mexico delta area.  Warmer water in the Gulf will retain less dissolved oxygen.  This year the anomaly is significantly less than it was last year at this time.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame this problem on the farmers.  Every American who flushes a toilet in the Mississippi basin and Mother Nature have something to do with the issue.


junktex
junktex

@JenniferBonin @STS STS is on track.You folks worrying about fertilizer runoff into the Gulf are worrying about acne when the patient has pancreatic cancer.

sciguybm
sciguybm

@RangerDOS @sciguybm yeah, I wonder. However because we have no way of knowing the what and wherefore of your "kids" I'll only point you to the same data I posted above this and then, when your GRANDCHILDREN make their affinities known we can answer your obviously uninformed comment.

I stand by the chemistry....and I am a PhD researcher in cellular metabolic pathways not on the take from the chemical industry.... you on the chemical industry's payroll? Using their products instead of using good common sense agricultural techniques? Well: only you know the truth and I am sure if you are using or on the payola we aren't going to hear any truth from you bub.

Boulz
Boulz

Sciguybm is correct that Atrazine has been known to turn male frogs female in studies and basically alter sexual development overall.  As the brain is a key part of sexual orientation tied to the organs and such, I am not a scientist, but it is not far fetched to think that chemicals could have an effect.  It doesnt stop with Atrazine.  They have found antidepressants like Prozac in fish.  These substances get into the water, then the food chain and have lasting effects. 

sciguybm
sciguybm

@FrankFMoore You mean the cellular metabolic pathway reference I made? The reference I made that comes straight from a PhD researcher, me, working in cellular metabolic pathways?

Please be a dear and look up "atrazine" on the EPA toxic chemical list....then look up "endocrine disruptor" then tell me what your IQ tells you to tell me.

Then sell it to your blog-employers; you'll get no credit for misinformation here bud.

Stonewallgardener
Stonewallgardener

@MikeKelter @sanguinesolitude @Enjoyer Where did you get your info on Bison feces? Bison roamed in large herds eating vegetation down, roughing up the ground and the poop. They were grazing on a mixture of native annuals and perennials with deep interconnecting root systems. The soil was full of micro and macro fauna eating the poop and incorporating it into the soil, being broken down slowly into nitrates at a rate the vegetation could readily utilize. The bison moved on to more vegetation, the grazed areas growing back quickly from the healthy roots systems of the native plants.There was no massive erosion until ranchers and farmers came along. The bison were part of the creation of the deep prairie soils, not instruments of its erosion.

Farmers around the world are using more nitrogen than is required just to ensure optimum crops. A good deal of the nutrient losses occur as the organic matter in the soil erodes along with the mineral fraction that erodes. I've read a ton of soil erodes for every ton of corn produced. Losses under no till are not as great, but soil is still lost along with a lot of herbicides.

Sugar cane production is about, if not worse than corn in terms of environmental degradation. Both crops are fossil fuel energy intensive, contributing to the warming of oceans which as you noted were a part  of the dead zone phenomena.

You are absolutely correct about human waste. Add to that all the fertilizer lost from lawns.

I might add that small family farmers growing diverse crops, and rotating acres into pasture are probably more concerned with their fertilizer costs than are large corporate farms growing monocultures that are subsidized by the taxpayers.

I think we should be eating meat raised on grass up to slaughter, not on corn. We also need to get ethanol out of our cars.

FormerEPAer
FormerEPAer

See the science reports which were developed for consideration by the Hypoxia Task Force. NOAA & USGS scientists played key roles as did academic scientists. NNOAA & USGS serve on the Task Force that developed the 2001 and 2008 Action Plans.

FormerEPAer
FormerEPAer

You might want to read the actual Gulf Hypoxia Action Plans at: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/history.cfm

State secretaries of agriculture and the US Department of Agriculture signed off on these Plans. Fertilizer is such a small cost of production, and the price so distorted by ethanol that applying more fertilizer than necessary for a great crop in hopes there will be enough rain to produce a bumper crop is common

MikeKelter
MikeKelter

@sciguybm @MikeKelter @sanguinesolitude @Enjoyer  Hi sciguybm.

Ammonium Nitrate is currently made by combining anhydrous ammonia with nitric acid.  Anhydrous Ammonia production typically uses natural gas to strip off hydrogen from water molecules and nitrogen from air molecules through a combustion process, which results in CO2 biproducts that are used in the production of urea.  Its called the Haber Process.

As I stated earlier, none of the nitrogen in Ammonium nitrate (or anhydrous ammonia) comes from natural gas, which has a chemical composition of  methane (CH4) + ethane (C2H6).


sciguybm
sciguybm

@MikeKelter @sanguinesolitude @Enjoyer Huh? Well that was a load of bs..... most nitrogen-based commercial fertilizers are indeed made from either natural gas or petroleum by-products.

Virtually every drop of the ammonia used in the corn fields we are talking about comes from natural gas. Hundreds of millions of tons.

Virtually every pound of urea or UAN come from natural gas or petroleum products, hundreds of millions of tons in the USA double that in the rest of the world.

The old process of making it from reacting silver cyanate with ammonia chloride crystals stopped in, oh, 1890.

That's the problem with those who know little but talk big.

Try again.

sanguinesolitude
sanguinesolitude

@MikeKelter @sanguinesolitude @Enjoyer Interesting.

I dont know enough on the subject to dispute your statistics, but they sound plausible. I guess it just seems to me that if scientists with no discernible axe to grind are saying something is happening, and big industry with a ton of money to lose are saying the opposite. I tend to believe the unmoneyed party. This certainly isn't always true, but it seems generally the person with more to lose is more likely to fabricate and stretch the truth.

MikeKelter
MikeKelter

@sanguinesolitude @MikeKelter @Enjoyer You're welcome for the reply--I didn't intend to be condescending.

"Petroleum-based fertilizers" is a gross misnomer.  Very little fertilizer is made from petroleum, as hydro-carbon molecules associated with petroleum products contain very little nitrogen, phosphorous, or potassium associated with fertilizer products.  In reality, the nitrogen component of fertilizers are generally aquired by air fixation processes, since nitrogen is about 78% of our atmosphere.  Phosphorous is usually mined--much of it from Florida where it naturally leaches into the Gulf of Mexico.  Potash is generally extracted from old sea beds or from water bodies such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Petroleum products are used as a thin coating on fertilizer pellets, usually to slow the release of nutrient components of fertilizer into the soils--time-release if you will.  By weight, petroleum is a very tiny fraction of the pelletized weight in a bag of fertilizer.

I don't dispute your contention that nitrogen in a water column can cause large algal growth that effects dissolved oxgygen content.  But, let's be realistic about the sources of usable nitrogen.  Every time it rains, nitrogen runs off--to some extent it comes from poor fertilization practices, but more often than not it originates from decomposition of plant and animal life, which are cellularly 3 parts nitrogen by weight.    

And what about lightning?  Did you know that a bolt of lightning causes oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen into nitrates which deposit in the water bodies?  Did you also know that the Gulf Coast is the lightning capital of the world?  

The nitrogen cycle on this planet involves a huge mass of nitrogen molecules--about five quadrillion tons of the stuff.  21 million tons of nitrogen in the Gulf of Mexico basin--most of which is returned to the nitrogen cycle in plant uptake--is small potatoes.  

sanguinesolitude
sanguinesolitude

@MikeKelter @sanguinesolitude @Enjoyer thank you for the informative, if condescending reply. I certainly dont blame farmers for this issue, but i do think the introduction of such vast quantities of fertilizer must at some point have some effect. We are talking 21 million tons of fertilizer per year in the US, much of which is used along the mississipi. Obviously no farmer plans for their fertilizer to runoff, but it does occur and quite often. I will be the first to admit i am no expert and things are always more complicated than a single issue solution, but the link between increased nitrogen and algae blooms followed by a "dead zone" seem to be fairly solid. 

Again i certainly have nothing against farmers, even if what we now consider farming has little to do with traditional small family farms. I do however question the heavy use of petroleum based fertilizers in place of crop rotation and other such practices.


MikeKelter
MikeKelter

@DH10

"The EPA is not "trying" to link DO and nutrient levels."

Oh yes they are.  This was the crux of the lawsuit filed by the State of Florida against Lisa Jackson and the EPA over the Numeric Nutrient Criteria, in which Florida prevailed.  DO is not causative and cannot be regulated as a "pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.  DO is an effect--a state condition if you will.  


Florida contended, among other things, in that case that EPA was incorrectly trying to link DO with nutrients in the water column, even though R-squared in the EPA statistical analysis was something in the order of 0.05.  
And BTW, EPA IS the proponent agency of the US government with respect to water quality issues.  I don't know where you get the idea that USGS and NOAA have much to do with this issue.

DH10
DH10

Obvioulsy farmers are not intentionally over appying fertilizer. However, if they can increase their yield (profit) and more nitrogen enters into the water as a by-product, they are going do it.  Additionally, farmers are racing to plow buffer areas and taking marginal land near water bodies out of CRP for the same reason--to make money.  Who can blame them?

The EPA is not "trying" to link DO and nutrient levels.  The science is from USGS and NOAA. 

FrankFMoore
FrankFMoore

Sciguybm doesn't take kindly to criticsm. LOL

RangerDOS
RangerDOS

Get off the keyboard and back on your meds, bub...

RangerDOS
RangerDOS

Are you having a Thorazine moment there bub?

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@Boulz No one said there weren't problems with Atrazine and other chemicals.  But they are not the dominant cause of hypoxia in the Gulf, which is what this article talked about.  Please rant on-topic, if you would.

sciguybm
sciguybm

@FrankFMoore dead zone versus algae bloom: the article was about a dead-zone which I, and many other real scientists, understand are related to chemical zones as well as "blooms."

sciguybm
sciguybm

@Boulz Excellent. Thanks for using science instead of misinformation.

FrankFMoore
FrankFMoore

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the caused of the Gulf dead zone!

sciguybm
sciguybm

@JenniferBonin @sciguybm @FrankFMoore  Dear Jennifer: If you had followed the string of comments starting with mine you would have been able, assuming you read, to have seen that:

1) the article was about the "Dead Zone"  ONE of the explanations was algae bloom, but I and a number of research scientists have also found toxic levels of atrazine and N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, the active ingredient in Roundup in this same Gulf area. And I was bringing that to light.  You are welcome.

2) numerous studies show that algae blooms did not occur in that Gulf region, are still NOT occurring in that Gulf region and that in other delta/river mouths, worldwide, phosphate run-off did not cause "dead zones" so why is that the only possible explanation offered in this article discussing "dead zone."

3) the article is entitled "Dead Zone" not hypoxia, as you seem to have read erroneously, and not "algae blooms" which you seem to think was the subject also, the tittle was "Dead Zone."

Get your head out of your --- and use your brain for a change.

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@sciguybm @FrankFMoore Given that this article was about hypoxia in the Gulf, not endocrine disruptors, I'm not really seeing what your point is.  This article has no particular opinion on atrazine, since it's not discussing it.  How about if you try actually reading the article, rather than pulling out your own private rant immediately, okay?

sciguybm
sciguybm

@FrankFMoore  however, just to be sure, the article was about "dead zone" which one agency, the one with the short-term contract employees who work full time for the very companies responsible for the horrors our world suffers, says comes from algae blooms WHICH btw have not been present IN the Gulf....

Wow: imagine that.

So back to your pack, rat: enough crap from the industry.

FrankFMoore
FrankFMoore

(Cont...)     

What I said about Atrazine and Round-up is not "misinformation".  It was in realtion to the causes of the algal blooms, and entirely correct.  You, otoh, espressed a disbelief that ferilizers were the cause.  So you're in no position to question my, or anyone else's, IQ.

Actually though, you're not really worth the aggrevation of an argument.  As a professional Chemist, and someone who knows about Marine environments, I stand by both my original comment in reply to you, and this one. 

Have a nice life.  I've better things to do. :-)
(No doubt, you'll now turn Grammar Nazi and dwell on my typos)

FrankFMoore
FrankFMoore

You claim to have a PhD.  Care to provide references to where your research can be found? 
I have a bachelor degree in Marine Biology, a Masters in Chemistry, and a 32+ year career with a major US corporation. Your claimed credentials do not impress me in the least.
So  where you come off with the "argument by expertise" is unsubstantiated.  I read the literature in peer reviewed journals.  Endocrine disruption is only supriously linked to feminization in fish and some amphibians.  So again...
Post links to your "research", and provide some verification that they are linked to homosexuality in Humans.  Until then, you're just another pompous poser, with delusions of grandeur, pontificating at CNN. 
Your comment about "blog employer" is also as absurb as your ignorant claim about gays.

davin8r
davin8r

@sciguybm

so let's see your reference.  If you are actually a researcher as you claim, are you also claiming that your basic science research translates to the clinical level and actually is causing an increase in the number of gay people?  Because if that's been published, I'd *really* like to see that reference!