Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Solve Riddle of Toxic Algae Blooms

An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the Victoria Times Colonist: "After a remarkable 37-year experiment, University of Alberta scientist David Schindler and his colleagues have finally nailed down the chemical triggers for a problem that plagues thousands of freshwater and coastal ecosystems around the world." Punchline: "Phosphorus."

237 comments

  1. Irony! by Redfeather · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This week's lesson: this discovery comes not long after phosphorus was eliminated from most household laundry detergents by federal law.

    According to a chemistry major I know, adding one gram or so of phosphorus can cause more devastating algae ownage than adding two or three kilograms of carbon.

    --
    Those things you're doing with that stuff you just bought? That's not what it's for! -
    1. Re:Irony! by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to a chemistry major I know, adding one gram or so of phosphorus can cause more devastating algae ownage

      Algae ownage? I'd love to read that guy's thesis!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Irony! by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Informative

      This week's lesson: this discovery comes not long after phosphorus was eliminated from most household laundry detergents by federal law.

      Federal law in America and in most of Europe, apparently. I wonder how much of the developing world still uses phosphorus-based detergents?

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    3. Re:Irony! by NeuroManson · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm guessing that's British for "Pwnage", correct?

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    4. Re:Irony! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately, it is one of the major ingredients in fertilizer. In rural farming comunities, the problems with algea can get very severe from farmers over-fertilizing their fields. The algea bloom might be many, many miles down a river, from the combination of many different farms.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:Irony! by Atari400 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not irony, it's phosphorousy!

      --
      IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
    6. Re:Irony! by CheeseTroll · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, I believe the British spelling is 'aenage'.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    7. Re:Irony! by roaddemon · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it's 2008 for Pwnage.

    8. Re:Irony! by ikono · · Score: 1
      --
      Karma is for whores
    9. Re:Irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, many brands of fertilizer are now eliminating this potentially dangerous substance. It's good for their business since they're advertising it as safer for the environment, and the advertising works -- at least with the younger generations who shop where I work.

    10. Re:Irony! by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Funny

      This week's lesson: this discovery comes not long after phosphorus was eliminated from most household laundry detergents by federal law.

      FTFA, this discovery "comes not long after" experiments done in the 1960's and 1970's.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:Irony! by ePhil_One · · Score: 4, Funny
      Its all part of the hip new lingo coming out of the "City of New Jersey"..

      One dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is about the size of the city of New Jersey and growing.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    12. Re:Irony! by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does this mean I can still proceed with my "Lake Detergent Water Slide: Your kids have fun and get clean at the same time!" amusement park?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:Irony! by brentonboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's not really ironic.
      The discovery that phosphorus caused the algae (in 1974)helped to get it removed from detergents.
      The punchline really should be: It's not nitrogen. (Still. Also; it's still phosphorus.)
      That is what was proved after 37 years. We've known it was phosphorus since 1974!

    14. Re:Irony! by timbck2 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention algae blooms (and resulting fish kills) caused by waste spills from hog farms [findarticle.com].

      --
      Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
    15. Re:Irony! by AlvinTheNerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In a lot of fertilizers for gardern and lawn use it, but not farms. Farms are not allowed, at least in Iowa, to use industrial phosphorus. They use ammonia, manure, and limestone (antacid). There is no way farmers could get away will the amount or type of fertilizer that is allowed on lawns and gardens in suburbia. But its never suburbia's problem, they have too much voting power.

    16. Re:Irony! by Eccles · · Score: 1

      So why do we still have huge algae blooms? Are farmers still using it widely, does it come from animal poop, or are industrial or residential sources more prominent? Presumably this and similar discoveries mean that the dead zone of Louisiana comes from phosphorus brought down the Mississippi.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    17. Re:Irony! by zaivala · · Score: 1

      "not long after phosphorus was eliminated..." Where do you live? It has been wiped from laundry detergents in the US for decades!

    18. Re:Irony! by Redfeather · · Score: 1

      There's a thick marketing campaign in Canada to eliminate phosphorous from household fertilizers, calling for people to choose "X-0-X" rated fertilizers (where the X values are other chemicals, and phosphorous is 0). It'll be interesting to see if there's any effect, or if commercial over-fertilizing is just too high a share of the damage.

      --
      Those things you're doing with that stuff you just bought? That's not what it's for! -
    19. Re:Irony! by D+Ninja · · Score: 2, Funny

      One dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is about the size of the city of New Jersey and growing.

      How many football fields worth of VW Bugs is that?

    20. Re:Irony! by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also the true discovery, according to the article, is that nitrogen actually works against the process (in that controlling the amount of nitrogen that went into the lake actually caused more damage). This goes against the current trend of thinking that the two (phosphorus and nitrogen) were working in conjunction.

    21. Re:Irony! by HeroreV · · Score: 2, Funny

      In a lot of fertilizers for gardern and lawn use it

      This combination of words really makes my head freak out every time I try to read it.

    22. Re:Irony! by bagsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the developing world has other problems, like eating.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    23. Re:Irony! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Algae ownage? I'd love to read that guy's thesis!

      It likely contains lots of "Pow", "Kersplat" and "Cha-ching"'s

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    24. Re:Irony! by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.assabetriver.org/nutrient/DishwashingDetergentBillS.536.htm

      It hasn't all been banned though it should soon be. This looks like a state to state deal which can be a good thing since those companies have thousands of polytics to bribe rather than a handful.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    25. Re:Irony! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I also suspect they polute way less / capita even if they do use phosphorus based detergents.

      I'd guess soap and water or only water may be the case aswell.

    26. Re:Irony! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Three years ago I saw a zeolyte that absorbs phosphorus, being sold to water gardeners specifically to inhibit algae blooms!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    27. Re:Irony! by aliquis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Something which is weird is that I know it was recently banned here in Sweden in laundrary detergents, but then I read a test of cleaning power in multiple ones and the store "Willys" own brand was supposed to be the best one, so I bought a box.

      The packaging says "new formula" and I noticed the ingredient list said "fosfor." I wonder if the ingredient list is wrong or if they actually made a kind of illegal detergent or whatever have happened. I did so back then aswell but I didn't knew how much of a deal it was so I haven't bothered to call them and ask yet. Will do.

      Box - http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p7236797ct6.jpg
      (Notice new formula and dosage in upper left corner.)

      Ingredients - http://img66.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p7236799tf8.jpg
      (15-30% Phosphates (5% Phosphorous))

    28. Re:Irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't make fun of him. It's not his fault that he is stupid, after all.

    29. Re:Irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bit too big a coincidence to be irony. More likely is the detergent makers paid off legislators to drag their feet for as long as possible, until the mounting evidence was inescapable.

    30. Re:Irony! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      +5 Funny I can see, but +5 Insightful?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    31. Re:Irony! by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 2, Informative
      Cow Dung contains a large amount of phosphorus in the form of Ca3(PO4)2 (which promote algae bloom) and nitrogen in the form of KNO3.

      I can't quite remember from school (16 yrs ago) what the negative impact of the nitrogen was but I think it was to do with oxygen and fish.

      Detergents were loved by my lawn. As a kid, I would pull out the slip 'n slide in summer. For some extra fun (read 'danger' for the current generation of children), I used copious amounts of dishwashing detergent for some extra slip and a lot more slide.

      The next day was always an interesting sight when the grass for a few inches longer.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, better not read.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    32. Re:Irony! by Atari400 · · Score: 1

      +5 Funny I can see, but +5 Insightful?

      I wondered about this too, but then I thought people modding it +5 Insightful was funnier than +5 Funny. Ironic eh.

      --
      IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
    33. Re:Irony! by dnrck · · Score: 1

      actually that would be the Danish. :>

    34. Re:Irony! by Nasajin · · Score: 2, Funny

      In a lot of words and head combination for freak out it, every time but not you.

      Does that help at all? ;)

    35. Re:Irony! by tonique · · Score: 1

      At least in Finland, phosphate-containing laundry detergents are commonly sold. Supposedly, wastewater treatment gets rid of phosphorus. Then it's said that where there's no wastewater treatment (eg. summer cottage) one should use other kinds of detergents, for example those containing zeolites.

    36. Re:Irony! by apathy+maybe · · Score: 1

      Obviously all Americans suck because it has taken them this long to work out that toxic algae blooms can be caused by Phosphorus.

      Oh, and fuck the police coming straight from the underground. Got a problem with a nigga 'cause he's brown.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    37. Re:Irony! by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Thats libraries of congress per intertube.terist', smartass.

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    38. Re:Irony! by Lish · · Score: 1

      Minnesota does not allow use/sale of phosphorus-containing lawn fertilizer, to keep it out of lakes/rivers for exactly this reason (preventing algae). The middle number in the N-P-K analysis is always 0.

      --
      "This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
  2. We can't kill... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1, Funny

    But we can't go and kill all that innocent algae! Humanity is a blight and we must take it as our just desserts! /off whacky enviro rant.

    1. Re:We can't kill... by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Algae is not innocent. Did you know that most spam is generated by algae colonies hacking into open wireless routers? Or that algae monsters invaded Las Vegas and now own all of the casinos? That President Bush is, in fact, algae?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:We can't kill... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      That President Bush is, in fact, algae?

      Well, duh!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:We can't kill... by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      Variations

      Libertarian: But we can't collectively manage our impact on the environment! Humans must act independently out of rational self-interest! /off whacky randian rant.

      Evangelical Christian Dominionist: But we can't consider our impact on the environment! Humanity has been given domain to subjugate the earth by God! /off whacky Pastor Hagee sermon.

      Armchair Free-Marketeer: But we can't spend money on research or restoration! Humanity must follow sound free-market principles! /off whacky chicago-school thesis

      Respectfully,

      whacky enviro

    4. Re:We can't kill... by db32 · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that science has shown that algea is not only more intelligent, but is higher up the evolutionary path.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  3. City of... what? by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA:
    There are now 146 coastal regions in the world in which fish and bottom-feeding life forms have been entirely eliminated because of a lack of oxygen. One dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is about the size of the city of New Jersey and growing.

    I can understand dumbing-down the units of measure to Volkswagens or Libraries of Congress, but the last time I looked at Wikipedia, New Jersey was still the 3rd state admitted to the Union. I mean, come on... it's already the brunt of every New York comedian's jokes, and now you Brits are trying to demote it to a mere "city"?

    (Of course, I'm from Texas, where an "area the size of the STATE of New Jersey" would barely be counted as a moderate-sized ranch.)

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:City of... what? by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 4, Informative

      New Jersey, Northumberland, New Brunswick, Canada This is an article from Canada after all.

    2. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      From TFA:
      There are now 146 coastal regions in the world in which fish and bottom-feeding life forms have been entirely eliminated because of a lack of oxygen. One dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is about the size of the city of New Jersey and growing.

      I can understand dumbing-down the units of measure to Volkswagens or Libraries of Congress, but the last time I looked at Wikipedia, New Jersey was still the 3rd state admitted to the Union. I mean, come on... it's already the brunt of every New York comedian's jokes, and now you Brits are trying to demote it to a mere "city"?

      (Of course, I'm from Texas, where an "area the size of the STATE of New Jersey" would barely be counted as a moderate-sized ranch.)

      In defense of New Jersey vs Texas, while you have the size advantage on us, we have waaaaaay more toxic Super-Fund sites here, thus ensuring our mutated progeny a leg-up (or tentacle/webbed appendage)on you soon-to-be extinct bipeds from the Lone Star State.

    3. Re:City of... what? by ak_hepcat · · Score: 5, Funny

      'Course, I'm from Alaska, where an area the size of Texas would be a moderate-sized park.

      Oh, SNAP!

      Although we like Canada over here next door. They're like the sassy ol' widow that bakes fresh pie and leaves it on the windowsill for us.

      --
      Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
    4. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm from Alaska - If we made Alaska into two states, Texas would be the third largest state in the union.

    5. Re:City of... what? by fitten · · Score: 1

      Yeah... keep it up and Alaska will split into two states and move Texas from the #2 state to the #3 state in area. ;)

    6. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      which one would have people in it?

    7. Re:City of... what? by ratnerstar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good morning Canada, how are you?
      Don't you know me, I'm your neighbor below
      I'm the state you called the city of New Jersey
      and I've got 500 miles of phosphorus glow

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    8. Re:City of... what? by saforrest · · Score: 1

      I mean, come on... it's already the brunt of every New York comedian's jokes, and now you Brits are trying to demote it to a mere "city"

      Um, the article is from the Victoria Times-Colonist, in British Columbia, Canada. The fact that the domain name is "canada.com" might have been a tip-off. While Victoria is more British than most Canadian cities, it's still run by us colonials.

      I'm assuming it was the extra vowels in "phosphorous" which made you think it was British. We Canadians are remarkably inconsistent in our chemical nomenclature... I personally would write "sulphur" (British) but "aluminum" and "phosphorus" (American).

    9. Re:City of... what? by rfc11fan · · Score: 1

      Texans should beware: There's a move afoot to split Alaska in two, making Texas the THIRD largest state.

    10. Re:City of... what? by tzot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Both. Michael would stay in the bigger new state, and Billy would be in the other.

      --
      I speak England very best
    11. Re:City of... what? by Goobermunch · · Score: 1

      Of course, I'm from Alaska, where we joke that someday we'll cut Alaska in half and make Texas the third largest state in the union.

      --AC

    12. Re:City of... what? by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm from california. Where are Texas, Alaska, and Canada? Are they in the valley?

    13. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww...that's sweet! Thanks!

      I'll just go put on some hash brownies for you!

    14. Re:City of... what? by coldincalifornia · · Score: 1

      I'm from Texas, where we know Alaska's not a state, it's a over-sized popsicle.

    15. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 witty

    16. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be one of those people in the Iraq who don't have maps...

    17. Re:City of... what? by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm from California too, and I have to say that you've fallen for a prank. Those are made up places for TV shows. Texas was obviously made up for King of the Hill, and Canada was made up for South Park, but I'm not sure what Alaska was made up for... Was it Malcolm in the Middle, or maybe Babylon 5....

    18. Re:City of... what? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      I'm from California too, and I have to say that you've fallen for a prank. Those are made up places for TV shows.

      You may well be right, but as an Angelino, born and bred, I'm sure that Florida is a hoax made up by people to attack our orange industry. I've never understood why anybody would want to drink orange juice from some imaginary place like Florida when the best eating oranges in the world come from Southern California.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    19. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which one would have people in it?

      I think that would be Texas

    20. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from LA. California ends at like what, Malibu or something?

    21. Re:City of... what? by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      Northern Exposure. Duh!

    22. Re:City of... what? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Alaska is a remnant of the old Terra Incognita. They just never got around to mapping the whole New World (I mean, who wants to? All they have over there are natural disasters and Indians) and they labeled the blank spots with made-up names like "Alaska", "Wyoming" or "Québec". Not to forget about the cruel practical joke that resulted in part of Columbia ending up somewhere in North America. I think they built some kind of rectangular city there or something.

      However, of course you are trolling because it's widely known that California was made up by the psychologists to give everyone depressions about not being a supermodel.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    23. Re:City of... what? by J.R.+Random · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Texas and Alaska (I'm American, and they don't teach us geography) but I'm pretty sure Canada is a suburb of Buffalo, New York.

    24. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Canada near the city of Ontario?

    25. Re:City of... what? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I'm from Texas, where we know Alaska's not a state, it's a over-sized popsicle.

      I'm from Alaska where, as far as we can tell, the only thing that comes out of Texas is a lot of hot, dusty wind and the occasional politician.

      I wouldn't be a-bragging about my state these days...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    26. Re:City of... what? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      They're all on the nasty side of I-5.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    27. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from california. Where are Texas, Alaska, and Canada? Are they in the valley?

      You pass through them on the way to Las Vegas I think.â(TM)¦

    28. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're up around Sacramento, I think.

    29. Re:City of... what? by euxneks · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's very dark and scary and I'm told we smell like yaks. It would probably be best to continue living where you are.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    30. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from california. Where are Texas, Alaska, and Canada? Are they in the valley?

      Which tells non-Californians everything they need to know about your educational system.

    31. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eliminating the City of New Jersey makes a lot of headway if you are trying to eliminate bottom feeding.

    32. Re:City of... what? by lawn.ninja · · Score: 1

      Because they needed a location for that movie "Into the Wild" ? Just a guess.

    33. Re:City of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, I'm from Texas, where an "area the size of the STATE of New Jersey" would barely be counted as a moderate-sized ranch.

      Heheh. Texas is teensy, tiny and fun-sized. My state's easily bigger than your state.

      Texas: 696,241 km^2.
      Western Australia: 2,645,615 km^2

    34. Re:City of... what? by rahunzi · · Score: 1

      "moderate" in Texas is an oxymoron

      --
      ...that's the beauty of time travel...bye
    35. Re:City of... what? by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      (Of course, I'm from Texas, where an "area the size of the STATE of New Jersey" would barely be counted as a moderate-sized ranch.)

      I refute that statement. Area of New Jersey is 22,608km^2. Largest ranch in the US is about 6,000km^2. It seems that the only thing in Texas bigger than New Jersey are the Texans' egos!
       
      Australia outshines everybody: as per the second link above our biggest cattle station is 34,000km^2 (that's bigger than Belgium, baby!).

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    36. Re:City of... what? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > but I'm not sure what Alaska was made up for...

      Easy: Northern Exposure and Men In Trees.

    37. Re:City of... what? by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      I don't know where your pets are. Maybe you should call them.

  4. At least they solved the mystery by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 1

    So that terrible M. Night Shyamalan garbage won't become a reality.

    1. Re:At least they solved the mystery by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > So that terrible M. Night Shyamalan garbage won't become a reality.

      I checked, and unfortunately the movie still exists. (Man, that's 91 minutes I'll never see again.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  5. Who knew by Narpak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not only does the government have to pull out all stops to control phosphorous, he says, it needs to protect wetlands that remove these nutrients from runoff before they reach lakes and streams. It also needs to set up rules that create natural buffer zones that protect lakes and rivers from agricultural, municipal and cottage developments.

    Who knew that pumping phosphorous and toxic waste into the rivers and ocean would have negative consequences.

    1. Re:Who knew by snl2587 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's interesting is that I was taught this over eight years ago, and I'm certain the information was available before that. The only thing new about this is the name on the research paper.

    2. Re:Who knew by maestro371 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really a new name; the article indicates that this is a re-examination by the same folks who published the study in the 70s to combat the concept that nitrogen was a significant culprity. They wanted to re-emphasize that it's phosphorous that's the real issue and that nitrogen control usually just exacerbates the problem.

    3. Re:Who knew by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      Almost every Marine Aquarium enthusiast with half a brain.

      It's always in big print in all the materials if you want anything prettier than nemo.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    4. Re:Who knew by parcel · · Score: 1

      Who knew that pumping phosphorous and toxic waste into the rivers and ocean would have negative consequences.

      It's not "negative consequences", it's Localised Phosphorus Content Change.

    5. Re:Who knew by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Common sense would tell you that if a lake was pristine before someone started using fertilizers on farm fields, and that there were algae blooms after that time, that it was something to do with the fertilizers. Most articles in the past have talked about fertilizers and nitrates.

      What the scientist guy has done, is proved scientifically through trial and error, that it is the phosphorous alone, and not anything else that controls how large the algae blooms get. If other scientists can reproduce his experiment, he gets to publish the paper with his name on it.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the scientist guy has done, is re-proved scientifically through trial and error...

      There. Fixed it for ya.

    7. Re:Who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not negative. i was at laguna beach when there was a red tide. at night the wet sand would glow in the dark when disturbed. so walking along the beach was the coolest thing in the world

    8. Re:Who knew by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Oh but I don't trust enthusiasts and "materials"; always felt that they were environmentally biased. Unable to see the big picture. That corporate profit is the most significant aspect of our society, if we start telling them what they can and can't dump; maybe they will go totally broke! Thus destabilizing the entire economy. And that is something that the environment just have to adapt to.

    9. Re:Who knew by dorianh49 · · Score: 1

      OK but, after yesterday's article, now I'm wondering how much phosphorus (if any) is in lime.... Sorry, too lazy to look it up.

      --
      Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. -Dave Barry
    10. Re:Who knew by jona+jones · · Score: 1

      actually the algae is a positive consequence, thats the stuff we will be using in a few years to make biodiesel. It actually eats up all the toxins (phosphates, nitrates,and worse ones), all you need to work on is harvesting it and processing it.

    11. Re:Who knew by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Empirical research is always the best!

  6. Common knowledge? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't the fact that phosphorus stimulates algae growth, which suffocates other lifeforms, common knowledge? I seem to recall being taught this in school...

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Common knowledge? by wiggles · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right -- Phosphate free soaps have been on the market for environmentally minded people for years: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/ask_treehugger_whats_the_dirt_on_phosphate-free_soaps.php

      The City of Chicago even banned (but can't enforce) phosphates in soap since the 70's: http://whoshomewithyourkids.blogspot.com/2007/07/dish-washing-detergents.html

    2. Re:Common knowledge? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can remember being told when I was growing up (back in the early 90s!) that phosphorous was directly linked to explosive growth of blue-green algae, which would choke out all other life in a body of water by sucking all of the free O2 out of it.

      I'm guessing that this is a case of a scientist finally nailing down the exact biological process for something we've already known--we knew that phosphorous caused algae to grow, but we didn't know why exactly.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Common knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm guessing that this is a case of a scientist finally nailing down the exact biological process for something we've already known--we knew that phosphorous caused algae to grow, but we didn't know why exactly.

      Actually, the news-worthy part of this is... that it's JUST phosphorous.

      Many areas have phosphorous and nitrogen removal strategies, assuming both contribute to blooms.

      This guys research shows that removing nitrogen from the effluent may actually worsen the situation.

      When you've got people building $60M processing plants to control algae blooms... and the plant will actually end up creating them when you're done... that's news :D

    4. Re:Common knowledge? by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1

      Kudos to Chicago then, for keeping excess phosphorus off of all the farmland within city limits!

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    5. Re:Common knowledge? by notnAP · · Score: 4, Funny

      phosphorus leads to flora growth? They ought to look into using that stuff in fertilizers.

    6. Re:Common knowledge? by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall being taught this in school...

      about 37 years ago.

    7. Re:Common knowledge? by not_potable · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's been known at least since my high school days 8 years ago that phophorus (fertilizer runoff was specifically mentioned) will cause huge algal bloom. The way this study was summarized in the article it really isn't anything new - and there was certainly no "riddle" to it.

    8. Re:Common knowledge? by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here are select quotes from the article:

      Schindler seemed to solve the problem ... in the 1960s and early 1970s.

      That might have been the end of the debate. But over the years, the idea that nitrogen removal is needed to control the chemical buildup that causes algae blooms ... has persisted.

      Schindler's latest series of long-term experiments shows that nitrogen removal completely fails to control blue-green algae blooms.

      Nitrogen control, he found, only encouraged algae blooms.

      So yes, it was already known that phosphorous causes the problems, and it was known well before you went to high school 8 years ago. In fact, it was known before you were born, and it was discovered by this very scientist. His latest studies are showing however that it is the phosphorous and phosphorous alone that causes it. Nitrogen doesn't cause it or even contribute to the problem like people previously thought. Quite the contrary, nitrogen control worsens the problem.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    9. Re:Common knowledge? by wiggles · · Score: 1

      It's not just in fertilizer, but in soaps and industrial products. From what I hear, the algae blooms from the industrial runoff was choking the Chicago River at one point.

    10. Re:Common knowledge? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      So? If the Chicago River gets choked with algae, just set it on fire and burn it off!

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re:Common knowledge? by bipbop · · Score: 1

      While that may be an informed (if incorrect) guess, why guess at all when the facts are at hand? Article didn't load?

  7. Alternate punchline: nitrogen by OglinTatas · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was wondering what was so important about this study because the effects of phosphorous on aquatic life have been known for decades (hence the phosphate ban on detergents) but then I RTFA (which also mentioned the ban) and what the experiment really showed was that efforts to control nitrogen runoff are useless because it turns out nitrogen is not the problem (the implication being we are wasting money^Weffort controlling it).

    Bottom line: nitrogen is not the problem, phosphorous is _still_ the problem and needs more effective pollution control measures.

    1. Re:Alternate punchline: nitrogen by diverscuba023 · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA then you will see that the removal of nitrogen without the removal of phosphorous seems to make the problem worse.

    2. Re:Alternate punchline: nitrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The title of the summary and the summary itself are still misleading. The study has not found the chemical triggers for what makes a normally harmless harmless bloom turn on toxin production. We just have even more confirmation that algae like P. Nothing new there. As for the control of N: Several varieties of toxic cyanobacteria (toxic reshwater blooms are primarily cyanobacteria) have nitrifying bacteria living symbiotically. You can't effectively limit their N as a result and they flourish in N starved conditions. Being a researcher in the field I am pretty surprised that this study is getting any sort of mainstream press. The questions are truly still unanswered. We still look for the chemical cues for toxin production...

    3. Re:Alternate punchline: nitrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know, actually. I'm a volunteer monitor and South Carolina and we test for several different forms of nitrogen runoff, yet not a single phosphorous test is run. We've been having some severe algae blooms near the recycling center, to the point where the swamp there has a DO level of around 2-3% (essentially dead).

      I think I'm going to have a talk with a couple of the guys at the lab...

  8. Re:Batman by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

    Weird, but I sorta want to know what the hell that was...

  9. Why is this a plague?? by iminplaya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Harvest the stuff. Make fuel out of it. It's way better than using corn. You're throwing away free gas...ok diesel.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Why is this a plague?? by skiingyac · · Score: 1

      Why is this a plague??

      because it kills stuff, lots of stuff to be specific

    2. Re:Why is this a plague?? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      So do we. Doesn't mean we should kill ourselves off though. Algae is a big solution to our fuel problems. And it's pretty and green. And it absorbs CO2, no?

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Why is this a plague?? by thelexx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Words fail. From the Red Tide wiki page:

      "Marine and fresh waters teem with life, much of it microscopic, and most of it harmless; in fact, it is this microscopic life on which all aquatic life ultimately depends for food. While most of these species of phytoplankton and cyanobacteria are harmless, there are a few dozen that create potent toxins given the right conditions. Harmful algal blooms may cause harm through the production of toxins or by their accumulated biomass, which can affect co-occurring organisms and alter food-web dynamics. Impacts include human illness and mortality following consumption of or indirect exposure to HAB toxins, substantial economic losses to coastal communities and commercial fisheries, and HAB-associated fish, bird and mammal mortalities. To the human eye, blooms can appear greenish, brown, and even reddish- orange depending upon the algal species, the aquatic ecosystem, and the concentration of the organisms."

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    4. Re:Why is this a plague?? by RingDev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but we can grow more efficient hydrocarbon eating algae in isolated raceway ponds in the desert where they will have no effect on other organisms. The type of algae being produced in these dead zones is no where near as efficient in the bio diesel production loop.

      In addition, using these highly specialized algae as an emissions filter for coal fed power plants can have a huge effect on existing power production emissions with out running the risks or costs associated with converting to a different source of centralized power.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    5. Re:Why is this a plague?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the beginning of TFA (3rd sentence in) "... the annual scourge of blue-green algae blooms spoiling the swimming, killing the fish and occasionally poisoning local drinking water."

      So you could include humans in that lot of "stuff." And humans have been known to eat fish. Swimming is nice, but not as critical as drinking water.

      And how is "lots of stuff" the specification of "stuff"? Just wondering ...

    6. Re:Why is this a plague?? by skiingyac · · Score: 1

      So do we. Doesn't mean we should kill ourselves off though

      but maybe we should stop feeding it

      Algae is a big solution to our fuel problems

      you may be right, but I don't think you are referring to the "plague" variety. I think what you want is to collect the phosphorus pollution and sell/give it to people who grow fuel-producing algae?

      And it's pretty and green.

      and smells delicious

      And it absorbs CO2, no?

      Just long enough to get it into your gas tank so you car can liberate the CO2.

    7. Re:Why is this a plague?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not growing in a controlled environment like a farm. It is growing in areas that choke out life that we feed on and the whole food chain thing depends on. Yes we could grow it for fuel but that is missing the point

    8. Re:Why is this a plague?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. Being "against" toxic algae blooms isn't about some kind of liberal anticapitalist touchy feely "Kill Ourselves to Save the Earth from CO2" crap, that shit kills us.

    9. Re:Why is this a plague?? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Assuming the algae in question are suitable for such usage.

    10. Re:Why is this a plague?? by zullnero · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Harvest the stuff. Make fuel out of it. It's way better than using corn. You're throwing away free gas...ok diesel.

      What everyone else is saying is that this statement doesn't seem to take into count that the algae is TOXIC. You're talking about harvesting and therefore growing TOXIC algae. Do you want to run your car on TOXIC algae, when there is tons of wastewater algae freely available? You can't take two steps in Minnesota in the late spring without stepping in some. It grows in mud puddles in less than a week.

    11. Re:Why is this a plague?? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      The type of algae being produced in these dead zones is no where near as efficient in the bio diesel production loop.

      Yeah, but there's lots of it and it's causing problems with its existence. If it could be harvested and put to use it'd be a good thing.

    12. Re:Why is this a plague?? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Diesel is toxic - what's it matter if the algae it comes from is too?

    13. Re:Why is this a plague?? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Diesel is toxic - what's it matter if the algae it comes from is too?

      Grandparent's post is wacky FUD, but diesel's toxicity would be of greater relevance if you had to fish your dinner out of it.

      As for the original post, harvesting the stuff would be making the best of a bad situation, but the better answer is to keep it from happening in the first place.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    14. Re:Why is this a plague?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It depends on the algae. Some are indeed harmless. Some of them produce some of the most potent toxins known. I mean, we're talking biological weapon kind of potent if they were produced in significant quantities. Nasty neurotoxins. Some are so bad that if there is an algal bloom in the area, just visiting the beach and exposing yourself to the low concentration of aerosols generated by the waves can be harmful (though not deadly). Maybe you've heard of ciguatera toxins and paralytic shellfish poisoning? These are caused by eating fish and shellfish contaminated with toxins that were originally produced by algae.

      Oh, and many algae aren't green, but orange, reddish-brown, pinkish-purple, yellow, yellow-green, etc. It depends upon the pigments present.

    15. Re:Why is this a plague?? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Also, let's not get confused here -- not all algae is toxic. A fairly good rule of thumb is that if it's green it's safe, but if it's some other colour (notably red) it's not good for you.

      As to phosphorus (ie. a major component of fertilizer) being the problem, we've known that for decades -- it's why phosphates were phased out of laundry detergents. Not that there isn't plenty of phosphate in nature already, but detergents in wastewater provided an oversupply which promoted atypical algae growth.

      Algae growth can literally FILL a lake in just a few years, in fact this is part of the natural cycle for small lakes, which as they silt up and the water warms up, will fill first to algae beds, then to marsh, and finally to meadow; once started, the entire process can take as little as ten years (I've watched it happen to small natural lakes in Montana). When the incoming water has unnaturally high levels of phosphorus, the process is radically accelerated.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    16. Re:Why is this a plague?? by RingDev · · Score: 1

      To what gain? The cost in labor and fuel to harvest it would likely significantly out weigh any benefit the algae could offer as a raw material.

      Nah, it's best to fight the cause, and expend minimal resources on the symptoms in this case. Limit the spread, attempt harvests in the places where recovery is more likely, and promote native growth.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    17. Re:Why is this a plague?? by bryce4president · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to be missing the point that this type of algae's existence will harm the local ecosystem far more than it would benefit the world ecosystem if harvested. This algae shouldn't exist in the first place. Get rid of the phosphates and the algae disappears. Go build a man made lake in the desert as the parent suggests and you get algae plus clean local ecosystems.

      Try to take off your algae=fuel blinders for a second and see the situation for what it really is...

    18. Re:Why is this a plague?? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      How about something more like man made "streams". You put the starter culture and feed in from one "pipe" end and collect the algae at the other end for harvesting. Maybe it's not as efficient per square metre, but it might make things easier.

      Plus if something goes wrong (some rogue algae/fungus evolves or takes over), you might only affect a few streams instead of a whole lake. Also, if something goes really right, you know which stream it is :).

      Then again, maybe algae containers on rails on an artificial gentle slope might be better? I guess I should leave it to the experts...

      --
    19. Re:Why is this a plague?? by RingDev · · Score: 1

      What you are describing is an algae reactor, and yes, they have many perks as far as control and purity of the algae over raceway ponds. They have one significant down side though; Cost. Ponds can be build for a fraction of the cost, and at a much larger volume. Unfortunately, you're not going to fit an algae pond next to a power plant in NY City.

      It's all relatively new stuff, so there haven't been a whole lot of published studies on cost analysis and feasibility. The investment cost is huge and at this point, the pay off is not guaranteed as it is still an untested technology (at large scale). So adoption is slow :/

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  10. That's great and all. by Higaran · · Score: 1

    Ok, I read the article and everything, but one thing still bugs me, why aren't we figureing out a way to get rid of the all the alge since in the 60 we already figured out how it is growing in the first place.

  11. well duh by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Why anyone thought nitrogen was the problem I don't know. Nitrosomonas are a natural part of the aquatic process transforming fish waist into nitrogen.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:well duh by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...fish waist...

      Fish don't have waists. That's why they seldom wear pants.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sponges however have square waists.

  12. Satire by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Funny

    New Jersey, Northumberland, New Brunswick, Canada This is an article from Canada after all.

    I'm taking it as a very clever form of satire: confusing New Jersey as a state versus a city; confusing Canada with England.

    I mean, it's pretty obvious that it's a Canadian article because it's in English and Canada is the only state in the Union that speaks English.

    1. Re:Satire by code+addict · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the article is hosted at canada.com

    2. Re:Satire by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      I'm taking it as a very clever form of satire: confusing New Jersey as a state versus a city; confusing Canada with England.

      Um yes, yes, YES.

      Clever satire. Exactly what I meant.

      (at least that's what I told myself after I pushed the "submit" button...)

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    3. Re:Satire by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That proves nothing! It could have been spoofed by those New Mexicans! They are always invading America. They are worse than the old Mexicans.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    4. Re:Satire by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who doesn't get this? Are you trying to imply the article isn't Canadian in origin? What does the 'confusing Canada with England' line mean?

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    5. Re:Satire by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      I'm taking it as a very clever form of satire: confusing New Jersey as a state versus a city; confusing Canada with England.

      I mean, it's pretty obvious that it's a Canadian article because it's in English and Canada is the only state in the Union that speaks English.

      I'm taking that as very clever satire. It's pretty obvious you confused a country with something that can speak!

    6. Re:Satire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada is the only state in the Union that speaks English.

      I see you haven't visited Newfoundland yet...

    7. Re:Satire by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I'm a New Mexican, you insensitive clod.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Satire by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      I think you mean North Montana. It hasn't been called Canada in years.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    9. Re:Satire by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Their governments prints these really cool manuals, if read them rightside up and front to back they are in English, if you flip them upside-down and read from back to front they are in French!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:Satire by rahunzi · · Score: 1

      eh?

      --
      ...that's the beauty of time travel...bye
  13. Huh? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    I thought it was widely known that the phosphorous in fertilizer was a root cause for eutrophication?

    Is there something I'm missing here?

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. But the Canadians are.

    2. Re:Huh? by faloi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there something I'm missing here?

      A shot at enough money to fund an experiment for 37 years, apparently.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Huh? by lpangelrob · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, getting rid of phosphorus is the only way to eliminate algae blooms. Getting rid of carbon and nitrogen is useless. The guy happens to have 37 years of data backing him up.

      The less money spent on getting nitrogen out of the water, the more money spent on getting phosphorus out of the water. Assuming that's even economical... it's probably far easier eliminating it from the source(s).

    4. Re:Huh? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea, jesus, that's a whole career with only one deliverable.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:Huh? by FlyingOrca · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ahem. I happen to know Dave Schindler--he and my father were colleagues--and his contribution to our knowledge of aquatic ecosystems has been quite important. Among other seminal research out of ELA were definitive papers on phosphorus and nitrogen loading (per TFA) and a little thing called acid rain. Not long ago Schindler was given a $1M award for lifetime contributions to science, and I'm not aware of anyone who would say it wasn't richly deserved.

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    6. Re:Huh? by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1
      You are correct; it has been known for years. The poster clearly didn't read the article. The actual news is that limiting nitrogen is bad, and causes more algae blooms and eutrophication. Apparently people thought that along with phosphorus, nitrogen should also be controlled, this experiment confirmed that it does not.

      Carpenter predicts that a single-minded focus on nitrogen control would have disastrous consequences for aquatic resources around the world.

    7. Re:Huh? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there something I'm missing here?

      Read your own link, then your post. You mention phosphorus and only phosphorus. Your link mentions phosphorus and nitrogen. That's what the issue is. The common thought was that it was all fertalizer (expecially phosphorus) that caused the blooms. He showed it was phosphorus and only phosphorus and that attempts to remove nitrogen as well only exacerbated the problem. It isn't anything "new" in that phosphorus causes blooms. It is "new" in that people thought other chemicals contributed as well, and they have been found to be inconsequential.

    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not aware of anyone who would say it wasn't richly deserved.

      I say it wasn't richly deserved.

      Now you're aware, so you can't say that again or you'll be lying.

    9. Re:Huh? by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Not long ago Schindler was given a $1M award for lifetime contributions to science, and I'm not aware of anyone who would say it wasn't richly deserved.

      I would say it wasn't richly deserved. But then again, I have no idea what I am talking about. At least now you are aware of me though!

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  14. Re:Batman by Redfeather · · Score: 1

    Asia Ferguson was killed by a roller coaster. [News Link]

    I have NO IDEA where the bloody Batman thing comes from.

    --
    Those things you're doing with that stuff you just bought? That's not what it's for! -
  15. Re:Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Batman was the roller coaster.

  16. Re:Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.fanfiction.net/s/836450/1/DOOM_Repercussions_of_Evil

    The legendary Doom fanfiction to end all fanfiction.

  17. "Life's Bottleneck" by Svartormr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...is an essay by Isaac Asimov, first published in the April 1959 edition of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, then latter in his collections Fact and Fancy (1962) and Asimov on Chemistry (1974).

    In it the Gentle Doctor argued that phosphorous has the greatest relative concentration increase going from its abundance in the natural environment to that in life of all sorts. It thus was often the limit to growth of life as it was scavenged up and held in the biomass.

    It's always important to confirm by testing in specific cases, as with this one, as there are other limits, such as dissolved iron. I can't remember where, but I recently read that low blood iron may be a defensive mechanism to make it hard for bacteria to grow during some infections--and that treating the low iron may be the wrong treatment here.

    1. Re:"Life's Bottleneck" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World's Slightest Nitpick: In his F&SF articles Asimov was called "Good Doctor" by his editor and Asimov always refered to his readers as "Gentle Readers"

  18. ROFL by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

    Punchline: "Phosphorus."

    ROFL. Stop it, you're killing me.

  19. Re:Batman by strelitsa · · Score: 1

    Very odd link you posted there - chock full of gems like this one:

    What Asia LeeShawn Ferguson IV's favorite book or TV show? ...

    Duck or The Ultimate Haircut?

    If Asia LeeShawn Ferguson IV could have any job, what do you think he/she could have done? ...

    Professional Darwin Award winner Emeritus?

    --
    No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
  20. Worst part of algae blooms by syrinx · · Score: 2, Informative

    The worst part of the algae blooms are the damn mindworms.

    Also, I'm not sure what phosphorus has to do with it; I thought algae blooms were caused by drilling too many thermal boreholes.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:Worst part of algae blooms by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      You don't get the tile ecological damage if you drill them outside of your bases and harvest them with crawlers.

      You will, however, still get the mineral ecological damage if your bases' mineral production goes above some limit. Tree farms and hybrid forests can help mitigate those.

    2. Re:Worst part of algae blooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the children of a dead planet, earthdeirdre, and this death we do not comprehend. We shall take you in, but may we ask this question--will we too catch the planetdeath disease?

    3. Re:Worst part of algae blooms by Khelder · · Score: 1

      True, but don't forget Social Engineering. We need to switch from Free Market to Green and develop Cybernetic.

      (Mmmm... thermal boreholes...)

  21. Jersey City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they meant Jersey City - it's sometimes called city of New Jersey by outsiders.

  22. So is there fertilizer without Phosphorus? by ZipR · · Score: 1

    I'm not a chemist. I'm not a farmer. But I'd imagine that most of the Phosphorus getting into the water comes from fertilizer runoff. Is/does fertilizer always contain phosphorus? Are there any alternatives?

    1. Re:So is there fertilizer without Phosphorus? by PRMan · · Score: 0

      I'm no scientist, but doesn't it stand to reason that whatever helps a farmer's plants grow also helps algae grow, because, you know, it's a plant?

      If you are growing a plant with similar characteristics (desired pH, etc) to algae, your runoff will necessarily grow algae as well, regardless of what it is...right?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:So is there fertilizer without Phosphorus? by demachina · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Is/does fertilizer always contain phosphorus?"

      It does if you order it that way. The three numbers on fertilizer bags are:

        Nitrogen-Phosphorous-Potash(Potassium).

      If the middle number is zero it doesn't have any Phosphorous. You can get a number of trace elements like Sulfur, Calcium, Magenesium, Iron and other assorted trace elements.

      Properly educated farmers, gardner and landscapers certainly can reduce the problem by:

      A. Getting their soil tested before they apply fertilizer and apply only what is indicated by the test. Using a lab is best if you are fertilizer some acreage, or you can make an educated guess using a home test kit.

      B. Be careful when irrigating after applying fertilizer to avoid washing it off, sprinklers being much preferred over flood irrigation

      Another factor that is probably reducing the Phosphorous pollution problem is its so expensive lately, along with Nitrogen and Potash, that farmers either can't afford it or are very careful when they do splurge on it.

      --
      @de_machina
    3. Re:So is there fertilizer without Phosphorus? by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      Urine. It's all those beach-goers pissing in the ocean.

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    4. Re:So is there fertilizer without Phosphorus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the type of algae involved with most toxic blooms in freshwater systems (and is the cause of many marine and estruary blooms as well) is mostly cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, which is certainly not a plant.

      Phosphorous from fertilizer is the really big problem from farm run-off as a lot of the rest of the run-off elements/chemicals are naturally at higher concentrations in the water to begin than is the case with P. Normally there is almost no dissolved P left floating around free in an aquatic system. P is scavenged like crazy in aquatic systems is one of the main factors limiting overall biomass of the system.

      Really this article is a nice PR piece but we still don't know what causes harmless blooms to turn toxic. Harmless blooms aren't bad really, they just are inconvenient to us humans. They feed higher lifeforms and up the chain to the fish we eat (now overfish and we end up with food chain issues which cause blooms to stick around longer). The toxic blooms are the problem and we aren't really closer to finding what triggers their toxin production. We still just know what causes algal growth in the first place. Which we've had a firm grasp on for a long time now (thanks to this same research center)

    5. Re:So is there fertilizer without Phosphorus? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Properly educated farmers, gardner and landscapers certainly can reduce the problem by:

      Here's your problem, were talking about the US here right?

    6. Re:So is there fertilizer without Phosphorus? by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Or you can also limit how much fertilizer you use. Saves you money and the environment.

  23. What?!? by PRMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It took 37 years to figure out that fertilizer helps plants grow?

    The plants, they won't grow...

    I'm no scientist...but have you tried, water?

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    1. Re:What?!? by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      What, like out of the toilet?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:What?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water? Like out of the toilet?

    3. Re:What?!? by rivetgeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Phosphorus: It's got want plants need.

    4. Re:What?!? by angusthefuzz · · Score: 0

      its got electrolytes!

    5. Re:What?!? by Mattsson · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Exactly. I thought this connection was know since way back.
      At least, the news have talked about how the phosphor-pollution of the Baltic Sea causes algae blooms for many years here in Sweden...
      Or maybe this has been in the "It's only an extremely likely connection. It hasn't been 100% proven." section before. =)

      Hmm... Fun trivia:
      The Swedish wikipedia-page about the Baltic Sea has a section about how phosphor and nitrogen from fertilizer has caused algae blooms and oxygen-deprived bottom environments there since the late 90's.
      The English version has a lot more information over all but does not mention this at all, except for a picture with the caption "Phytoplankton bloom in the Baltic" with no further explanation. =)

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    6. Re:What?!? by belthize · · Score: 3, Interesting

            That was my initial response but from the article it seems the real discovery wasn't phosphorous induces plant growth.

          The real discovery was that nitrogen removal methods in already damaged waters actually exacerbates the problem. Somewhat profound since it appears the common method to fight blooms is to try and reduce nitrogen.

      Belthize

    7. Re:What?!? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Well, the article mentions that it was phosphorus alone and not nitrogen which was the problem. So it may still be "news", because now they know that nitrogen isn't part of the problem. Which kind of renders the swedish wikipedia entry wrong then I guess.

    8. Re:What?!? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I've seen experiments conducted by aquarists that show adding micro-nutrients also reduce algae blooms by allowing more advanced plants to out-compete the algae for phosporus.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:What?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try powerade, it's got what plants crave!

    10. Re:What?!? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But that's wikipedia in a nutshell, isn't it. ^_^
      Always check the sources...

      Don't think the article mentioned if they tried only removing the phosphor too, though...
      Wonder how nitrogen alone would affect, for instance, the oxygen-levels at the bottom.
      One of the problems is that when the bottom of the sea dies, lots of phosphor is released, making the problem even worse.
      If nitrogen has any connection to this, it would be important to control that source of pollution anyway.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    11. Re:What?!? by electrofelix · · Score: 1

      The article title is somewhat misleading. They already solved what was needed, what they were looking for was to determine is what you need to control to most effectively prevent it. Reading carefully you can see that they proved that phosphorus was the key back in the 70's, what they recently proved was that reducing the nitrogen levels doesn't really help, even though it is a required component. So the previous assumptions by certain governments that you could clean up water by tackling nitrogen levels is false, and that they need to completely focus removal of phosphorus from already polluted areas.

    12. Re:What?!? by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But that's wikipedia in a nutshell, isn't it. ^_^

      Wikipedia might have accuracy issues, but this particular case is clearly "the bleeding edge in research has just given us the necessity to update this article".

    13. Re:What?!? by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      I can't believe this is any kind of breakthrough - it's the same stuff that causes algae blooms in fish tanks.

  24. 1971 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. I was in 3rd grade in 1971 in a town where the treehugger hippies had just gained control of the local govt and I distinctly remember all the banter in the environmental news and advocacy organizations of the early 1970's complaining about phosphorus causing seaweed and algae blooms and killing fish in the bays where the rivers ran into the oceans. This is very old knowledge.

  25. THey are catching up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SO give them a lil more time

  26. Indeed by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

    If you become one with the planet you need not fear the Mind Worms..Increasingly our bond with them will make us a force to be contended with.

    -Lady Deirdre Skye

    1. Re:Indeed by acheron12 · · Score: 1

      Silence, drone, or I'll give you a taste of nerve staple!

      --
      there is no god but truth, and reality is its prophet
  27. This isn't new information! by jrnchimera · · Score: 1

    Aquarists have known this for a long time. Phosphorous and Silicate removing products have been around for aquarium owners for many years to stave off algae blooms..

  28. She said, "Kiss me where it smells . . ." by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Funny

    . . . so I took her to New Jersey. ;-)

  29. Interesting life cycle by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Algae growth can literally FILL a lake in just a few years, in fact this is part of the natural cycle for small lakes, which as they silt up and the water warms up, will fill first to algae beds, then to marsh, and finally to meadow; once started, the entire process can take as little as ten years

    Rich snots find pleasant lake and build waterfront mansions around it. Being rich, they insist upon maintaining a couple of acres of putting green quality lawn around them. [This I know, since I live on such a lake, but my 'yard' is basically wild. Whatever grows there unfertilized naturally. The rich snots hate me for not having a nice green lawn.] Eventually, their fertilizer will plug up the lake, turning it into a marsh. Their property values will plummet and they'll all move out.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Interesting life cycle by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      Algae growth can literally FILL a lake in just a few years, in fact this is part of the natural cycle for small lakes, which as they silt up and the water warms up, will fill first to algae beds, then to marsh, and finally to meadow; once started, the entire process can take as little as ten years

      Rich snots find pleasant lake and build waterfront mansions around it. Being rich, they insist upon maintaining a couple of acres of putting green quality lawn around them. [This I know, since I live on such a lake, but my 'yard' is basically wild. Whatever grows there unfertilized naturally. The rich snots hate me for not having a nice green lawn.] Eventually, their fertilizer will plug up the lake, turning it into a marsh. Their property values will plummet and they'll all move out.

      And then they'll be the hell off of your lawn.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    2. Re:Interesting life cycle by Reziac · · Score: 1

      As one of those appalled by the proliferation of McMansions in the most inappropriate places, I heartily applaud your sentiment :D

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  30. And all along I thought it was the Gatorade... by my_left_nut · · Score: 1
    since it has the electrolytes that plants crave.

    ...or was it Brawndo

  31. Oh great, another Schindler with another list. by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

    This one with a list of chemicals that cause algae blooms.

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
  32. Phosphorusy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's not "ironic".

    Irony is when we think or hear something is true, but then events demonstrate that thing is false. That is in no way the case with this research.

    The scientist who just published these conclusive results is indeed the same scientist whose preliminary results in 1974 were the scientific basis for global laws and the industrial movement that removed and reduced phosphorus in wastewater. They demonstrated then that phosphorus was causing the toxic algae blooms, so we cut way back on phosphorus pollution. Now he's conclusively proved that it is indeed the phosphorus alone.

    There's nothing ironic about that sequence of this scientist's career. There's nothing ironic about two completely consistent events.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Phosphorusy by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Some language nazi may hit upon me but I guess it can be somewhat ironic that it tooks them so many years to come to the conclusion that the problem was phosphorous (a conclusion they already had earlier but I guess the submitter/commented missed that) and then they finally told everyone it had just recently got banned anyway so it didn't mattered longer.

      Kind of? Who cares :D

    2. Re:Phosphorusy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not ironic.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  33. Agriculture... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

    Here in NZ, agriculture caused the same thing. (these blooms were in very low population, farming areas)

    At first I thought that it was obvious in that everybody here knows that fertilisers dumped in the water were the obvious cause of algae blooms and other related water poisonings, but I guess those that do not come from a non-farming community would not.

    There are many more poisons being dumped in the water than just this. Mercury for example. Fortunately in our country we are pretty strict about this. (although not enough in my opinion!!)

    Unfortunately we have to share our ocean with the rest of the world...damn you all...

  34. Utter rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is utter rubbish. Everyone knows that toxic algae blooms are caused by republicans.

  35. this is a job for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...myco-filtration... :-) stamets

  36. Funny you should say that.... by Hillgiant · · Score: 2, Informative

    Harvesting is one of the principle limitations to the commercial adoption of algal biodiesel.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Funny you should say that.... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering what's the hold up with that. Can you provide some details? Seems to me all you need to do is skim the surface. Kind of like oil spill cleanup.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Funny you should say that.... by Hillgiant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First you have to separate the bloom from the water, then you have to separate the algae from all the other gunk skimmed with it, then you have to separate the triglyceride bits from the non triglyceride bits. Then you hope that the oil fractions of the particular species are high enough to make it worth your while.

      All of these things can be done, but often they require more energy than is in the oil.

      --
      -
    3. Re:Funny you should say that.... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Ok, I just finished reading up a little. The problems you mention are there, but seem to be minor, short term ones. And here's a "for instance" that might put to rest any question of its efficiency. Take a look at their google map and zoom out a bit to see how little real estate they need. Of course there's also a wiki thing. Algae really looks like a win-win. It seems like the farmers who are trying to sell their corn for this purpose could be working on this instead, and go back to being subsidized for growing nothing on the rest of their land. Makes the whole "food or fuel" debate sound even sillier than it already is. I consider the problem solved. Little more than politics stand in the way. It's almost funny that blue-green algae is the most productive of all of them. Up to 25,000 gallons per acre.

      --
      What?
  37. Harvesting algae by mi · · Score: 1

    adding one gram or so of phosphorus can cause more devastating algae

    But algae can be harvested and turned into something useful — such as natural food for cows, or fuel. All it does, is turning Sun's energy into plant (itself) and — with the help of only a little bit of phosphorus — rather efficiently...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  38. Re:Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  39. Thank You! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Thank You! I knew it was made up for SOME show. I'm sure you can understand my confusion though. After all, Norther Exposure... Babylon 5... It's like I Dream of Jennie and Bewitched!

  40. The important word there is "household". by markdowling · · Score: 1

    Industrial cleaning products are still allowed to use phosphorus in some jurisdictions.

  41. suffocates? by oni · · Score: 1

    which suffocates other lifeforms

    The article says this as well, and I don't doubt it, I just don't understand. Bluegreen Algae are what gave us an oxygen atmosphere to begin with. How is it that they suffocate life, when they're giving off oxygen?

    1. Re:suffocates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of it is that when the the bloom kills organisms like fish, the bodies then decompose. The decomposition reaction of the organisms uses up oxygen in the water, which then kills more fish. Which decompose and use up more oxygen, which then kill more fish ... and well, you get the idea.

    2. Re:suffocates? by oni · · Score: 1

      No, I don't get the idea.

      The fish need oxygen.

      There's algae in the water that CREATE MORE OXYGEN. (see the wikipedia link above).

      What kills the first fish? You jumped into a loop about fish killing more fish. What kills the first fish??

    3. Re:suffocates? by Entropy2016 · · Score: 1

      Of course if it's one of the toxic algae blooms it's easy to understand what kills the first fish.

      For non-toxic algae, just a guess here, but large amounts of dying algae? Eventually algae die & decompose like any other living thing.

      Another guess is given the eutrophication is caused (usually) by agricultural runoff, maybe pesticides & herbicides accompany the nutrients. Fish are killed by the pesticides quickly, or either slowly via bioaccumulation.

      I don't know what kind of biological waste algae produce, but if it were anything like animal waste, I know enough of it in one place will ruin an environment. On top of that, shit decomposes too.

      Also, just because they produce oxygen doesn't mean they produce it at a rate equal to or greater than the rates of decomposition & organisms' respiration.

      Ultimately I don't know which (if any) of these are true, but I just felt like tossing out some ideas. Maybe it's something as simple as clogging up their gills.

    4. Re:suffocates? by oni · · Score: 1

      Ultimately I don't know which (if any) of these are true, but I just felt like tossing out some ideas. Maybe it's something as simple as clogging up their gills.

      I don't know either. I don't think anyone here knows. I'll go ask on a science board. FTA says, "There are now 146 coastal regions in the world in which fish and bottom-feeding life forms have been entirely eliminated because of a lack of oxygen" and I've heard this before. They definitely make it sound like the algae are consuming oxygen, but they aren't.

    5. Re:suffocates? by Entropy2016 · · Score: 1

      http://www2.dmu.dk/1_Viden/2_Miljoe-tilstand/3_vand/4_eutrophication/fish.asp

      Normally two types of events related to eutrophication can cause fish kills. It is either toxic algae or low oxygen concentrations. Low oxygen concentrations in the bottom waters result in the release of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) from the sediments. The H2S is lethal to most animals and the result of the sudden release is often extensive and leads to the immediate death of animals living at or near the sea floor as well as in the water column.

  42. carbon offset? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But wait, don't algae blooms fix carbon and sequester it on the seafloor/lakebed? Sure the fish die and we can't swim, but we all have to make sacrifices right?

  43. Reef-aquariums - we've had proof in another form.. by mccabem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Check out some of the results of a Google for "reef+phosphates" and see the problems even a tiny increase in the ppm of phophate can cause in a salt-water reef aquarium. Even just one additional ppm above "normal" can be pretty extreme.

    Multiply those effects by the size of our collective phosphate-largesse and the size of the oceans and I guess you get full-on dead zones instead of just a tank of nasty algae and bacteria.

    Hope this helps.

    -Matt

  44. Re:Batman by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    It's a screwed up version of a screwed up DOOM fanfic.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  45. Hello Captain Obvious... by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    After 37 years of research, it's now official: pooping in the water is bad.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  46. University of Alberta? by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    University of Alberta studying algae? That would be like someone at the University of Arizona studying icebergs.

  47. Re:Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOTE: Link in parent post contains browser 'sploitin naughtiness.

  48. Re:Reef-aquariums - we've had proof in another for by iivel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was thinking the exact same thing. As a saltwater reef aquarist I've been testing phosphates every few days for years to keep algae (esp. that annoying bubble algae) in check. I don't ever recall reading anything that considered nitrogen (other than nitrogenous waste ... which is another issue) to be part of the algeal bloom cycle. As mentioned earlier up in the thread, amateurs aquarists have a ton of products for phosphate removal/sequestering ... are these not practical on a large scale?

  49. oblig timescape ref by 0111+1110 · · Score: 0, Troll

    REDUCTION OF OXYGEN CONTENT TO BELOW TWO PARTS PER MILLION WITHIN FIFTY KILOMETER RADIUS OF SOURCE AFTER DIATOM BLOOM MANIFESTS AEMRUDYCO PEZQEASKL MINOR POLLUTANTS PRESENT IN DEITRICH POLYXTROPE 174A ONE SEVEN FOUR A COMBINES IN LATTITINE CHAIN WITH HERBICIDES SPRINGFIELD AD45 AD FOUR FIVE OR DU PONT ANALAGAN 58 FIVE EIGHT EMITTING FROM REPEATED AGRICULTURAL USE AMAZON BASIN OTHER SITES OTHER LONG CHAIN MOLECULAR SYNERGISTS POSSIBLE IN TROPICAL ENVIRONS OXYGEN COLUMN SUBJECT TO CONVECTIVE SPREADING RATE ALZNRUD ASMA WSUEXIO 829 CMXDROQ VIRUS IMPRINTING STAGE 3 THREE WEEK DELAY IF DENSITY OF SPRINGFIELD AD45 AD FOUR FIVE EXCEEDS 158 ONE FIVE EIGHT PARTS PER MILLION THEN ENTERS MOLECULAR SIMULATION REGIME BEGINS IMITATING HOST CAN THEN CONVERT PLANKTON NEURO JACKET INTO ITS OWN CHEMICAL FORM USING AMBIENT OXYGEN CONTENT UNTIL OXYGEN LEVEL FALLS TO VALUES FATAL TO MOST OF THE HIGHER FOOD CHAIN WTESJDKU AGAIN AMMA YS ACTION OF ULTRAVIOLET SUNLIGHT ON CHAINS APPEARS TO RETARD DIFFUSION IN SURFACE LAYERS OF THE OCEAN BUT GROWTH CONTINUES LOWER DOWN DESPITE CONVECTIVE CELLS FORMING WHICH TEND TO MIX LAYERS IN XMC AHSU URGENT MADUDLO 374 ONLY SEGMENT AMZLSOUDP ALYN YOU MUST STOP ABOVE NAMED SUBSTANCES FROM ENTERING OCEAN LIFE CHAIN AMZSUY RDUCDK BY PROHIBITIONS OF FOLLOWING SUBSTANCES CALLANAN B471 FOUR SEVEN ONE MESTOFITE SALEN MARINE COMPOUND ALPHA THROUGH DELTA YDEMCLW URGENT YXU CONDUCT TITRATION ANALYSIS ON METASTABLE INGREDIENTS PWMXSJR ALSUDNCH

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  50. Inconceivable!! by Evildonald · · Score: 1

    Phosphorus which can be found in fertilisers causing algae to grow?! What next? The sun is hot?

  51. City vs State by Zoxed · · Score: 1

    > and now you Brits are trying to demote it to a mere "city"?

    Maybe it is a joke on those Americans who think that Scotland is part of England !!

  52. No phosphorus in fertilizer?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What?!?!? are you high or something?!?! No phosphorus in fertilizer?!?!? You are sadly mistaken. Phosphorus puts the "P" in NPK and is one of the basic components. Farm fertilizer isn't the real problem anyway. the bigger issue has been P in laundry detergent. Specifically dry detergents that come in a box where it is used as a base and in many urban cases discharged into waterways after sewage processing. Processing that cannot remove the phosphorus.

    Many states (especially in the great lakes basin) have had bans on phosphorus in detergents for 30-50 years although enforcement has been lax at times. This story is actually non-news. The link between algea blooms and phosphorus was established decades ago.

    Interestingly enough, this phosphorus and algea link could prove beneficial since blue-green algea can be processed into synthetic fuels. I remember reading articles that there were experiments underway to use phosphorus in algea farming for synth-fuels.

  53. Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had no idea my beloved New Jersey was a city.

  54. from a biological oceanographer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First iron and as soon as scientists "proposed" this iron hypothesis, the (green) venture capitalists decided it was a swift idea to illegally fertilize the ocean with iron.

    Now Phosphorus? What will it be next? Oh, wait - now it's lime dumping for c-questration. Direct input of a chemical has huge implications for the natural stoichiometry of the ocean. This says nothing of the delicate ecosystem balance and populations kept in check by one another. Causing a bloom or die-off in other species may create top tier results at the top of our food chain rendering our beloved food supply toxic. There are some that believe one nutrient or chemical controls the entire biogeochemical cycling of phytoplankton nutrients in the world oceans, they are sorely mistaken.

    Please reference Redfield or those of you that have already, then keep in mind that one limiting agent, begets another.