Slashdot Mirror
Aral Sea May Recover; Dead Sea Needs a Lifeline
An anonymous reader writes "It's a tale of two seas. The drying up of the Aral Sea is considered one of the greatest environmental catastrophes in history, but the northern sector of the sea, at least, is showing signs of life. A dam completed in 2005 has increased the North Aral's span by 20 percent, and birds, fish, and people are all returning to the area. Meanwhile, the Dead Sea is still in the midst of precipitous decline, since too much water is being drawn out of the Jordan River for thirsty populations and crops. To keep the sea from shrinking more, scientists are pushing an ambitious scheme called the 'Red-Dead conduit,' which would channel huge amounts of water from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. However, the environmental consequences of such a project may be troubling."
The Dead Sea is a major tourist attraction, and likely host to a whole lot of life forms you don't find just anywhere; you know, because it's loaded with more salt than any other body of water.
Because any water taken from the sea will be saltwater, and though you could replenish the Dead Sea to some degree with it, you can't irrigate your fields with seawater. I don't understand how you don't already know that.
I'm also fairly sure that we don't know about every type of bacteria (since they're alive too; "life" doesn't even remotely mean "just plants and animals and things average folk might call interesting") present in the entire sea, nor do we know all of the processes and adaptations that those organisms use to survive; it's almost as valuable a resource as the extreme conditions found in deep underwater volcanoes.
The Aral Sea is a horrifying and very visible example of the scale of what humans can do when their policies end up destroying the environment. A major lake, once the fourth largest in the world, reduced to almost nothingness in just a few decades. Unlikely to ever fully recover.
While I remain skeptical (but not outright dismissive) of many of the claims of the environmental movement, particularly the global warming and carbon footprint stuff, it's stuff like this that really makes me worried. If on a small scale people can do this, I really do worry what might happen on a larger scale.
Saying that the Aral Sea might "recover" is slightly misleading. The North Aral Sea is about 5% of the size of the Aral Sea as a whole. It's like saying that the whole of the US sank into the ocean except for Wyoming and Utah, but it might recover.
The Dead Sea is of great economic importance to Israel. Tourism, sale of products containing the salt or mud of the dead sea all bring money into a country with almost zero natural resources. But, this is a problem that comes not just from the using of the Jordan river, but a number of other rivers as well- Ein Gedi, a freshwater spring isn't far away from the Dead Sea and its water is used as drinking water (And a popular bottled water!) inside Israel. All the 'sweet water' has been diverted in Israel, as it has in most desert places. As a result, only salty water is being diverted to the Dead Sea. This means, of course, that the sea is shrinking. The Canal from the red sea is not new- I've heard talk of that since 2006, at least, when I was in Israel last. Israel, however, has some of the brightest minds in the world. I'm hoping they'll come up with a great way to make this work.
The bacteria in the Dead Sea are particularily interesting extremophiles, Haloarcula sp. is just an example. As a biochemist, I definitely view that as a resource worth preserving. Who knows what we can learn of such extremely adapted metabolisms?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I definitely view that as a resource worth preserving.
Sure; but the human population in the region is MORE worth preserving. If a choice must be made, bye-bye bacteria. Hopefully, a solution can be found that accommodates both.
Your lack of perspective is hardly the article's failure.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
If it comes to that choice, you surely are right. But, goddamnit, for what did we invent science and engineering, if not to avoid that choice?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Your lack of perspective is hardly the article's failure.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
In fairness, you did't even need to comment on this article. Please do us all a favor and return to your NASCAR broadcasts.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
But it's got what plants crave. It's got ELECTROLYTES!
Something tells me that if it currently holds water, it's probably not flat.
I've thought about it, and I'm OK with it.
What does all that water do for me (the armchair antagonist) sitting in a big hole in the ground called the Aral Sea or the Dead Sea, when it could be providing me with fresh crops, healthier livestock, clean drinking water, and high-tech factories?
[Disclaimer: I live near enough to the Great Lakes in the US that I should really give a shit about both them and other similar things, but I just simply don't. I see them all as resources.]
Kid-proof tablet..
It is hard to know. Craig Venter has a project running to sequence random stuff from seawater. I haven't been following it lately, but it seems like there is a metric shitload of bacterial species in ordinary seawater that we had no clue about before. We really just scratched the surface regarding microbial life. Getting as many sequences as possible sure is a worthwhile preservation effort if all else fails. Note, however, that we still can't reconstruct a species from DNA sequence alone. So you gotta keep some cultures at least, and extremophiles like the Dead Sea bacteria are notoriously hard to culture. It's more alchemy than science to keep the little buggers at life. Back when I was still working in a biochem lab, the microbio guys kept joking that you don't need a microbiologist to culture them well, you need a micropsychologist to make the little bastards do want you want them too ...
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Well, all that water used to provide high quality fish protein for you, before it dried up. Now the rotten hulks of your fishing boats are decaying in a desert. It used to provide a decent climate for your crops, while now there are dust storms covering a land below which the water table is rapidly sinking. You are right in viewing the lakes as resources, and the Aral lake is a prime example how to squander such a resource for very little short-term gain.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
The Dead Sea is being ruined because people divert water from its natural inflows for agricultural use. Since they are destroying it, let them pay for fixing it.
A large contribution to drying of Aral Sea is that water which "should" get to it is used in an incredibly wasteful manner - the irrigation systems are in horrible condition, for example. Plus you know, drying of Aral exposed all the toxic stuff we usually dump into water (and which is relativelly stable and harmless in the bottom mud or dissolved in large quantity of water) to the work of wind; dust storms there are toxic.
Oh well, just an "unintended consequence" of progress, like with global warming. Here, similarly to irrigation systems mentioned, we could be much more effective too; and think about it...look around you - how much stuff in the room you're in comes at least partially from oil (in my room, virtually everything...); oil is an insanely valuable resource. And what we do with most of it? Burn it!
One that hath name thou can not otter
Throughout the history of the world seas have dried up. Watch any nature documentary, particularly the ones touching on geology and you can't seem to go 5 minutes without someone saying something about some place being a dried up seabed.
This video shows the Aral sea disappearing. This blog has photos from the site as it was in 2008.
You can't handle the truth.
So the question is, if they can channel 'huge' amounts of water from the Red Sea, why don't they use that for irrigation?
That's what they're planning to do; they're going to desalinate the Red Sea to provide water to communities instead of using the Jordan River. What's left-over from the desalination process will be pumped into the Dead Sea to increase it's level. It's, you know, all in TFA.
A little reading shows that it only barely became hospitable to microorganisms a few times when massive rains diluted the salt temporarily... Animals that live around it do not get water from it for the same reason, they need rain water and river water, not more salt... And adding salt water to saturated salt water does not reduce the net saline for long because so much salt is dried on the banks or fallen out of solution... sitting there just waiting to redissolve.
It is tempting to want to "save" things from natural effects of modern life, people are using the water so people should fix it. But once that water entered the dead sea, it too died, better it be used for something. In the end this is just as big a waste of money as trying to protect a city that is below sea level but situated by the ocean... one day it will be game over.
As to a tourist destination, well they could Monty Python the signs and call it:
The Really Dead Sea
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
I'm fairly sure there is no life in the Dead Sea outside of small amounts of bacteria. That's why it's called the Dead Sea. The salt content prevents life from living there.
There's quite a bit of life in the form of a fair number of tourists which are quite important to the area (on both banks) which apart from that is quite a hellhole (an interesting one to visit though if you ever go in the area).
The Dead sea is more than 400m below sea level and there are huge temperature extremes in the area which gets very little precipitations and has few springs. It's a great natural wonder and definitely worth a few days for it's ruins, it's fauna and the vista, but really not a great place to live.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Please don't lump an obvious consequence of man's actions with one which is still in dispute. Anthropogenic global warming has not been established as a credible theory.
"Global warming" is an unfortunately popularized term, which is prone to misinterpretation so as to breed mistrust in general public. The only remaining "dispute" about anthropogenic climate change is in the heads of the deniers, nodding to each other on internet forums and in media.
And hey, the shrinkage of Aral Sea was probably still "in dispute" (especially with the region's cotton elites) by the time it was too late to avert the disaster.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
This is a bit akin to saying.
"I have proof God doesn't exist. See, his priests are assholes! That proves it!"
While you might be right about Al Gore, it doesn't make the initial claim any less probable.
It is a devious tactic to attempt to discredit people who understand statistics well enough to ask valid and as yet unanswered questions about the data and models used by those who support the anthropogenic climate change theory by lumping them in with people who have their heads up their asses.
When they are indistinguishable, why is that devious? A "real scientist" would say something like "the preponderance of the evidence points to it, so we should act like it's the Truth until proven otherwise." Then work to clarify points they have questions about.
"We can't be sure, so we should act like it's false" is worthy of ridicule and is unrelated to whether it's a well founded objection to some statistical questions or because they gain materially from the raping of the environment, or just hate the environment.
I believe that some portion of the current climate change is in fact anthropogenic, but I do not believe that any of the current models have established that. Happening to be right and having a proper model are two different things - a clock that is stopped is right twice a day, but I would not rely upon it to tell me the time.
They probably didn't have "proof" the lake was disappearing until it was mostly gone. At that point, many people think that there's nothing that could be done to get it back. That's similar to many environmental issues. The "proof" is the irreversible loss of some part of the environment. Since it looks like AGW is more likely than not, working against it seems like working towards the extinction of the human race, as that is what it likely takes for "proof" in this, and there are plenty asking for "proof" before acting. That you claim to understand statistics, yet hold the views that are inconsistent with statistics (probability) and science. Just as a question, how many people have done a study that shows that AGW is impossible or that we are cooling, or that we are warming because of other factors (with those factors identified)? I've seen one or two that indicate we should go back to cooling in a few years because of sun activity. Other than that, the anti-AGW group has put out nothing other than hatchet jobs. So, when all the evidence points to one and only one conclusion, and the well-funded opposition can't find any other explanation, that seems like overwhelming evidence. What more do you need?
Learn to love Alaska
Oh well, just an "unintended consequence" of progress, like with global warming. !
Please don't lump an obvious consequence of man's actions with one which is still in dispute. Anthropogenic global warming has not been established as a credible theory.
Neither has anthropogenic drying up of Aral sea been proven. It could be just natural change that has nothing to do with human re-routing the water a bit on its way to the Aral... The water level there has changed previously, and it will change again, changes are part of the natural cycles of our planet. Just because it used to be in a communist country doesn't automatically mean any apparent "destruction" (which really is just change, not "destruction") was caused by the commies.
</sarcasm>
To provide that choice. :)