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."
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.
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
But it's got what plants crave. It's got ELECTROLYTES!
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
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.
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
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>