Hot Springs At Yellowstone Changed Their Color Due To Tourist Activity

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hot Springs At Yellowstone Changed Their Color Due To Tourist Activity

Posted by samzenpus on Monday December 22, 2014 @05:10AM from the new-colors dept.

An anonymous reader writes Researchers say that the different colors of the hot springs in Yellowstone National Park are caused by human contamination. From the article: "Researchers at Montana State University and Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany have created a simple mathematical model based on optical measurements that explains the stunning colors of Yellowstone National Park's hot springs and can visually recreate how they appeared years ago, before decades of tourists contaminated the pools with make-a-wish coins and other detritus. If Yellowstone National Park is a geothermal wonderland, Grand Prismatic Spring and its neighbors are the ebullient envoys, steaming in front of the camera and gracing the Internet with their ethereal beauty. While the basic physical phenomena that render these colorful delights have long been scientifically understood—they arise because of a complicated interplay of underwater vents and lawns of bacteria—no mathematical model existed that showed empirically how the physical and chemical variables of a pool relate to their optical factors and coalesce in the unique, stunning fashion that they do."

48 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

WHO FUCKING CARES? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 05:14 · Score: 0, Troll

I make 1 million dollars a year selling hotdogs there! SCREW THE RIVER.
Lost in translation ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-22 05:20 · Score: 4, Funny

tourists contaminated the pools with make-a-wish coins and other detritus.
Translation: "quit peeing in the pools!"

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1. Re: Lost in translation ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  ...at the end of the day, we don't own entropy.
  But at the end of the day, your ass IS MINE !
  - Entropy
2. Re: Lost in translation ... by TechyImmigrant · 2014-12-22 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  >at the end of the day, we don't own entropy.
  But we increase it every day, by one bit, every time we make a binary decision.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
3. Re: Lost in translation ... by khallow · 2014-12-22 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  News flash, the pools change color overtime time anyway. Birds drown in them because they think they are normal lakes, dirty sediment water runs off in to it and other animals fall in.
  And people dump all kinds of crap in those pools too. The problem isn't that humanity is evil, though obviously that is a seductive narrative for the occasion, but simply that there's so many people visiting.
  
  If you were to drop a bison in, it would quickly, over the course of a few days be rendered down (in the original sense of the word) to at most a few tens of kilograms of bone. Further, they aren't the smartest animals in the Park, but they're smart enough to avoid Grand Prismatic. So on the animal side you're left with things like hapless ducks who didn't get the memo.
  
  On the plant side, you basically have wind-blown leaves (wood is durable, but it doesn't grow in hot springs for some reason) which don't last either. The spring happens to be set back from the hillside behind it so you're not getting a lot of silt. There's not a lot of natural mass going into Grand Prismatic.
  
  On the other hand, if a hundred thousand tourists per year (of the many more visitors who actually walk by the hot spring) each toss a penny into the spring (which isn't hard to do since the boardwalk goes up to the edge of the spring), then you're adding 200 kg of copper and zinc to that spring every year. And those coins tend to stick around even in weakly acidic waters of Grand Prismatic. I think the National Park Service has been successful at keeping people from dumping a lot of junk in the spring, but it is a never ending battle. Evil humanity has been kept at bay, yay. But if they stopped doing it, human litter would probably plug up the spring (third largest in the world) in a few decades.
  
  A much smaller spring is far more susceptible to this sort of problem. The popular Morning Glory Pool has changed its colors over the years due to human litter (coins, beer cans, etc). And they're pretty sure it's human because they dredge up the debris in the pool every so often to keep it active (and there apparently is a noticeable difference before and after).
4. Re: Lost in translation ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  Over the 30 years I've been visiting Yellowstone, I've never seen a beer can in Morning Glory. However, Old Faithful has become less faithful due to shifting underground in those same 30 years. Why is it that Old Faithful geyser plumbing can change on it's own due to natural forces, (and I'm pretty sure no human has walked up to it and chucked a penny into the blow hole) yet Morning Glory is totally the fault of humans?
  I'll call bullshit. If you want to say the temperature of the pool has changed, so be it. If it's clogged by a cinder block, or a 1950's Buick rusting away, then remove it. But stop blaming human activity for everything -- because when you do, all that will happen is they'll remove the boardwalk so my Son can't walk up and see it.
  Either offer up proof with a dive cam that shows the hole clogged with coins or other human debris, or shut up. And if it is, *REMOVE IT*. Problem solved.
5. Re: Lost in translation ... by mcl630 · 2014-12-22 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Rather than arguing about how much if any effect human garbage has on hot springs, how about teaching your son to NOT THROW GARBAGE AND STUFF INTO THE BEAUTIFUL NATURAL LANDMARK?!?!?
6. Re: Lost in translation ... by kwbauer · 2014-12-22 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Or you can accept that change not equal ruin. Go ahead and stamp your feet and whine about made up controversies like liberals do, or you an act like a troll about it.
You going to believe your eyes or the model? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 06:03 · Score: 0

"what the pool once looked like between the 1880s and 1940s"
Pictures show that they were gray.*
* In England, they were grey.
Tourist activity? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 06:04 · Score: 0

Tourist? Tourist... turist.... turrist? TERRORISTS! Terrorist activity!
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?
Eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 06:10 · Score: 0

"Grand Prismatic Spring was noted by geologists working in the Hayden Geological Survey of 1871, and named by them for its striking coloration. Its colors match the rainbow dispersion of white light by an optical prism: red, orange, yellow, green, and blue"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prismatic_Spring
Public land closures by pablo_max · 2014-12-22 06:10 · Score: 4, Informative

It may not seem like a big deal, but things like this are used more and more to justify land closures.
For what ever reason, the government has seen fit in the last 2 decades to make more and more public lands off limits to the public. Normally under the umbrella of "protecting" the lands or the public.
1. Re:Public land closures by JackieBrown · 2014-12-22 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Yes - this is very frustrating. I've been to caves that I used to be able to go further in. It's funny when the rangers states that you are in is as far as people have ever been allowed andyou can see the informational signs on the nice trail ahead of him
2. Re:Public land closures by ruir · 2014-12-22 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  I also been to a natural cave, one of the 7th wonders in the world, they say, where you clearly can see they also go further on. The thing, that due to abuses in the past, only people with special authorisations, mainly people conducting investigations can get permits from the government. The general public is restricted to the 1s km.
3. Re:Public land closures by smooth+wombat · 2014-12-22 06:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  but things like this are used more and more to justify land closures.
  
  If people wouldn't screw things up, or destroy parts of a park, or just not think, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?
  
  To use a phrase, this is why we can't have nice things.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
4. Re:Public land closures by smooth+wombat · 2014-12-22 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  As someone who goes to caves, you should be aware more than most of the cross-contamination you are unwittingly causing. One of the leading thoughts on white nose disease in bats is it is caused by the transportation of bacteria and such from one cave to another.
  A family member works for the Bureau of Land Management and has seen firsthand what happens when people randomly go in and out of caves. Once a single bat has a white nose, the entire colony is on a death march, not to mention the general trash spelunkers leave behind or the damage they can cause.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
5. Re:Public land closures by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Private land too. I spent 7 years restoring a piece of private property surrounded by national forest, after a huge forest fire.
  It took one or two guys on 4wd offroad vehicles, after tearing down and shooting up the private property signs and fences, then doing donuts and running all over the site one day, to destroy all the work I'd done terracing and replanting the site, and turn much of it into gravel and gullies in the next rains.
  I'm sure they believed they were defending freedom.
  Because freedom's just another word for nothing left to abuse.
6. Re:Public land closures by khallow · 2014-12-22 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well that and heavy-handed authoritarian responses, sure.
7. Re:Public land closures by khallow · 2014-12-22 08:05 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure they believed they were defending freedom.
  I'm sure they a) didn't care and b) didn't think about it. The two go hand in hand.
  
  Because freedom's just another word for nothing left to abuse.
  You think freedom sucks for the environment? Try its absence for something even worse. Free people care about the environment far more than slaves.Classic example is the difference between the West and Communism during the Cold War. The Aral Sea is just about gone because way back when, some central planning group decided to turn a bunch of desert into farmland without considering the consequences. Bad stuff happens in the developed world too, but you can't be stopped from caring about it. And as a result, those sort of decisions have a lot more push back and don't go as far.
  
  The US-equivalent is the Salton Sea which was made by an epic mistake, the accidental redirecting of the entire Colorado River into Imperial Valley for a couple of years at the beginning of the 20th Century. Neither the US or Mexican governments (the flooding actually originated on the Mexican side of the border) contributed much to the effort of restoring the previous state. It took the regional railroad (which was greatly impaired by the flood waters to stop the flooding.
  
  Freedom kept the Imperial Valley from just being the Salton Sea. Lack of freedom damned the Aral Sea.
  
  It took one or two guys on 4wd offroad vehicles, after tearing down and shooting up the private property signs and fences, then doing donuts and running all over the site one day, to destroy all the work I'd done terracing and replanting the site, and turn much of it into gravel and gullies in the next rains.
  If a couple of off-roaders can set you back to square one, then you are doing it wrong. Nature is not all-enduring, but it can take a beating (such as the forest fire, which was much worse). I also see this sort of flawed thinking in environmental science fiction all the time where there is some fragile terraforming ecosystem that requires constant human attention. Bonus cliche points, if their animal companion/mascot looks on as they toil away desperately trying to save the gimpy tree for the future of their new world.
  
  My view is that this is not ecosystem restoration or the terraforming equivalent, but landscaping. Its private property and if you want to make it look pretty, that's fine with me. Off roaders in that situation were committing a variety of crimes in trespassing on the property and vandalizing it. Too bad you didn't catch them. But it would have taken more than that to derail a proper land restoration project. Sorry.
8. Re:Public land closures by Darinbob · 2014-12-22 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The responses aren't that heavy handed. They just close things off and the yahoos who want to go off-roading in wilderness get pissed. Meanwhile this "heavy-handed authority" is soon going to allow copper mining in a forest sacred to the natives of the region.
9. Re:Public land closures by JackieBrown · 2014-12-22 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  The responses aren't that heavy handed. They just close things off and the yahoos who want to go off-roading in wilderness get pissed.
  
  Honestly - who do you think this effects? The people going off the trails are not going to stop because there is yet another sign saying not to go off trail a bit sooner.
10. Re:Public land closures by bored · 2014-12-22 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  It may not seem like a big deal, but things like this are used more and more to justify land closures.
  Well, just about anything justifies a land closure now. The balcones canyonlands was created for the express purpose of preservation and recreation which didn't infringe on the preservation goals. Yet, it has _NEVER_ been open for recreation even though the two species its intended to preserve are _MIGRATORY_ and only spend a few months a year in the preserve. The place is surrounded by fences and no trespassing signs, and the web page talks about the recreation opportunities, and then lists all _SEVEN_ miles of trails in 23,000 acres of preserve. There is actually something like 10x as many miles of public roads running through it.
  Worse yet, a lot (possibly most) of the studies seem to suggest that human presence (in the form of hiking and biking trails) actually helps the birds because it scares their main predators away.
11. Re:Public land closures by Darinbob · 2014-12-22 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  True, but I don't really consider putting up a sign to be a heavy handed authoritarian tactic.
12. Re:Public land closures by JackieBrown · 2014-12-22 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  How about the prison time or fines that comes with not following what is on the signs?
13. Re:Public land closures by rwa2 · 2014-12-22 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yep... we did Yellowstone a few years ago, and it was certainly the most crowded, commercialized, and overrated national park we've visited.
  OTOH, it's also the park most likely to self-correct when the supervolcano blows, so there might be some value in allowing it to keep it's most-visited status if only to reduce traffic to other national parks.
  We went there as part of a big loop, flying in/out of Denver and taking 2 weeks to camp at every national / state park, from RMNP to Zion, then up to Yellowstone. The parks in Colorado and southern Utah were amazing, as was Grand Teton NP just south of Yellowstone. Yellowstone was all traffic, no camping availability (had to hit the most expensive motel I've ever stayed at on the Montana side... to be fair our timing was bad and we arrived on the weekend), and the attractions were neat, but not much more impressive than anything we had already seen in Iceland. OK, OK, the jumping mud pits were extremely cute, but the geysers and hot pools in Iceland were much more regular and impressive, especially Geysir where you could walk right up to within a few feet, with nothing but a little velvet rope between you and the maw, and it would go off every 5 minutes instead of an hour like Ol' Faithful (which, admittedly, we didn't wait for).
  But of course, even in Iceland, there was another geyser a few meters away that was cordoned off and shut down, because it was also clogged up with trash and junk that people had tossed in to try to trigger an eruption.
14. Re:Public land closures by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Yep... we did Yellowstone a few years ago, and it was certainly the most crowded, commercialized, and overrated national park we've visited.
  Yellowstone covers 2,219,791 acres. You didn't see Yellowstone, you saw the crowded, commercialized, and famous segments of Yellowstone. I spent a week hiking there one year and the only other people within 3 miles of the trails I took were the rest of the group I went with. Also, I know there is MUCH more to Yellowstone than I've seen in about 4 visits (each roughly a week long, and each geographically overlapping only on visiting the Old Faithful Inn once each trip).
15. Re:Public land closures by rwa2 · 2014-12-22 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yep... we did Yellowstone a few years ago, and it was certainly the most crowded, commercialized, and overrated national park we've visited.
  Yellowstone covers 2,219,791 acres. You didn't see Yellowstone, you saw the crowded, commercialized, and famous segments of Yellowstone. I spent a week hiking there one year and the only other people within 3 miles of the trails I took were the rest of the group I went with. Also, I know there is MUCH more to Yellowstone than I've seen in about 4 visits (each roughly a week long, and each geographically overlapping only on visiting the Old Faithful Inn once each trip).
  True that... we only spent 2 days driving around the main loop and didn't have time for a real hike, since we still had the rest of Wyoming between us and our flight out. But still, the fact remains that we wanted to spend more time at just about all the parks we visited (RMNP, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Arches, Canyonlands, National Reef, Fruita, Zion), but after a day at Yellowstone we just wanted to get back out to Grand Teton NP. I'm sure the wilderness away from the beaten path are awesome, but it's probably going to be some time before we bother trying to go back.
16. Re:Public land closures by khallow · 2014-12-22 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a topical example. Yellowstone National Park has recently banned all use of remote control drones because someone dropped one into the Grand Prismatic Spring this summer, an activity which was illegal in more than one way even before the ban.
  
  Meanwhile this "heavy-handed authority" is soon going to allow copper mining in a forest sacred to the natives of the region.
  Because raping mother Earth for profit really shows off their light touch?
17. Re:Public land closures by kwbauer · 2014-12-22 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, considering that the US government cannot use religion as a basis for making decisions, I guess it is irrelevant what a bunch of ignorant folks who believe in magic think about the area, isn't it? At least, that has to be the perspective of the good liberal doesn't it? Or do we only ignore the religious beliefs of one or two religions?
18. Re:Public land closures by kwbauer · 2014-12-22 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Next time she goes to the ER and has DNA collected, I'll start to believe that she considers it rape instead of a good time.
19. Re:Public land closures by kwbauer · 2014-12-22 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  Damn Americans going to Iceland and trashing the place.
20. Re:Public land closures by Darinbob · 2014-12-22 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  But it is basing this decision because of the religious beliefs of another group; ie, the religion of making more money out of nothing. Take the governments land and suck out the profits for the sole benefit of private individuals. The decision making basically comes down to who has the best or most expensive lobbyist on their side, since McCain doesn't seem to be able to think for himself like he used to.
21. Re:Public land closures by khallow · 2014-12-22 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  But it is basing this decision because of the religious beliefs of another group; ie, the religion of making more money out of nothing.
  Looks more like their "religion" is making money by selling copper mined from the ground. That's a bit more than "nothing".
22. Re:Public land closures by Darinbob · 2014-12-22 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  Right but it's not copper they dug up from land they owned, but land they begged the government to give them access to.
23. Re:Public land closures by kwbauer · 2014-12-22 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sure they "own" it. It is public land so everyone owns it and the federal government is required by the documents that created the western states to use those lands to generate revenue. One of the recipients of the generated funds is supposed to be public education in those states and not public education in the eastern states. The feds renege on that promise every time they refuse mining, logging, drilling, etc. permits. If the federal government does not like the agreement then it should admit that it will no longer live up to its obligations and the states can then act accordingly.
24. Re:Public land closures by khallow · 2014-12-22 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a good case for getting the US government out of the land holding business. Put it up for auction and see who thinks it's important or useful enough to own. And then nobody has to beg the government for access.
25. Re:Public land closures by rwa2 · 2014-12-23 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Geysir was clogged in the 1950s before the jet age, so it probably wasn't too very many American tourists.
  Iceland destroyed half their geysers all by themselves for geothermal power plants:
  http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyo...
  The US made a strong showing too, but both are far behind New Zealand.
26. Re:Public land closures by Darinbob · 2014-12-23 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  There is public interest in having public lands kept as wildernesses or parks. Not everything has to be for the benefit of profit, ranchers, or miners. Although that was the thinking a century and a half ago.
27. Re:Public land closures by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like you picked the worst possible time to visit, and then visited in the worst possible way.
  The best time for a summer visit is during the middle of the week just before Labor Day (Don't visit on Labor Day weekend -- it's a nightmare). The mosquitoes will have mostly died off by then, the buffalo mating season is over so you don't get the herds blocking the road very often, the elk mating season is just getting started, and it's the lull between the "tourists with kids" and the "retiree tourists" seasons.
  Once you arrive, stay away from the developed areas: most people never go more than a quarter-mile from a road. Places like Lone Star Geyser (where you can get within 30 feet of an erupting geyser) or Fairy Falls see maybe a half-dozen people at any given time. Lesser-known areas such as Riddle Lake or the Imperial Geyser basin might see that many a day.
28. Re:Public land closures by khallow · 2014-12-24 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  There is public interest in having public lands kept as wildernesses or parks. Not everything has to be for the benefit of profit, ranchers, or miners.
  And there is public interest in making public land private. Note that the majority of public land in the US is not currently kept as wilderness or parks. Where's the public interest in keeping that land public?
Summary is a bit misleading by sandytaru · 2014-12-22 07:26 · Score: 4, Informative

I RTFA. These pools have ALWAYS been colorful. That's partially why Yellowstone was made into a national park, after all. It's the composition of colors that has changed in the last century, due to a slightly lower temperature and thus a slightly different bacterial makeup. The summary sort of implies that it was pollution that made each pool colorful to begin with, which isn't the case. Instead of "Researchers say that the different colors of the hot springs in Yellowstone National Park are caused by human contamination" it would be more accurate to say: "Researchers have done a simulation that shows how human activity may have altered the colors in several hot springs at Yellowstone."

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
blinded by metaphor by ihtoit · 2014-12-22 08:17 · Score: 1

what the fuck did I just read??

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Buffalo Chips by slacklinejoe · 2014-12-22 08:33 · Score: 2

I've been to Yellowstone many times and yes, tourists can be horrible people. That said, you're talking about places like Prismatic Lake which, while fragile and beautiful, have a large population of resident American Bison (Buffalo) that lay in, and defecate in, these pools. The tourist trash I usually see is the occasional coin, flipflop (because idiot tourists), baseball hat (it's windy) and whatever paper blows in. Yes there's more, but compared to large amounts of biomass, I can't help but think the animal population has a larger impact on the bacterial mats.
Hot Springs at Yellowstone changed their color by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 10:52 · Score: 0

... due to "Terrorist Activity"? We're at Yellow Alert, people, the thunderdome is in tune with the zeitgeist!
Fuck those bats by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 13:38 · Score: 0

Big fucking deal. Bats are a nuisance! I bet those goddamned spelunkers step on spiders too! And beetles and roaches. Won't SOMEBODY think of the roaches?
they ought to put a stop to this by sribe · 2014-12-23 02:31 · Score: 1

By "they" I mean the federal government. Ranger or remote surveillance, $5,000 fine + 7 days in jail mandatory sentence, no exceptions--then watch parents suddenly develop an interest in controlling their spawn. There is simply no excuse for this behavior, and no reason to tolerate it.