|Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...|
Posted by Kendall Raine on October 09, 2006 at 16:00:58:|
In Reply to: Re: Re: Hmmm... posted by Gerry Smith on October 06, 2006 at 11:16:10:
The Yukon report to which I referred was prepared by Ed Parnell of Scripps. I don't think it's fair to infer Ed's report isn't reliable simply because it was prepared for the SDOF and paid for by CARE. What about his report isn't reliable or professional? Have you read it, or are EIR's universally untrustworthy and not worth the time? If so, you might think twice the next time you ingest a prescription medication since it's the pharma industry that sponsors the research and the trials. For what it's worth, the report is not uniformally or conclusively supportive of ships to reefs or the Yukon as an environmental benefit. It notes positives, negatives and questions. Like most good reports, it is thoughtful and nuanced.
There is a lot written on artificial reefing. Much of it appears in scientific journals which I assume, though can't say definitively since I haven't read most of them, are peer reviewed. Much of this stuff is not specific to wrecks and your question about localized metals concentrations on the health of those fish populations is a good one. I don't know the answer, but agree it's worth looking into. That said, saying a sunken ship is bad for the environment in totality because a resident pseudopod has (presumably) leached an increased concentration of iron oxide into itself isn't vey scientific, either. The Yukon was sunk with permission of the EPA for what that's worth.
I would suggest first reading Ed's report for yourself before deciding if it's credible. There is a list of references in the back of about two dozen papers on reefing. Much more is available beyond what he sites.
|Optional Link URL:|
|Optional Link Title:|
|Optional Image URL:|
|Post Background Color:||White Black|
|Post Area Page Width:||Normal Full|
|You must type in the
scrambled text key to
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.