[Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water

Fri Aug 5 14:59:11 UTC 2022

The precautionary principle seems to be invoked most often in fisheries,
where I believe it is interpreted as saying that when in doubt (which is
much of the time), we should protect the resource; because if we don't, we
could lose it.  That would seem applicable to coral reefs as well.  So if
it appears possible that the disease could be spread by ballast water and
it is highly lethal to many species, we should try to figure out ways to
make it so it couldn't be spread by ballast water.
        I'd add that if I remember, this new paper reports using
ultraviolet light as it is used with ballast water, to try to sterilize
water that diseased corals had been in.  In spite of that, the corals
caught the disease from the water. So it looks like UV sterilization ships
use wouldn't prevent spread by ballast water.
    Cheers, Doug

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 2:55 AM Steve Mussman via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:

>
> Dear Austin,
>
> In the post-truth world of today, we would most likely not agree on the
> basic facts or the proper response even if it were a human pathogen. So, it
> comes as no surprise that SCTLD is provoking a discussion with some level
> of disagreement (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing). I don’t even believe
> that the rhetorical question you initially proposed regarding what is at
> stake can be regarded as a settled assumption. We may never be able to
> trace the exact origins of SCTLD or fully understand the dynamics of its
> transmission, but we could say unequivocally that this disease is piling on
> and increasing the overall coral reef crisis. We could also say that if we
> don’t change our ways coral reefs will continue their downward trend. We
> could explicitly pronounce that we now have a clear choice before us. We
> can embark on an attempt to take the necessary steps to restore the natural
> ecological balance or we can continue to squabble about the best ways to
> treat an ever-increasing list of incurable symptoms.
>
> I’m not sure, but do you think we could we at least agree on that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> P.S. Does anyone have any thoughts on the efficacy of decontamination of
> scuba diving equipment in an attempt to slow or stop the spread of SCTLD? I
> have friends within the diving industry on Bonaire who are trying to
> determine if this makes any sense as disinfection techniques are both time
> consuming and intrusive and would have to be repeated on their boats
> between dives during surface intervals.
>
> On 8/1/22, 4:24 PM, Austin Bowden-Kerby <abowdenkerby at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With SCTLD, it is clear that the very survival of multiple coral species
> in the Caribbean and potentially all global coral reef systems is at stake.
> Can we at least agree on that? Ballast water has been suspected in the
> introduction of all sorts of things, including the Indo Pacific coral
> Tubastraea micranthus into the Gulf of Mexico. If ballast water is indeed
> the vector for this disease, then coral reefs over the entire planet are
> now under an additional grave threat.
>
> I have always understood that in situations like this, the precautionary
> principle of science must be turned on its head. The precautionary thing to
> do right now is to assume that ballast water is the culprit until proven
> innocent. If this disease were a water borne human pathogen with close to
> 100% mortality, we certainly would be closing down shipping and inspecting
> ballast water and looking into the effectiveness of ballast water
> purification systems, etc.
>
> If we continue to follow the normal upright precautionary principle of
> science (innocent until proven guilty) with regards to this particular
> case, and to argue about how there is no definitive proof, then we are
> potentially putting coral reefs globally in grave danger. To have
> scientists arguing publicly and debunking the best study that is out there
> thus far- a study that adds important information about how the UV
> purification systems for ballast water may not be effective, completely
> dissipates the focus on finding solutions and answers. The large
> billionaire shipping and cruise line corporations just love these critical
> discussions! On the present trajectory, will transferring the disease to
> Hawaii or Australia be the only way we can finally accept the ballast water
> hypothesis?
>
> Austin
>
> Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
>
> Corals for Conservation
>
> https://www.corals4conservation.org (https://www.corals4conservation.org/)
>
> https://youtu.be/FIAkO-hN1SM
>
>
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
> (
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
> )
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:37 AM Steve Mussman via Coral-List <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)>
> wrote:
>
> I don’t believe anyone is claiming to have definitive proof that the
> pathogen associated with SCTLD is being spread directly by ballast water,
> although there appears to be solid justification for further research into
> that particular hypothesis and it is most certainly not based on political
> correctness. John Bruno recently made a compelling argument (as many others
> have) that climate change, although not suspected of being the primary
> cause of coral diseases, is also involved. “Higher than normal temperatures
> are thought to increase the occurrence and severity of disease outbreaks
> through several mechanisms, including increased pathogen virulence and
> weakened host immune systems owing to physiological stresses.” In his paper
> “The Coral Disease Triangle”, John makes note of the fact that it is still
> the subject of speculation that the unknown pathogenic bacterium associated
> with white-band disease may have been introduced into affected regions
> “perhaps via the Panama Canal or in ballast water carried by cargo ships”.
> Although a water-borne pathogen could be spread by currents alone, ballast
> water from ships might explain how it has spread to geographically and
> oceanographically isolated reefs.
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274312564_The_coral_disease_triangle
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> On 7/30/22, 3:46 PM, Eugene Shinn via Coral-List <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)>
> wrote:
>
> I scanned the interesting research paper that blames coral disease is
>
> spread by ships ballast water. It is a reasonable hypothesis. However, I
>
> agree with Alina Szmant. I too have not seen the proof. She pointed out
>
> that the paper was not peer reviewed. The first thing I noticed in the
>
> papers title were the words, “simulated ballast water.” If I were a
>
> shipping company owner and that study was being used as proof my ballast
>
> water was the major spreader and cause of coral reef demise I would
>
> surely have my high paid lawyers go on the attack. They could quickly
>
> point out that the study of simulated ballast water does not prove my
>
> ballast water causes disease. That otherwise excellent study made me
>
> wonder why did the authors not sample water from actual ship ballast
>
> tanks? Why use simulated ballast water? At the same time I have to agree
>
> there is no evidence that real ballast water is not a carrier of coral
>
> disease. Ballast water may actually be spreading coral toxins from reef
>
> to reef. However, the real question is If there are disease organisms in
>
> ballast water, where did they come from in the first place. Clearly once
>
> these agents are in the water column they can easily be moved along with
>
> water currents. They do need ballast water for transport. The major
>
> current flow directions in the Caribbean are well known and the
>
> strongest of these currents flow past the Belize and Florida Keys reefs.
>
> As many list readers know I have been advocating since the 1980s that
>
> disease agents in the Caribbean were originally brought to the western
>
> Atlantic/Caribbean in dust clouds transported by the Tradewinds. Dust
>
> particles carrying disease causing agents are constantly dropping out as
>
> the dust clouds move along. Many even cross over into the Pacific. Once
>
> corals and other organisms including /Diadema/ and Seafan diseases
>
> become established they are easily transmitted down current to affect
>
> other marine organisms. I have often suggested the demise of the
>
> staghorn fields at San Salvador in 1983, was a starting point for such
>
> transport.
>
> Back when my USGS dust study team was active in the late 1990s they
>
> cultured and identified around 200 microbes and fungi that were being
>
> transmitted in African dust clouds. At the time we knew asthma was by
>
> rampant in children on those windward islands in the Bahamas. Even
>
> Puerto Rico is well known for its respiratory diseases. In those days it
>
> baffled me why so many competent scientists rejected the dust
>
> hypothesis. Later as I matured I realized it was all about politics and
>
> funding. I suppose blaming coral diseases on ballast water these days is
>
> politically correct. Gene
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Coral-List mailing list
>
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)
>
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Coral-List mailing list
>
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)
>
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list