[Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water

Tue Aug 9 19:28:24 UTC 2022

     My understanding is that there are two kinds of water inside large
ships, bilge water and ballast water, which are quite distinct.  Bilge
water is from various sources of leakage.  My guess is that it is often
quite contaminated, such as from oil.  Wikipedia has a short article on
bilge water.  Bilge water is present on nearly every ship and boat, and
ships have to have bilge pumps to pump it out as it leaks in, or else it
will eventually sink.  If you are near a ship, sometimes you see water
squirting out a hole in the side of the ship.  That is likely bilge water.
      Ballast water is water that is deliberately taken into tanks in the
bottom of large ships to stabilize them.  How much water is needed depends
on how much cargo the ship has and where the cargo is (high on the deck
like containers or down in the hold).  Ballast is needed to keep a ship
from heeling over (tilting) too much in wind or heavy seas.  Heeling over
can lead to cargo shifting and thus even more heeling, and if a ship heels
over too much it can capsize.  At times in the past, stones were used for
ballast, I believe there are a few old streets in the eastern US that were
paved with cobble stones that came from Europe as ballast ("Elfreth's Alley
in Boston being an example, Wikipedia has an article on that alley).  The
Wikipedia article on ballast says sand was used as well, and on sailboats,
the weighted keel is ballast.  Modern large ships use seawater as ballast.
The ballast tanks are separate from the bilge.  Ballast water is a much
larger volume than bilge, surely, if a ship had that much bilge it would be
at risk of eventually sinking from all the water that was leaking in.  My
bet is that ballast water is much less contaminated than bilge water.
       Ship operators surely want to minimize leaks and thus bilge water.
But ballast water is intentional, it is needed for ship stability.  The
larger quantity of ballast water than bilge water increases the probability
of plankton containing larvae coming in with the water, and the lower
contamination levels mean larvae have a higher probability of survival.  In
addition, a ship coming empty into a harbor will have had ballast water in
it, and want to get rid of it before the cargo is loaded.  So it would tend
to be offloaded near or in the harbor and thus near shore and potentially
reefs in the tropics.  Likewise, a ship that has just offloaded its cargo
would want to take on ballast water when it is to leave the port.  So it
would in the past have taken in ballast water near or in the harbor and
thus increased the chance of taking in larvae of shore benthic organisms.
Hence the regulations requiring ballast exchanges 200 nautical miles
offshore, to reduce the risk of introducing marine species.

       We know that ships are a vector for the introduction of non-native
species.  Ballast water is one way, and hulls are another.  Modern large
ships all have antifoulant on their hulls, which is toxic, and so the hulls
do not have lots of organisms on them which slow the ship and cost fuel and
time.  So there is a big incentive for large ships to have antifoulant on
their hulls.  It is less so for smaller boats such as yachts, so some
likely don't have antifoulant paint.  Some large ships may have organisms
in water intakes that don't have antifoulant on them, such as intakes for
ballast water.  There are surely lots more such details that I'm not aware
of.

        The net effect is I think ballast water is a much greater threat
for introduced species than bilge.  Hulls are a threat on smaller boats
that do not have antifouling.  The threat is from attached organisms.  I
think I remember it was such a boat hull that brought zebra mussels into
Darwin harbor in Australia.  It was such a threat that they literally put
tank truck loads of bleach into that harbor to kill everything, and
successfully eradicated those introduced (and invasive) mussels.  One of
the very few eradications of introduced and invasive marine species ever
accomplished, to my knowledge.

The TROPICAL Pacific and Atlantic Oceans were certainly separated by North,
South, and Central America before the Panama Canal, but the oceans
themselves are connected at both the southern and northern ends.  But that
is in water so cold that tropical organisms couldn't go from one ocean to
the other that way.

Thanks very much for the info on Diadema disease in the Eastern Atlantic, I
didn't know that but I remember wondering.

Somewhere I read recently a statement that echinoderms have had a number of
disease outbreaks.  Not long ago, a variety of sea stars on the west coast
of North America had a 'wasting disease' that killed huge numbers
(Wikipedia has an article on it).  I also remember long ago there was a
disease epidemic among the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis on
the east coast of Canada.  I don't know whether there is any evidence that
any of these outbreaks were due to the same pathogen.  The big Caribbean
Diadema outbreak was in 1983-4.  There was an outbreak of a disease in
Diadema and Echinothrix in Hawaii a bit before that, which was mentioned in
an article on echinoderm ecology, reference below.

Cheers,  Doug

Birkeland, C. 1989. The influence of Echinoderms on coral-reef
communities.  P. 1-79

           in Jangoux, M., Lawrence, J.M. (Eds.), *Echinoderm Studies III*.
Balkema Press.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 9:11 AM Martin Moe <martin_moe at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On the potential for bilge water spreading disease
>
> It seems obvious that the decline of coral reefs is not constrained to
> just corals. Coral reef decline is a composite composed of coral diseases
> and unknown diseases and pollutants on unknown numbers of species that
> inhabit and compose coral reef environments. Life on Earth is now
> negatively affected by innumerable pollutants from human sources that
> contribute to the decline of coral reefs in ways variable and unknown.
> Ecological declines of coral reefs can be rapid or painfully slow for coral
> reefs and other ecosystems. To survive, humanity must restore what it can,
> clean up what it must, learn what it needs to, and most importantly,
> realize that the ecology of our entire planet is composed of many
> interactive ecosystems, some distant in biology and nature, but all are
> biologically related. Whether we can do this in the time that Earth has
> allotted to us to achieve this task remains to be seen.
>
> Bilge water is a potential, and I stress the term potential, vehicle of
> transmission of both disease and toxic pollutants. Identification and
> understanding of the possible presence of this potential will require
> research and development of effective efforts to clean bilge water before
> discharge.
>
> In the final throes of writing the account on developing the methods of
> large-scale culture (Diadema Culture Manual), we considered the possibility
> of the potential of bilge water transferring disease over great distances.
> Since this may have significance in this thread, I’ll include a comment
> from the book.
>
>
>
>  “*Diadema* disease is not restricted to the tropical western Atlantic
> Ocean. Extensive *Diadema* disease has occurred in the eastern Atlantic.
> It is not so well known that *Diadema* also occurs in the Pacific Ocean.
> A mass mortality of the sea urchin *D. mexicanum* occurred in La Entrega
> at Bahias de Huatulco off the southwestern coast of Mexico in the spring of
> 2009 (Benitez-Villalobos, et al. 2009) The Atlantic and Pacific oceans are
> totally separated by the North American and South American continents. This
> was the situation until the completion of the Panama Canal on October 10,
> 1913. Although there is no direct communication of sea water through the
> canal, ships carry bilge water through the canal. If the oil content of
> bilge water is below 15 ppm the ships are allowed to void this water when
> the bilge is cleaned. Thus, a possible pathway was created for the carriage
> of planktonic organisms between oceans. The great Atlantic *Diadema*
> pandemic began near the entrance to the Panama Canal and there was a
> suspicion that the *Diadema* pandemic may have originated from bilge
> water discharged from a ship.
>
> Interestingly, the mass mortality of *Diadema* *africanum* in the eastern
> Atlantic and the mass mortality of *Diadema* *mexicanum* on the Mexican
> coast not far from the Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal occurred at
> about the same time in 2009.”
>
>
>
> This was an aside to the main purpose of the book but had possible
> connections to the spread of *Diadema* and perhaps coral disease. The
> eastern Pacific disease event was earlier than the eastern Atlantic plague
> so It was possible, although not probable, that these 2009 disease
> outbreaks were related.
>
> Both of these disease events are reported in the literature.
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Underwater-pictures-showing-a-an-aggregation-of-Diadema-mexicanum-in-La-Entrega-and-b_fig1_257397693
>
> and,
>
> (PDF) Sea urchin Diadema africanum mass mortality in the subtropical
> Eastern Atlantic: role of waterborne bacteria in a warming ocean
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263007510_Sea_urchin_Diadema_africanum_mass_mortality_in_the_subtropical_Eastern_Atlantic_role_of_waterborne_bacteria_in_a_warming_ocean>
>
> (PDF) Sea urchin Diadema africanum mass mortality in the subtropical Eas...
>
> PDF | A widespread mass mortality event of the sea urchin Diadema
> africanum was detected in the subtropical east...
>
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263007510_Sea_urchin_Diadema_africanum_mass_mortality_in_the_subtropical_Eastern_Atlantic_role_of_waterborne_bacteria_in_a_warming_ocean>
>
>
> Best Regards, Martin
>
>
> On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 09:07:12 AM EDT, Douglas Fenner via
> Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
>
>
> Does anybody know of data on where ships that come through the Panama Canal
> into the Pacific go??
>     Wikipedia has a page called "Sea lanes."  On that page I found a map
> of shipping routes.  Very interesting.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lane#/media/File:Shipping_routes_red_black.png
>
> It appears that most shipping that goes through the Panama Canal going
> westward goes through the Caribbean.  Hard to tell what portion actually
> comes from ports in Florida or the Caribbean, as opposed to just passing
> through.  Ballast water exchanges generally occur when the ship is leaving
> or approaching ports that the ship has or will stop in.  In the Pacific,
> the map shows most shipping through the Panama Canal goes to the west coast
> of North America, most likely mostly US ports.  None of those ports have
> tropical corals.  Some (the white areas) appear to go to east Asia or
> Hawaii.  Only a very few go to the South Pacific.  In East Asia, my guesses
> would be that most might go to Tokyo, Hong Kong or Singapore.  Tokyo itself
> has few if any tropical corals, though there is an island with 80 species
> of tropical corals not far offshore from Tokyo (I don't know how far, and
> it surely won't have big ships that go through the Panama Canal stopping
> there).  I would think that relatively few ships from the Panama Canal
> would stop anywhere in the North Pacific that has coral other than in
> Hawaii or east Asia.  But probably quite a few ships that go westward
> through the Panama Canal go to ports in East Asia or Hawaii that have
> corals nearby.
>         All this just suggests what routes are most likely, but all that's
> needed is one ship with lots of pathogens from that coral disease in the
> ballast water to stop at a place with coral, for it to be introduced into
> the Pacific.
>         The probabilities of this happening would seem to be cumulative, to
> add up over time.  If it doesn't happen soon, it is highly likely to happen
> eventually, IF there is lots of the pathogens in the ballast water.  That's
> a guess.
>         I fully agree with Austin that this is a scary threat, should it
> happen it could be a huge disaster.
>         Wikipedia has articles on the Ballast Water Management Convention
> and Ballast Water Regulation in the United States.  The international
> convention requires ships to exchange ballast water at least 200 nautical
> miles from shore.  Since 2017 they also have to have a sterilization system
> that reduces marine life in the ballast water to a particular level.  They
> also have to keep records of when and where the water was exchanged.
>           I would think that port officials in the tropical Pacific should
> be alerted to the danger and should take steps to enforce these
> regulations, particularly on ships coming from Florida or the Caribbean.
>           By the time this disease appears somewhere in the Indo-Pacific it
> will be too late.
>
> Cheers, Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 3:51 PM Austin Bowden-Kerby <abowdenkerby at gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Steve and Doug,
> >
> > The issue of primary concern to the wider world (to all areas not yet
> > impacted), is not what causes SCTLD, or how to treat it etc, but rather
> how
> > it is spread.  All of these questions can and must be figured out
> > later, but this horrific disease must be stopped from spreading right
> now.
> > It may be too late for the Caribbean, but if it proves to be spread via
> > ballast water, then we all should be extremely worried for the corals of
> > the IndoPacific region.  If there is even a slight chance of that, then
> we
> > need to take immediate and unified action, not get lost in disagreements
> > that might lead to corporate and government inaction.
> >
> > Right now, shouldn't ports with coral reefs receiving ships from the
> > affected region be alerted and governments informed of the potential
> risk?
> > Shouldn't they be advised to take stringent measures to prevent ballast
> > water release, even if that requires banning certain ships?  While I have
> > no idea what sorts of biosecurity measures are already in place, I think
> > they probably need to be urgently reviewed, especially in light of this
> > disease and of the new findings on the ineffectiveness of UV
> sterilization.
> > This is extremely urgent, but was lost in the earlier critique, which
> spun
> > off and completely missed the most important finding of the paper- that
> the
> > present sterilization systems of ballast water are not effective against
> > stopping this (and other) diseases!
> >
> > For those reading this from Hawaii, how many ships arrive annually into
> > your ports via the Panama Canal?  If (heaven forbid), there were an
> > outbreak of SCTLD in Hawaii, would we finally assume that ballast water
> is
> > to blame?  Or would we continue to use the precautionary principle of
> > science in a non-precautionary manner, cite a lack of definitive proof,
> and
> > continue the present inaction?  Would shipping continue as normal,
> ignoring
> > the threat, like it did in the Caribbean?  Effective action dealing with
> a
> > Hawaii outbreak would likely require the temporary closure of all
> > inter-island shipping and international shipping from Hawaii to Japan,
> > China, Australia, etc. Huge economic costs would be incurred, but nothing
> > compared to the cost of coral reefs of the region getting this disease.
> >
> > It saddens me that the present adversarial, competitive, and overly
> > critical nature of the scientific community has largely proven
> > non-effective at protecting coral reefs and saving the planet in the face
> > of climate change and other global threats.  We continue undermining each
> > other publically when the very fate of the planet is at stake, and
> without
> > considering the wider impacts and how our discussions and nay-saying
> might
> > feed corporate and government inaction, and that is where we are right
> now.
> >
> > Regards to all,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
> > Corals for Conservation
> > P.O. Box 4649 Samabula, Fiji Islands
> >
> > https://www.corals4conservation.org
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIAkO-hN1SM
> >
> >
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
> > <
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
> > Corals for Conservation
> > P.O. Box 4649 Samabula, Fiji Islands
> >
> >
> > https://www.corals4conservation.org
> > https://www.facebook.com/C4Conservation
> > TEDx talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PRLJ8zDm0U
> >
> >
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
> > <
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
> >
> >
> >
> > Teitei Livelihoods Centre
> > Km 20 Sigatoka Valley Road, Fiji Islands
> > (679) 938-6437
> > http:/www.
> > <
> http://permacultureglobal.com/projects/1759-sustainable-environmental-livelihoods-farm-Fiji
> >
> > teiteifiji.org
> >
> >
> http://permacultureglobal.com/projects/1759-sustainable-environmental-livelihoods-farm-Fiji
> >
> >
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/happy-chickens-for-food-security-and-environment-1/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 2:59 AM Douglas Fenner <
> > douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>