[Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water THE REAL CAUSE OF CORAL REEF DEMISE

Mon Aug 22 22:28:41 UTC 2022

Dear Alina,

It is scientifically relevant to take into account increasing global
population. That statement is coherent with over 6,500 passengers onboard
and over 2,000 crew members, in each cruise that visits coral reef areas
where it becomes relevant when taking care of its sewage and other
pollutants.

It is scientifically relevant to identify potential causes of coral reef
degradation by applying transdisciplinary science to take into account
the increasing
massive tourism and sustainable development. For example, the increasing
number of cruises that arrive at enlarged ports (Dredging Close to or in
MPAs with coral reefs) and exchange ballast water from other ports that may
be infected.

In Colombia, the first SCTLD report was made at the North, this year by a
biologist from CORALINA, the managers of the Seaflower Marine Biosphere
Reserve, after the National Geographic Pristine *Seas Expedition *and months
later that there was dredging to enlarge channels, enlargement of ports and
the cruises started to travel to San Andres Island.

https://www.semana.com/sostenibilidad/medio-ambiente/articulo/una-grave-enfermedad-estaria-afectado-a-los-corales-en-el-archipielago-de-san-andres/202236/

Cordially,

Nohora Galvis

Director and Researcher on Coral Reef Conservation Effectiveness

International Coral Reef Observatory Twitter: English @ICRIcolombia

Observatorio Internacional de Arrecifes Coralinos

Twitter: Español @ArrecifesCoral

https://www.facebook.com/ICRObservatory/

Instagram ICR_Observatory Youtube ICRI Colombia

El mié, 17 ago 2022 a las 6:18, Alina Szmant via Coral-List (<
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>) escribió:

> Dear Steve:
>
> Well reasoned response to what I am seeing as knee jerk reactions about
> causes of coral death that are poorly thought out with regard to data. But
> I want to amend one sentence/paragraph you wrote:
>
> "Unfortunately, we are at a point in the history of our reefs where a
> focus on one or two local port expansions takes attention
> away from the proximal cause that has killed or will kill our coral reefs
> – global warming" ...  YOU STOPPED WRITING TOO SOON.
>
> I would replace 'global warming' with "... the continued increasing human
> population size and the  economic activities needed to provide for the SOON
> TO BE 8 BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH [MILESTONE COMING THIS NOVEMBER]. Our
> numbers are increasing by 83 MILLION humans per year; 227,397 humans PER
> DAY. Some consume more than others but all aspire to shelter, food
> (requiring more deforestation or habitat conversion to grow food; more
> overfishing, more pollution from growing more meat animals); clothing,
> sources of energy for all our activities, whether renewable or fossil fuel
> (including deforestation for making charcoal in poor areas), and the list
> is endless.
>
> Instead of worrying about ship ballast water and port expansion, I suggest
> folks worry about the root cause: why do we need so many ships and bigger
> ports? To transport food and other goods for human consumption for people
> who live far away from where the goods are produced. If every human had to
> survive on only what could be acquired with a 100 mile radius from home,
> all the global environmental problems we are facing would quicky disappear
> along with much of humanity, and our use of fossil fuels directly
> responsible for about 1/3 of global warming. Yes it would be terribly messy
> especially in all the larger cities... but then no pain, no gain. 😊
>
> Of course, I am not expecting many people to accept this as a realistic
> solution. I pose this to point out the hypocrisy of folks trying to blame
> any one or more human activities or enterprises for coral reef demise when
> the cause started ca. 10,000 years ago when humans began to domesticate
> plants and animals (especially food animals). More dependable food supply
> lead to population increase; farming crops lead to human settlements which
> grew over time from small communities to cities of many millions. And every
> additional human added to the impact of humanity on not just coral reefs
> but all terrestrial and marine ecosystems. As technologies became
> sophisticated and required electricity to function, the rate of humanity's
> impact of global environments AND INCLUDING GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE
> CHANGE accelerated, until here we are with a hot mess on our hands. All of
> this in less than 10k years.
>
> I don't see a realistic way of putting this genie back in the bottle
> without (a) doing something dramatic about human population size:
> preventing ALL unwanted births would make a huge dent! I've seen figures
> that globally over 40% of births are unwanted. (b) incentivize smaller
> family size instead of handing out tax credits and welfare to women having
> more than 2 children, regardless of cultural mores, or the stupid "I just
> love babies". (c) reduce  consumerism which is destroying the global
> environment by mining for metals, petroleum products and other raw
> materials needed to manufacture all the stuff we surround ourselves with.
>
> Since I know none of the above would ever be considered by either the
> elected officials that run our governments or the people being governed, I
> think most efforts to save this species or ecosystem don't have any chance
> of long term success. As soon as one problem is 'fixed' it will be undone
> by the 83 million new people per year needing resources.
>
> As Pogo famously stated on the first Earth Day in 1970 when there were
> 'only' 3.68 BILLION of us on Earth (fewer than half the numbers of humans
> alive today):  "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US".
>
> If only we had listened back then....
>
>
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> Dr. Alina M. Szmant, CEO
> CISME Instruments LLC
> 210 Braxlo Lane,
> Wilmington NC 28409 USA
> AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee
> cell: 910-200-3913
> EMAIL: alina at cisme-instruments.com
>
> CISME IS NOW SOLD BY QUBIT SYSTEMS; https://qubitbiology.com/cisme/
>
>
> **********************************************************
> Videos:  CISME Promotional Video 5:43 min
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAYeR9qX71A&t=6s
> CISME Short version Demo Video 3:00 min
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa4SqS7yC08
> CISME Cucalorus 10x10 Sketch   4:03 min
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12sAV8oUluE
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Coral-List <coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> On Behalf Of
> Steven L Miller via Coral-List
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 7:39 PM
> To: Ligia Collado-Vides <colladol at fiu.edu>; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water
>
> Dear Ligia
>
>
> A quick note in response to your comments about my post. If you want to
> continue the discussion, then please contact me directly.
>
>
> Why am I certain there is no link between SCTLD and the Port Miami
> dredge project? That's not what I said. Certainty in science is a rare
> thing, especially in ecology. Instead, I said that there's nothing
> published that conclusively ties the project to the coral disease. There
> are dozens of relevant articles in a recent edition of Marine Frontiers
> in Science and dozens more published elsewhere. None link SCTLD to the
> dredging project. Good science exists on the subject, and we will learn
> more over time.
>
>
> Regarding your comment about what might be in the canal sediments and
> Miami River, dredging did not occur in the canals and river.
> Interestingly, the "urban corals" described by Colin Ford are in the
> port. They are in excellent condition, including no SCTLD.
>
>
> Also, the dredging operations that deepened the channel removed mostly
> chopped rock and suctioned materials. You may know that some dredge
> operations use dynamite to blast the rock. Indeed, earlier phases
> (2005-2006) included dynamiting. However, using a cutter-head to chop
> rock has a smaller environmental footprint than dynamite. So, while I
> can't speak for fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles, I assume dynamite
> is not a favorite.
>
>
> The important question is, "Why do stories continue to show up that link
> the Port Miami dredge project to SCTLD – and not part of this thread but
> also to killing large numbers of corals?" On the latter, significant
> publications conclusively point to SCTLD as killing large numbers of
> corals close to the dredging project (including control sites) and
> throughout the region, rather than dredging and its plumes. The
> literature on coral mortality during the dredging project is maturing.
> The outcome is clear and conclusively points to SCTLD as the significant
> source. That's not to say that dredging did not kill any corals.
> Fortunately, Port Miami included the most comprehensive coral reef
> monitoring program ever conducted in association with a dredging
> project. It is fair to say that science has prevailed on this topic, not
> newspaper headlines.
>
>
> Dredge projects attract much attention, as they should. However, I think
> it's reasonable to point out that these projects are also easy targets.
> They look bad, can make big messes, and some have done significant
> damage. But each project needs to be evaluated on its merits and risks.
> That provides an opening that some environmental groups use to help
> raise funds, expand membership lists, and try and slow coastal
> development. Unfortunately, we are at a point in the history of our
> reefs where a focus on one or two local port expansions takes attention
> away from the proximal cause that has killed or will kill our coral
> reefs – global warming.
>
>
> It's important to note that Port Miami and Port Everglades (expansion is
> in the planning stages) are found adjacent to habitats with extremely
> low coral cover. Specifically, hard bottoms with naturally low coral
> cover of a few percent – or less. They are still productive habitats and
> ecologically important, but not the same as the iconic locations that
> previously described Florida's offshore coral reefs.
>
>
> Additionally, the seascape-scale changes to Port Miami started about 120
> years ago when Government Cut was first dredged.  As a result, the area
> is unrecognizable today compared to its natural condition.
>
>
> Finally, high mitigation costs are associated with dredging projects
> based on predicted and documented environmental damage. Therefore, it
> matters what killed the corals.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
> Steven
>
>
> smiller at nova.edu <mailto:smiller at nova.edu>
>
> On 8/11/22 12:01 PM, Ligia Collado-Vides wrote:
> > Dear Dr. Miller
> >
> > Thank you very much for your response and thoughtful comments. I
> appreciate your call for caution.
> >
> > My intention is to bring to our attention the need to have a forensic
> perspective in our approaches when asking questions about causes of
> diseases, and others. I am not an expert at all in this issue, but I have
> been in the region and had the great opportunity to experience a living
> healthy reef in the 80's, and also long enough to see how we concentrate in
> few causes and do not address some more controversial perspectives. Some
> might be very difficult to publish.
> >
> > I do agree that if we do not make the distinction between working
> hypothesis and explanatory narratives we can create problems. However, I do
> think we cannot stop asking ourselves about all possible related events
> that can be involved in a problem of this dimension, that goes beyond the
> Keys, and its causes.
> >
> > We have background information that we can use to establish working
> hypothesis and if tested properly we can at least have some information to
> avoid even larger impacts from our human need of expansion.
> >
> > Dr. Miller, may I ask why you are certain that there is no link at all
> between SCTLD with the Miami dredge project? Please take this question from
> a scientific-hypothesis driven perspective.  I really would like to know
> that there is not link in there.
> >
> > " To my knowledge, nothing conclusive exists that ties SCTLD to ballast
> water or the Miami dredge project. Testable hypothesis could be framed
> related to ballast water. I'm not sure the same can be said related to
> SCTLD and the dredge project. After all, the Miami sewage outfall is in
> close proximity to the dredge site and outflow from the Miami River is
> through the dredge channel. Both contain a thick stew of anthropogenic
> bacteria and viruses and who knows what else."
> >
> > I agree 100% we do not have any conclusive study to link SCLTD to the
> above mentioned events. Do we have other certain and clear links that can
> help the community understand the process?
> >
> > I agree also 100% on the use of the precautionary principle. If we
> already know that the Miami Port is localized in close proximity to
> polluted outflows such as Miami River, is it wise to support, or well, not
> oppose or at least ask the potential harm a dredging activity can cause? We
> do not have, in my knowledge, data about what is accumulated in the
> sediments close to all the canals, and Miami River. Science will never
> bring the 100% certainty, nature and interconnectivity of events is
> incredible complicated, however, we can get closer to one and more
> potential causes of problems, we do not need to eliminate, with the same
> lack of evidence potential stressor.
> >
> > I do not want to make this conversation too long.  Thanks for the call
> for caution, I do still think we need to have multi-causal perspectives and
> a forensic approach, complex yes, important yes.
> >
> > I hope you have all access to this web site, interesting spread from
> 2014..... just that site can open minds to many working hypothesis, what
> background we will use to decide to eliminate some and think others are
> workable?  Our challenge as scientists in a rapid changing world and
> limited resources are huge.
> >
> > https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/coral-disease/disease.html
> >
> > Thank you all for your input, I hope you read this with the same
> intention is expressed.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Ligia Collado Vides
> > Teaching Professor
> > Marine Macroalgae Research lab
> > Florida International University
> > Miami, USA
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Coral-List<coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>  On Behalf Of
> Steven L Miller via Coral-List
> > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 3:38 PM
> > To:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water
> >
> > Dear Dr. Collado-Vides
> >
> > I am a long-time fan of Shifting Baselines, which your first point
> addresses. Our views are shaped by slow motion change and forgotten
> history. But to your second point, if you are suggesting that the Miami
> dredge project has something to do with SCTLD, then you are mistaken.
> > While you acknowledge "no proof of anything," I'm concerned that many on
> this List will infer a link between the dredge project and SCTLD based only
> on your links to decade-old newspaper stories.
> >
> > To my knowledge, nothing conclusive exists that ties SCTLD to ballast
> water or the Miami dredge project. Testable hypothesis could be framed
> related to ballast water. I'm not sure the same can be said related to
> SCTLD and the dredge project. After all, the Miami sewage outfall is in
> close proximity to the dredge site and outflow from the Miami River is
> through the dredge channel. Both contain a thick stew of anthropogenic
> bacteria and viruses and who knows what else.
> >
> > This thread was started when the precautionary principle was cited as a
> reason to address ballast water and SCTLD. That is, act based on the idea
> of not doing possible harm instead of having to first prove damage.
> > In this case, while it'snot harmful to suggest (hypothesize) such a
> linkage to dredging, without context and facts (and testing) a false
> narrative can easily arise.
> >
> > I apologize if I misunderstood and you weren't suggesting a link between
> dredging and SCTLD.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Steven Miller, PhD
> >
> > Senior Scientist
> >
> > Nova Southeastern University
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/5/22 6:29 PM, Ligia Collado-Vides via Coral-List wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> We have no proof of anything, published papers can wait for many years,
> or never publish because we do not have the people at the right time. We
> need more forensic perspectives in the way we address the environmental
> problems.
> >>
> >> However memory is also something we lose very rapidly, Dredging for the
> huge enlargement of the Port of Miami 2018-2019, spread to the lower Keys,
> Caribbean.... years after....
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://maritime-executive.com/article/con
> >> struction-begins-at-portmiami-on-u-s-s-largest-cruise-terminal__;!!Fju
> >> HKAHQs5udqho!N_1stqx5lewtX-UoBuBLGnpAo46b6Ox4TThg6BpwWNUKb2d0SG2oRZyZc
> >> IsyA7laWQHZxpCQow6HzvJo0A$
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://maritime-executive.com/article/construction-begins-at-portmiami-on-u-s-s-largest-cruise-terminal__;!!FjuHKAHQs5udqho!KV_SnyTil-umd_TTEZ-mnp55wd_y9xV0o4VTcTnst1NGwv_sONSLXMXhSJKDtnLwM9QtMI69_2AvZWedzzyTRN1-BDScQQ$
>
> >>      Construction Begins at PortMiami on U.S.’s Largest Cruise Terminal
> >>
> >>
> >> U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Takes a Prominent Role at RIMPAC. Published Aug
> 2, 2022 9:44 PM by The Maritime Executive This year's Rim of the Pacific
> naval exercise has received considerable attention ...
> >> maritime-executive.com
> >>
> >> Draconic events need to be documented, we tend to totally forget
> traumatic events, and of course request accountability...
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Ligia
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Coral-List<coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>   On Behalf Of
> >> Eugene Shinn via Coral-List
> >> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 3:46 PM
> >> To:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> Subject: [Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water
> >>
> >> Note: This message originated from outside the FIU Faculty/Staff email
> system.
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listin
> >> fo/coral-list__;!!FjuHKAHQs5udqho!IigoUmYtS9GmQw81Y5taBVO048hO7uBHJjfh
> >> vrpK5Kmp35TuH6yn8D-JoC3dnjww4oXtpXstekSDTcoB6M6dc1r8bZZkoQ$
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listin
> >> fo/coral-list__;!!FjuHKAHQs5udqho!KV_SnyTil-umd_TTEZ-mnp55wd_y9xV0o4VT
> >> cTnst1NGwv_sONSLXMXhSJKDtnLwM9QtMI69_2AvZWedzzyTRN3MNkd_Sw$
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list__;!!FjuHKAHQs5udqho!KV_SnyTil-umd_TTEZ-mnp55wd_y9xV0o4VTcTnst1NGwv_sONSLXMXhSJKDtnLwM9QtMI69_2AvZWedzzyTRN3MNkd_Sw$
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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