Japan Earthquake: Macro facts, radiation, and a time for compassion

The destruction wreaked upon Japan by the earthquake, tsunami, and ongoing threat from radioactivity is, understandably, central on the minds of people and media worldwide. The loss of life, property, and the infrastructure of a developed culture is near apocalyptic and begs comparisons to what befell Japan at the end of the Second World War.



Macro Facts
Not to take away from the impact on the Japanese people, but there are also some staggering macro or global facts and issues as result of these recent events. Writing for Yahoo News, Vanessa Evans cited these facts:

* Although the largest earthquake recorded on Friday was the massive 8.9 quake that caused the vast majority of the damage, there have been hundreds of aftershocks, some of which reached magnitude 6 strength, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

* Any number of those aftershocks were as large as the earthquake that shook Christchurch, New Zealand, late last month.

* Geophysicist Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, has estimated that the Japanese earthquake shortened the Earth's day by 1.8 microseconds. Gross also said that the axis of the Earth probably shifted about 6.5 inches, which affects how it rotates, but not its position or movement in space.

* The U.S. Geological Survey initially estimated that Japan as a whole has physically moved by approximately 8 feet, but other scientists around the globe have estimated that some parts of the country may actually have moved as much as 12 feet closer to North America. In addition, parts of the country's terrain are now permanently under sea level, which will make it difficult for the flooding caused by the tsunami to drain.

* The loss of 1.8 microseconds as a result of the shift in the Earth's axis is unlikely to cause more than minute changes, but among those changes will actually be differences in the passing of the seasons. This will only be observable using satellite navigation systems with very precise monitoring equipment.

* The shift of the Earth's axis and loss of time is similar to that experienced after the Chilean earthquake last year, which sped up the Earth's rotation and resulted in the loss of 1.26 microseconds.

Radiation and the Sea
While many of these facts are scientifically interesting, they won't necessarily have a profound effect on the day-to-day activities of the planet. However, one ongoing issue, that of the possibility of a large discharge of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear facility, is an important concern to the ocean environment.

Current weather forecasts are showing prevailing winds blowing to the East, therefore taking any escaped radiation away from the mainland - but out to sea. The Japanese government has been exceedingly cautious in their pronouncements about the crisis at the nuclear facility. However, from an ocean ecology perspective, there are some important questions to be answered.

How powerful or strong would the radiation be if there was a major leakage from the facility? What kinds of particles would the radiation consist of? Would these particles travel great distances above the sea or would they settle quickly, close within Japanese waters? Could the radiation be consumed by fish or smaller creatures, entering the food chain at a base level and work their way up in time? Could certain fish like swordfish, tuna, or sharks - which are known to accumulate other pollutants - also accumulate radiation over time. Or would the radiation dissipate to such low levels as to not be an issue.

The potential harm from radiation to the Japanese people is certainly an important concern. However, the same can be said of the environment, and particularly the sea, should a major discharge occur and the predicted winds carry it out to sea.

Our Better Nature
Speaking of the Japanese people, I have read a few online comments from some highly passionate but misguided conservationists who see the events of the past few days as a fitting retribution on the Japanese people for their whaling, dolphin, and tuna fishing activities. Nothing could be further from the truth and, in fact, denigrates us as a civilized society when we stoop to those kind of pronouncements.

This was not justice, or God's will, or bad karma, or any other vengeful nonsense. Natural disasters of this sort have occurred throughout the history of this planet and they will continue to do so long after we have either resolved the issues of protecting the environment or vanished through our own self-extinction. If we are at all worthy of sharing any space on this planet it will be because we can call upon the "better angels of our nature" - the same ones that make us strive to protect endangered species and conserve our natural resources - and bring comfort and compassion to our fellow man in the face of such catastrophe.

Support the relief efforts through the American Red Cross or similar agency in your country.

Read more about the changes in the earth in Yahoo News.

Ocean Dead Zones: low oxygen areas are still growing

Ocean researchers and many conservationists have heard of oceanic low-oxygen or "dead zones" wherein large areas of ocean have lower-than-normal levels of oxygen. To a large extent, these areas are normal or somewhat predictable - deepwater and seasonal movements of water; all part of the ocean's normal process of oxygen intake, use, and replenishment.

But there are more and more signs from throughout the world that these dead zones are becoming more frequent and growing in size. From both coasts of Africa, to South America to the Pacific Northwest, dead zones are becoming a real problem, killing off some aquatic species, displacing others, and affecting the ocean's relationship with the atmosphere - a relationship that provides a majority of our breathable air.

A recent article in the online McClatchy newspaper outlines what has been happening in the Pacific Northwest, along the Oregon/Washington coastline. Some scientists believe it's too soon to tell whether the root cause - a warming of the surface waters that acts as a cap to suppress the normal cycle of deepwater to shallow, or upwellings and downwellings - is due to global warming, but it's high on their list of suspects.

Some might think that it's a sign of ocean acidification, but this is a different process taking place here, as well illustrated in the article. However, in any case, the net effect of the coast of Oregon and Washington is tangible, with piles of dead Dungeness crab and 25-year old sea stars littering a sea floor covered with a higher-than-normal bacteria layer.

"Areas of hypoxia, or low oxygen, have long existed in the deep ocean. These areas — in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans — appear to be spreading, however, covering more square miles, creeping toward the surface and in some places, such as the Pacific Northwest, encroaching on the continental shelf within sight of the coastline.

'The depletion of oxygen levels in all three oceans is striking,' said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle."

If these low-oxygen zones continue to increase in size and/or frequency, the ocean ecology will have to make adjustments, some that will be severe and that we will feel as they impact commercial fisheries. But scientists are not sure just how far-ranging these changes could be. After all, they have no reference models or examples to turn to - we are heading into unknown territory.

"Scientists are unsure how low oxygen levels will affect the ocean ecosystem. Bottom-dwelling species could be at the greatest risk because they move slowly and might not be able to escape the lower oxygen levels. Most fish can swim out of danger. Some species, however, such as chinook salmon, may have to start swimming at shallower depths than they're used to. Whether the low oxygen zones will change salmon migration routes is unclear.

Some species, such as jellyfish, will like the lower-oxygen water. Jumbo squid, usually found off Mexico and Central America, can survive as oxygen levels decrease and now are found as far north as Alaska."

Read entire McClatchy article.

Geoengineering: changing the earth's climate for better or worse?

Geoengineering - this is a concept that we will be hearing more and more about with regards to managing climate change. It doesn't necessarily involve us on a personal level, like buying fluorescent light bulbs or driving more fuel-efficient cars; this is large-scale proactive approaches where science and commerce are utilized to directly counter the effects of climate change and CO2 emissions rather than deal with root causes.

Basically, we are talking about taking the CO2 we have in the atmosphere and finding some other place to park it, often referred to as CO2 sequestration. There have been proposals to store it underground while others have focused on methods of increasing absorption by the oceans where it is stored at deep depths.

I was reading several reports on ocean sequestration and there are many techniques that have been studied and even experimented with on a small scale. The results and/or recommendations have been conflicting - in part due to the fact that none of this has been undertaken on a large, truly global scale so we are walking into unknown territory with only projections and theories to guide us. Here are some of the current concepts regarding ocean CO2 sequestration:

Ocean Fertilization: Using the addition of iron particles to induce greater phytoplankton blooms which will, as part of their normal biological process, consume more CO2 and then sink to the ocean bottom. Some scientists say this is a viable approach, others say that the results are not substantial enough compared to the costs and related effects that would impact the ocean ecosystem.

Ocean Nourishment: A variation on ocean fertilization wherein additional nutrients are added to the process that could enhance the growth of feeder fish populations, thereby providing additional benefits with an increased food source and potential commercial value to developing countries.

Alkalinity Change: A land-based process where a CO2 source is combined with limestone and sea water. Basically the reaction alters the pH level and binds the CO2 to the sea water, which is then discharged back into the ocean. The use of limestone, which introduces calcium carbonate, is expected to neutralize acidification and therefore have minimal impact on the marine ecology.

Direct Injection: When ocean sequestration is discussed, the storage of CO2 is to take place at great depths where CO2 actually forms a liquid more dense than seawater (below 3000 meters). There are proposals for direct injection that involve piping CO2 directly from sources like industrial plants or energy refineries into the ocean depths where it is trapped at depth, forming a kind of deep sea lake of near-solid CO2.

These are techniques that are currently being experimented with, but whether they ultimately prove to be physically or financially practical on a large scale remains to be seen. And what of the unforeseen ecological implications? Attitudes range and proposals are hotly debated within the scientific community. There are those that say that geoengineering represents "doing something rather than nothing" with the current and future volume of CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of what preventive steps are taken. (Remember the Carbon Bathtub analogy I cited earlier this week? Even if we radically cut back on CO2 emissions, we will have excess amounts in the atmosphere to deal with for centuries.)

Geoengineering is not a silver bullet solution nor does it free us from addressing the ongoing sources of CO2 emissions. At best it could work in concert with CO2 reduction strategies, but it is technology that is new with unforeseen consequences and perhaps must operate on unimaginable scales worldwide. However, it may find its place because we don't have a choice.