Melting Arctic makes way for man

[peejay 327]

Melting Arctic makes way for man

Researchers on icebreaker say shipping could add to risks for ecosystem

By Doug Struck

The Washington Post

Updated: 1:10 a.m. CT Nov 5, 2006

'Less and less ice'

Satellite imagery has shown that the Arctic ice cap is thinning and already is nearly 30 percent smaller than it was 25 years ago. In the winter of 2004-05, the Arctic's perennial ice, which usually survives the summer, shrank by 280,000 square miles, the size of Turkey. This past August, a crack opened in the ice pack from the Russian Arctic to the North Pole, an event never seen before.

Arctic ice reflects sunlight; its absence may accelerate global warming. The intricate chemistry that occurs in the rich Arctic waters could go haywire with unaccustomed heat and sunlight. Whole species seem destined to disappear while others move northward in their place. Inuit who thrived here for millennia are finding the thin ice and changed wildlife inhospitable.

"People tend to think there's not much life in the Arctic. But it's an incredibly diverse ecosystem," says Gary Stern, the chief scientist on the Amundsen. He was aboard when the ship was deliberately frozen in Franklin Bay in 2003. They spent the long winter doing experiments on the ice. The Amundsen has a pool to access the water through the hull; it became a favorite hangout for ringed seals.

This year is "amazing. No ice," Stern says.

Estimates vary widely on when the passage will be open to shipping all summer because of the ceaseless warming. The Canadian Ice Service conservatively predicts the southerly drift of even a shrunken ice pack will keep the passage clogged for most of this century. Other experts predict it will be open as soon as 2020; Canada's defense agency says 2015. Those who visit regularly say the evidence is before their eyes.

"You can see it. You come every year and you see less and less ice," says Marie Emmanuelle Rail, 30, a researcher who has been working in the Arctic for five years.

ArcticNet, the Canadian university consortium organizing the voyage, believes the interwoven effects of global warming may be revealed as shipmates, from students to noted scientists, discuss their work over galley tables. The vast Arctic out the portholes is a constant reminder of the stakes.

"It's huge. It's all about saving the world," says Stephane Thanassekos, 26, a French researcher pursuing his doctoral degree at Laval University in Quebec City.

A scientist with infectious enthusiasm, Thanassekos operates a contraption that looks like an automatic milker from a dairy barn. It has 24 cylinders that can each be controlled to collect water at a different depth, up to 3,000 feet, and a bevy of sophisticated probes.

"These measurements are used to calibrate the models that tell us, for example, when we won't have ice in the Arctic," he says. His own work calculates the survival prospects of Arctic cod, "which are right in the middle of the food chain" of the Arctic.

Jody Deming, 54, a professor at the University of Washington, studies "hot spots" in the ocean that are now being overtaken by a gradual warming, and microbes in super-cold ice that may help reveal life in space.

Stern, 47, is trying to figure out how mercury and other chemicals are making their way into animals of the Arctic. Julie Viellette, 27, a graduate student at Laval University, is studying viruses and bacteria. Even in the harsh Arctic environment, a thimbleful of water contains 100,000 bacteria. Robbie Bennett, 29, a geologist, pokes through muck hauled from the seabed 300 feet down, alive with tiny, pale creatures.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15555667/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stern, 47, is trying to figure out how mercury and other chemicals are making their way into animals of the Arctic. Julie Viellette, 27, a graduate student at Laval University, is studying viruses and bacteria. Even in the harsh Arctic environment, a thimbleful of water contains 100,000 bacteria. Robbie Bennett, 29, a geologist, pokes through muck hauled from the seabed 300 feet down, alive with tiny, pale creatures.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15555667/

This doesn't help...

Professing a deep belief in the sanctity of life, particularly for the unborn, George Bush is callously indifferent about the toxic effects of mercury on human fetuses.

Mercury is an extremely toxic environmental pollutant that has entered our food system to an alarming extent. It is labeled a neurotoxin because it damages the nervous system, the brain and the spinal cord. Those at greatest risk are fetuses and young children because their nervous systems are still developing. They are many times more sensitive to mercury than adults. Overexposure to mercury may cause a child to be late in beginning to walk and talk, permanent damage to motor functions, and any number of lifelong learning problems.

While no one would ever call George Bush environment-friendly, one might have expected that his professed belief in the sanctity of life, particularly that of the unborn, would have made him more than just a bit concerned about the toxic effects of mercury on human fetuses. But not so. Earlier this year Bush proposed his Clear Skies legislation to revamp a range of environmental regulations. One effect would have been to ease mercury emission standards that were proposed by the Clinton administration EPA. Fortunately, the bill failed to get out of Senate committee, a Republican controlled committee. The same initiative failed during Bush’s first term. And it is not without some irony that Bush’s initiative would have overturned key provisions of the last and strictest amendment to the Clean Air Act, passed in 1990 under the first President Bush.

But this George Bush, acting with his typical pettiness, decided to ignore congress and ignore a public that has favored strong mercury pollution standards. Bush directed the EPA to review existing regulations under the current law to find some loophole that would, in effect, allow him to have his -- and industry’s -- way. And guess what? With the aid of some Bush appointees at the EPA, they succeeded in doing just that. At least for now anyway, but public outrage is building.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules...le&sid=1053