4 ms·

Your interpretation doesn't bear any particular resemblance to the article. There's no mention in it of any prey shortages, nor anything about extinction. The

by 3am 13y ago

Your interpretation doesn't bear any particular resemblance to the article. There's no mention in it of any prey shortages, nor anything about extinction. They do mention several times that they don't know precise why this morbillivirus outbreak is occurring now, though. But that "The Indian River Lagoon, a diverse estuary, has been tainted by huge algae blooms caused in part by too much nitrogen. Research on some of the dead dolphins in the estuary — 76 died this year, the third series of deaths since 2001 — has showed that some had high levels of mercury, fungal diseases, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and oral-genital tumors. The dolphins found were emaciated." and in some other cases, they have a pretty decent idea, but it's unconfirmed: "Gulf Coast states and the federal government are still investigating the impact of the oil spill in the region, and scientists cannot yet say why the dolphins are dying. So far, it appears that toxins or morbillivirus are not the primary cause. “We can’t conclusively say what role oil played at this time,” Ms. Fougeres said. “But the event is pretty unprecedented in terms of how long the die-off has been occurring and how many have died as part of that event.” A NOAA study released last week of 29 bottlenose dolphins that were examined in Barataria Bay in Louisiana — an area hit hard by the spill — found that they had lung disease, hormonal abnormalities and other illnesses that are consistent with exposure to oil."

Someone 13y ago
Being an interpretation, you should not expect to literally find it in the article. As food for thought: the article doesn't mention what the size of the population is. A thousand death dolphins could be a disaster, but it also could be a statistical anomaly. Percentage-wise, the effect could be smaller than that of 25 years ago. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midatldolphins2013.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midatldolphins2013.... does not mention population count, either. Looking at the linked http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/mid-atlantic2013.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/mid-atlantic2013.ht..., I find that there are over a 100,000 dolphins that might be affected. If the deaths are across the population, I don't think any of the populations is at risk, even if this repeats itself next year. Replacement per year should be about 2,000 to keep population at 100,000. And lung disease happens to be associated with Morbilliviruses, too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocine_distemper_virus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocine_distemper_virus) Also, as that URL shows, there was a Morbilliviruses epidemic going on with seals in the North Sea in 1988-1992. At the time, people claimed seals would go extinct in the Wadden Sea. Now, there are 150,000 (http://www.ecomare.nl/index.php?id=4180&L=2); http://www.ecomare.nl/index.php?id=4180&L=2); the population in the Wadden sea increased from 150 in 1992 to just over 3000 in 2012 (same link). Is that a sign that all is well with the environment? I doubt it. As with this article, I read "we simply don't know" between the lines. And that's not because I think the scientists working on this aren't good. They have to make a living and have forget their maybe' sand "it's just one theory"'s in order to make the paper. Many of the so-called softer sciences are simply too hard to make accurate predictions about. Maths? Easy. Physics? AFAIK, all electrons are created equal, but things get difficult hard as soon as you have many of them. Chemistry? Already a bit harder. Biology? Some simple models make good rough predictions, but don't expect those predictions to be even remotely right every time. Psychology? You can almost forget to make reliable predictions. Sociology? Even harder.
- 3am 13y ago
  I don't understand any of the points you're trying to convey. Let me respond to each of your paragraphs individually: #2 - you're arguing against a point neither I nor (IMO) the article are trying to make. The cause of the anomalous mass die-offs is of interest, but there's no concert it's an existential threat for the Atlantic dolphin population. #3 - irrelevant. Unless you can tell me more about the nature of the lung disease [edit: allegedly] from oil & from the virus, I'll assume the researches can distinguish between the two. That also doesn't address the hormonal abnormalities or the other symptoms they didn't enumerate. #4 - again, irrelevant. Same comments from #1 apply. You are arguing against a point that is not being made. #5 - If you have some sort of disagreements with the data, or the methodology of their interpretation, then by all means be specific about it. Otherwise it's hard to see how this is on topic.

by 3am 13y ago

Someone 13y ago

Being an interpretation, you should not expect to literally find it in the article. As food for thought: the article doesn't mention what the size of the population is. A thousand death dolphins could be a disaster, but it also could be a statistical anomaly. Percentage-wise, the effect could be smaller than that of 25 years ago. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midatldolphins2013.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midatldolphins2013.... does not mention population count, either. Looking at the linked http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/mid-atlantic2013.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/mid-atlantic2013.ht..., I find that there are over a 100,000 dolphins that might be affected. If the deaths are across the population, I don't think any of the populations is at risk, even if this repeats itself next year. Replacement per year should be about 2,000 to keep population at 100,000. And lung disease happens to be associated with Morbilliviruses, too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocine_distemper_virus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocine_distemper_virus) Also, as that URL shows, there was a Morbilliviruses epidemic going on with seals in the North Sea in 1988-1992. At the time, people claimed seals would go extinct in the Wadden Sea. Now, there are 150,000 (http://www.ecomare.nl/index.php?id=4180&L=2); http://www.ecomare.nl/index.php?id=4180&L=2); the population in the Wadden sea increased from 150 in 1992 to just over 3000 in 2012 (same link). Is that a sign that all is well with the environment? I doubt it. As with this article, I read "we simply don't know" between the lines. And that's not because I think the scientists working on this aren't good. They have to make a living and have forget their maybe' sand "it's just one theory"'s in order to make the paper. Many of the so-called softer sciences are simply too hard to make accurate predictions about. Maths? Easy. Physics? AFAIK, all electrons are created equal, but things get difficult hard as soon as you have many of them. Chemistry? Already a bit harder. Biology? Some simple models make good rough predictions, but don't expect those predictions to be even remotely right every time. Psychology? You can almost forget to make reliable predictions. Sociology? Even harder.

3am 13y ago
I don't understand any of the points you're trying to convey. Let me respond to each of your paragraphs individually: #2 - you're arguing against a point neither I nor (IMO) the article are trying to make. The cause of the anomalous mass die-offs is of interest, but there's no concert it's an existential threat for the Atlantic dolphin population. #3 - irrelevant. Unless you can tell me more about the nature of the lung disease [edit: allegedly] from oil & from the virus, I'll assume the researches can distinguish between the two. That also doesn't address the hormonal abnormalities or the other symptoms they didn't enumerate. #4 - again, irrelevant. Same comments from #1 apply. You are arguing against a point that is not being made. #5 - If you have some sort of disagreements with the data, or the methodology of their interpretation, then by all means be specific about it. Otherwise it's hard to see how this is on topic.