What's in the Mississippi, where it goes

September 6, 2005 5:43 PM

Dead Zones - Causes and Consequences Found by way of this article series where I read: "Ask scientists, government types, fishermen, almost anyone about the low-oxygen zone coming off the mouth of the Mississippi River and one question spills from their lips. "Have you talked to Nancy Rabalais?" ... marine ecologist Rabalais has led the search for answers to the 8,500-square-mile zone and the charge to find a solution. " ----- From the first linked page, you can view eight video clips -- each about 9.5 minutes long -- of a February 2005 slide lecture. She's awesome.
posted by hank (10 comments total)

argh. The "this article series" link is not working once put into MeFi's page. The link is:
http://www.naplesscanner.com/03/10/naples/d969004a.htm

Now it's opening a Microsoft home page (sigh). It should find a series of articles including the one I tried to link, that begins thus:
------
Deep Trouble: Gulf warrior
One woman's search for the truth about the Dead Zone
Sunday, October 5, 2003
By CATHY ZOLLO, [e-mail]
DEEP TROUBLE: THE GULF IN PERIL
CHAPTER EIGHT OF A 15-PART SERIES -- THE DEAD ZONE
Sunday, October 5, 2003
---
Never mind. Just see the main link and the videos available at http://courses.washington.edu/susfish/speakers/rabalais.html
posted by hank at 5:49 PM on September 6, 2005

No worries Hank, your link works. You just had an extra "http//" in there.
posted by gwint at 6:02 PM on September 6, 2005

What a drag....
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:19 PM on September 6, 2005

Eutropification (and downstream hypoxia) due to fertilizer/ag runoff has long been a problem on the Mississippi.


If you want to fix the gulf you have to fix farming in iowa/illinois. They have Dem senators. Get to work.
posted by Jos Bleau at 6:34 PM on September 6, 2005

Organic farming is the only way to stop fertilizer runoff, as far as I know. Can't see it as high on Bush's agenda.

Do the Democrats talk about it at all?
posted by cleardawn at 6:44 PM on September 6, 2005

So.. why doesn't Monsanto develop crops that can thrive with less unfixed potassium/nitrogen (like gov funded development of plants that live in low-fertility or high-salinity or drought environments instead of devloping plants that can withstand a particular kinds of herbicide and making sure that those plants can't (although they will) be viable in the next season?

Well, aside from that they can make more money more easily (in the short term) from the later.

/death to Monsanto
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:09 PM on September 6, 2005

One has to wonder what effect the current influx of floodwater, with its higher-than-usual content of unprocessed feces, gasoline, trash and human remains, will end up having on the Mississippi and on Lake Pontchartrain.
posted by clevershark at 11:00 PM on September 6, 2005

And here we have (more) glaring proof of the interconnectedness of our lives and choices with the earth itself and the consequences of our choices.

I wonder if the politocos will even pay attention?
posted by loquacious at 11:30 PM on September 6, 2005

loquacious, only when confronted with pitchforks and torches.

Viva la revolution!
posted by Djinh at 11:40 PM on September 6, 2005

Why doesn't Monsanto just engineer a genetic segregation disorder to whipe out a particular pest?
posted by jeffburdges at 4:19 PM on September 7, 2005