It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mystery of the Dead Sea Turtles: It's Not Oil

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   



There have been 38 sea turtle strandings reported from Alabama through the Louisiana delta since April 30, but no evidence of oil ...

"Based on careful examination, NOAA scientists do not believe that these sea turtle strandings are related to the oil spill. NOAA and its partners have conducted 10 necropsies so far - none of ten turtles showed evidence of oil, externally or internally," said Barbara Schroeder, NOAA national sea turtle coordinator.
...

Flights over the oil spill area Tuesrday showed 30 to 50 sea turtles, species unknown, swimming in or near the oil spill.

www.nola.com...


I find it odd that the turtles would actually be swimming in the oil spill. Why would they be frolicking in the area near the oil spill? Why are sea turtles washing up en masse dead without any apparent 'cause'?



According to comments from readers concerning the article, some suspect that the turtles were caught by shrimpers not using Turtle Excluder Device (TED's) nets. Sea turtles drown in less than an hour when they are caught in shrimp nets because they cannot get back to the surface for air.

Some suspect that because the fishermen were furiously trying to catch all the fish and shrimp they could, that they did not use the turtle friendly equipment because of haste.

Other articles report that this has been on-going for years because there has not been proper enforcement in caring for the wildlife.

In another comment someone suspected that perhaps the turtles were killed by the dispersents used on the oil. However, if this were true, it does not stand to reason that the turtles would still be frolicking in the oil spill area.





[edit on 7-5-2010 by Alethea]

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Alethea]




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Are shrimpers responsible for the dead sea turtles?





Even before the BP oil spill, sea turtles were dying in the Gulf of Mexico in numbers that some term "appalingly high" because of another human activity: shrimp trawling.

The Associated Press reported today that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is investigating the role of shrimping in the deaths of at least 35 sea turtles in recent days. The agency's action highlights an ongoing source of conflict between wildlife conservation and the Gulf fishing industry.

One government study estimated that 10 years ago, 86,000 sea turtles died annually in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of bycatch. Government-mandated changes in fishing gear have reduced mortality to an estimated 25,000 sea turtles a year, says Dr. Christopher Pincetich, a marine biologist with the nonprofit Sea Turtle Restoration Project (STRP).

www.onearth.org...




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alethea
I find it odd that the turtles would actually be swimming in the oil spill. Why would they be frolicking in the area near the oil spill? Why are sea turtles washing up en masse dead without any apparent 'cause'?


They have been showing footage on the news channels of the turtles eating jellyfish that were caught up in the viscous oil. The turtles are simply taking the opportunity of an easier meal than normal. Any taint from dispersants would not necessarily deter them from eating, and they may not be aware of being poisoned until it is too late.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I just have to say I am crying about the dead turtles, as I cry about all species who are threatened.

We live in a cruel world.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Ya I am sure some animals were dying in mass before the spill.

But to claim there is no connection between the spill and the dead animals washing up this morning, is asinine.

Pro-Oil Corp propaganda much?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
"Because it's an on-going investigation, that any information that's being conducted as part of the necropsy cannot be disclosed, discussed or photographed. "

"Those who are performing are also under obligation not to disclose their findings."

No media has access.


Video:

www.sunherald.com...



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   


Some suspect that because the fishermen were furiously trying to catch all the fish and shrimp they could
That's something I never considered...if fisherman do start trying to catch fish or whatever, at a furious rate due to this oil spill...imagine the impact the combined oil-spill and fishing efforts will have on sea life...it's already hard enough to catch fish for the casual fisherman...certainly not like when I was a kid!!!

[edit on 7/5/10 by CHA0S]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
If not the oil what about the dispersants?????? What ever the hell they are using that will break down oil and make it 'disperse' would surely have some effect on sea life?!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
If not the oil what about the dispersants?????? What ever the hell they are using that will break down oil and make it 'disperse' would surely have some effect on sea life?!


Impacts of Oil on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles
www.wakulla.com...

This article discusses the internal as well as the external effects of both oil and dispersants. It is a short article and very much to the point.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


for a minute i thought turtles related to the "Dead Sea Scrolls" . it is late and i should probably get some sleep. ATS is just too good sometimes to walk away from.


good post.

-subfab



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Ya I am sure some animals were dying in mass before the spill.

But to claim there is no connection between the spill and the dead animals washing up this morning, is asinine.

Pro-Oil Corp propaganda much?


What's asinine, is your inability to see this as anything other than what you want it to be.

I brought this up two days ago in this thread, and it largely went overlooked.

The shrimpers are scrambling to maximize their catch before they get shut down, and since there was no indication of oil in the bodies of the turtles it seems like a logical explanation.

Also, if they were releasing the dispersant only where the oil was present, yet none was found, that tends to add to the credibility of what they were saying when I was watching it unfold live.

Try to have a little restraint, and actually look into something before offering no more than an opinionated jab at the OP for bringing up a very valid point, it only makes you look stupid.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by lernmore
 


Learn to read.

I said "washing up this morning".

Your comments about 2 days ago have nothing to do with this morning.

I was not attacking the OP either, you just assumed that. I was attacking the article and it's insinuations.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Yo,
here's a maybe stupid sounding, but probable theory about this:
As few people know, digging for oil sometimes hits areas with radioactive material, and there's been a statistic that's been openend to the public a few years ago that the yearly radioactive garbage makes up about 2000 tons in germany and millions of tons around the world..
I've got proof but it's only german: www.tagesschau.de... (It's trusted.)

So, what if the water around the leak has been contaminated with radioactive material? If that were to come out, it would not only be dangerous for the fishworld, you know.

regards

[edit on 7-5-2010 by incarnating]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Learn to read.

I said "washing up this morning".

Your comments about 2 days ago have nothing to do with this morning.

I was not attacking the OP either, you just assumed that. I was attacking the article and it's insinuations.


If both articles linked to by the OP are from the 5th, (2 days ago), how could it be about turtles that are washing up "this morning"?


Ya I am sure some animals were dying in mass before the spill.

But to claim there is no connection between the spill and the dead animals washing up this morning, is asinine.


Perhaps, then, you could point out where the OP or the article mentioned anything about turtles washing up "this morning" like your previous statement seems to accuse them of "claiming".

If, in fact, you weren't referring to either article or the OP, then it stands to reason your agenda driven, off topic, comment was merely an attempt to sway opinion by provoking an emotional response.

Now you're just getting defensive, give it up and move on.

I'm not saying, in any way, that there shouldn't be concern when the number of stranded turtles appears to be on the rise, not at all.


In recent years, sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico have shown a pattern of increased stranding during this time of year. NOAA believes the stranding numbers are higher than normal and are working to understand why.


What I am saying, is that everyone should keep an open mind as to the cause while they're trying to figure it out, and not be so quick to immediately blame the oil spill, as disastrous as it may appear to be.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore

If, in fact, you weren't referring to either article or the OP, then it stands to reason your agenda driven, off topic, comment was merely an attempt to sway opinion by provoking an emotional response.


Ok, I wasn't referring to the OP or the details within the article. True...

But agenda driven? I don't know, I think it was more of an opinion.

And it was not an attempt to provoke any response from anyone. It was just my personal opinion which was emotional (nothing wrong with emotions).

So you got 1 out of 3 correct.

I guess slam my post with an "off topic". I can accept that.

I just get mad when theres an oil spill and people go around saying it's not killing anything. And there are oil shills out trying to downplay it. If you don't believe the oil company attempts to sway opinion on this stuff you are blind.

I purposely crafted my comment as to NOT refer to the OP or the article's specific details that were linked, because I didn't want to bother wasting time researching it for 20hours to determine what the truth of the SPECIFIC DETAIL was. It seems pointless.

So I crafted my comment around that. It was an opinion, bias as it is, but not agenda driven or devised to provoke any response.

Hopefully that clears things up. Slam that post with an "off topic".

I still think oil contamination kills animals though. And stuff like this article (I think/my opinion) is designed to downplay that reality.

So really I was attacking the "aura" the article had, from my perception, and not the details within it. Because those details don't matter, like I said I am sure that animals died before the oil spill. Just more die when we spill oil on top of that.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 7-5-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 7-5-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore


Now you're just getting defensive, give it up and move on.


You were attacking what I said pretty hardcore. Perhaps you provoked those defensive measures?

What you expect me to just let it go after all that lol?

What have you got to gain from such relentless assault?

Like I said, I get super suspicious around oil spills. Especially when people downplay things and try to twist everything around.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
What you expect me to just let it go after all that lol?


I hear ya, it can be an emotional issue for some. More often than not, that tends to cloud ones ability to remain neutral as facts are uncovered.

I'm just grumpy as hell before I have my morning coffee, and I thought the asinine comment was a tad harsh.


Originally posted by muzzleflash
What have you got to gain from such relentless assault?


Nothing at all, in fact I like turtles...well, except for that snapper that tried to remove my finger when I was 7. He could end up in somebody's soup dish for all I care.

I guess I'm just being supportive of the OP because of the live report I was watching the other day from the gulf saying the same thing. By the way, not one word of what I saw on that live satellite feed was ever broadcast to the public. Both sides have an agenda they're trying to push.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
. By the way, not one word of what I saw on that live satellite feed was ever broadcast to the public. Both sides have an agenda they're trying to push.


Thanks for the kind reply.

I agree I think there are two agendas being pushed here.

1) Environmentalist crazies pushing their carbon tax crap. (Bad)

and on the other side

2) Oil Corp downplaying the negative aspects of their activities. (Bad)

It's messed up because both agendas compete and attack each other. Yet they are run by the same ulterior motives or something??

So it's increasingly hard to pick a side, as both seem bad to me.

It's just so confusing you know?

That's why I am so suspicious and mistrusting of everything.

It's like quicksand.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
My guess is that the sea turtles are dying as a result of red tide. As I recall, there was a red tide warning issued for the Gulf of Mexico well before this oil spill.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Aggie Man]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join