As Alaska's salmon plummet, scientists home in on the killer
science.org73 points by rbanffy 2 days ago
73 points by rbanffy 2 days ago
Headline reads like these salmon are being killed by science.
Has the headline been changed since you commented?
The headline on HN at the moment is "As Alaska's salmon plummet, scientists home in on the killer". The headline on the article itself is "As salmon in Alaska plummet, scientists home in on a killer". I don't see any way to read those as suggesting science is killed the salmon.
It's not? Industrialization, pollution, and climate change are downstream effects of science.
If you continue just a little bit, when you get to the source, it should make things more clear. Considering the source is important, as is reading the article!
hungmung's comment is alluding to the misleading syntax of the submission title
Oh.My.Gosh. "Ich". Have had a home aquarium guy forever. Got a few Ich infestations (always after introducing new, store-bought fish). Although not the same strain (tropical usually is Ichthyophthirius Multifiliis). Sounds pretty much like the same infection progression. Me, and every other tropical aquarium enthusiast, HATES Ich. Now doubly so given a favorable opinion of wild salmon.
What happens when you get Ich in an aquarium: While tendrils start to show up then lengthen on your fish. You try a few treatments, but by the time you see it it cannot be stopped easily. When your fish are covered by pretty long white "shite" strands, they start to die. Worse than any horror film you might have seen. Man do I hate Ich.
I've been fortunate enough to never encounter it with my fish, but it's all over forums and subreddits related to aquaria. Fish get it constantly. If you aren't checking them daily it seems fairly easy to get an infestation that's beyond treatment. I can't imagine. I actually care for my fish quite a bit, and would hate to see them wiped out like that. Each tank I have is a sort of sanctuary, a little ecosystem to steward.
Hey this is off topic, but I filled an outdoor fountain at a rental place with fish, plants— not nearly a self-sustaining ecosystem yet but that’s the eventual goal. All good. However, I’ve grown to realize the responsibility of my little pond project and realize I can’t leave them here with nobody to take care of them if I ever had to move.
What are good options for if I wanted to try to give them away before that event?
There’s about 20-25 at the moment. It’s a mix of common, petco-style goldfish-tier freshwater fish. They would require the taker to have a tank too, so I’m kinda doubting much demand even on something like FB marketplace for free.
Good question! You might check local facebook fish/pond groups rather than marketplace. There are many out there, and us fish nerds tend to be glad to take in some fish who need a new home. Some people have enormous ponds that can handle that kind of biomass without much trouble.
Another avenue could be talking to local fish stores. They will take them as a donation and sell them for you, or in some cases even buy them from you. Since they're common goldfish it's more likely they'd take them as a donation. But yeah, many pet stores are cool with taking on fish you can't home properly anymore.
If you had a few months to move, I'm pretty sure you could find takers before you moved. I sell aquarium plants as a side business and I actually hear from people starting ponds quite frequently (they're hoping they can grow tropical plants), so it's not uncommon. I suspect these kinds of people would love to take at least some of your fish.
Isn’t it funny how these short forms happen? Some friends of mine refer to lactose intolerance as “lactose”; it’s common parlance in the US to have “ejected/arrested for trespassing” be called “trespassing” (“I’m going to trespass you”).
And this disease “the fish destroyer” is now called by the beginning of the word for fish!
I wonder if there is a list of these things somewhere.
"Chinook in the Yukon River appear to be particularly vulnerable to a common parasite—and warming waters may be abetting the infection"
Different stories, same culprit everytime.
It will frustrate me until the day I die the sheer NUMBER of problems directly attributable to human-caused climate change and how every government damn near world-wide simply refuses to do anything.
We know the fucking problem, we know the fucking solution, and we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything.
> we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything.
This is at best an oversimplification, and at worse another convenient lie we tell ourselves because then we ("the never rich enough!") can feel righteous anger about nothing happening, while not being responsible for it.
Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices.
> Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices.
This is at best an oversimplification, and frankly, it feels like a pretty deliberate one.
Yes, the Yellow Vest protests began because of a proposed fuel tax by Emanuel Macron, which was set to directly impact lower income/rural voters. Which it would, because wealthier people in metro areas don't drive nearly as much. The movement evolved over time to incorporate many rural vs. city conflicts, things like lack of government services in non-populous areas, low minimum wages, and overall income inequality and all the social ills that follow it.
People weren't upset that gas was getting more expensive: they were upset that it was becoming unaffordable in areas in which buying it is not optional. You simply cannot live in the rural areas of any western country without a car. Period. Paragraph. The infrastructure demands a vehicle or you cannot get around. So when people are already struggling and ostensibly green-minded ideas like gas taxes are proposed, with no alternatives for them besides driving: yes, they get pissed off.
Measures like these have been protested far and wide because of things exactly like this, because governments keep trying to offset the costs of green policy on working class voters who are already struggling, because their donors are the wealthy elites who don't want to pay for it despite being eminently able to. And worse still these results are then used to say "see, people don't REALLY want to save the planet" when it's quite bluntly obvious, to me anyway, that what people don't want to do is..... starve.
Well tax the rich a bit more and use that money to build Nuclear plants, why on Earth Jeff Bezos or whatever need a trillion dollars to squat on is beyond me. Once the planet is fucked, they're fucked too, no matter how much they talk about rockets and mars or whatever. I'm starting to think they just tell those stories to keep the plebs hopeful, away from them.
This is pretty funny. In fact it’s these environmentalists who get nuclear plants shut down.
https://www.riverkeeper.org/news-and-events/news-and-updates...
If you asked Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos if we should build nuclear plants, they’d say yes with hardly any hesitation. If you let them build the plants, they would.
But if you ask most people who work as environmentalists they’d oppose them. In fact, it’s a bare majority of Americans who would support nuclear and even as recent as 2015 that was a minority.
The plebs are usually the problem when it comes to these things. Because they are innumerate, stupid, and unable to see the consequences of their own actions. They combine these traits with equal weight in politics in our system - which is a flaw in it but far better than the flaws in any alternative one.
If you asked Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos if we should build nuclear plants, they’d say yes with hardly any hesitation. If you let them build the plants, they would.
I don't "want them to build them and charge me money" I want them to pay their fair share to fund the building of public utilities. Before you say these things are better private, go look at what happened to electricity prices in Australia are privatization.
The plebs are usually the problem
Sure mate.
You're never going to get nuclear plants so long as you let the plebs choose. Riverkeeper is what you get from plebs: anti-progress, anti-science, anti-nuclear.
It's time to be honest about what stops progress: the common people.
Let’s be honest, you’re just a very cynical person.
Plebs build open source software, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.