Eye of the Whale: entertaining fact-based novel with timely issues

The fact-based novel, much like a "based on a true story" film, is an interesting literary device - a cross between education and entertainment. When done right, meaning when the factual side is accurately portrayed, it can present information and issues (the non-fiction part) in the context of a personal human experience (the fictional part). This is something that non-fiction can sometimes miss, particularly when discussing science- or environmental-based issues.

There are many great examples. Carl Sagan's Contact, comes to mind, a novel combining present-day science in radio astronomy that then takes the reader a step beyond to our first contact with intelligent extra-terrestrial life. And that's the beauty of the fact-based novel, using facts to set the stage to then transport us to a fictional situation or premise that scientists may have actually dreamed of or bandied about over a couple of beers but would not openly propose without the research to actually support it.

Eye of the Whale, by Douglas Carlton Abrams (Atria Books) is just such a work - combining the topical issues of whale communication research, ocean pollution, and industrial/political influence to move the reader from what we know into what could be and, in so doing, takes us on an adventure with a dramatic ending and much to ponder as to our own future.

The story centers on Elizabeth, a young PhD candidate studying humpback whales and their songs in the Caribbean. Her research is in competition with local whalers and their paths cross in the opening act when, during a hunt, she detects a unique and abrupt change in the whales' communication. A baby whale is dying - not from a whaler's lance but from disease and this leads Elizabeth on both, a detective's investigation to find out what is causing whales worldwide to vocalize songs of concern for their offspring, and a crusade to save another humpback whale trapped in the brackish water far inland from San Francisco Bay - a whale that is trying to communicate an important message to its species and perhaps the world.

"Apollo swam northwest toward the summer feeding grounds - his long flippers not far from those of his two companions--
The three whales moved their flukes rhythmically and forcefully--their grace belying the extraordinary thrust of the broad tails propelling them onward--
Apollo could feel his companions by the lift and fall of water and the low sounds of the contact calls that groaned from within their great bodies--"

As Eye of the Whale unfolds, it lays a foundation of facts regarding whale intelligence, the insidious threat from chemical pollution and its impact on animals and man in even the most minute of quantities, and the multitude of players involved in maintaining the status quo for whaling and industrial chemical production. Abrams establishes a host of characters and locations with great detail and from there, the fictional novel takes over, culminating in Elizabeth literally fighting for her life - against those who are concerned as to what secrets she is uncovering - while racing against the clock to save the life of an important messenger whale.

The extent of Abrams research, with copious acknowledgments at the conclusion, is clearly evident and adds greatly to the believability of the story - an important component to any fact-based novel; the reader must be convinced of the factual foundation before any literary license is taken. And while some of the romantic dialog was a bit awkward at times, I found Eye of the Whale to be a riveting story, keeping one's attention to the end where the reader is left to ponder the real implications for the future that the story presents.

For lovers of whales, this book would certainly be an engaging read. However, and perhaps more importantly, if you have even a faint passing interest in environmental issues but resist those non-fiction works that sometimes seem to be factual digests of gloom and doom, then pick up Eye of the Whale. Every good yarn has a foundation of truth and Eye of the Whale accomplishes just that.

Available in hardcover, paperback, or Kindle from Amazon.

China's Finless Porpoise: dwindling population faces extinction in Yangtze River

China's Yangtze River has been described as the "Asian Amazon" and, as seems to befall many large rivers in growing nations, it has seen its share of perils from urban development, commercial use, and industrial pollution. Unfortunately, many of the river's inhabitants pay the price - including the river's dwindling population of freshwater cetaceans.

The Baiji - a freshwater river dolphin with an unusual, elongated jaw/beak that roamed the Yangtze for tens of thousands of years - was declared extinct in 2007, eliminated from the planet in a matter of a few decades.

And now another rare dolphin species is facing a similar fate. As reported in the BBC Earth News, a new study published in the Marine Biology journal, says that the river's remaining population of finless porpoises are headed for extinction. The finless porpoise (so named because it lacks a dorsal fin) lives in the Yangtze, Yellow Sea, and South China Sea; and according to the study, there are genetic differences between the various populations. This would indicate that there is no co-mingling between the groups and this can add to their inability to withstand adverse changes to one group's environment.

This type of isolation and loss of mixing of the DNA gene pool is also what threatens land animal populations, like some of the wolf packs in the north central United States.

With everything from human waste and industrial chemical pollution, boat traffic, and commercial fishing taking place in the Yangtze River, the rapidly declining freshwater population of the finless porpoise - numbering less than 1,000 when last estimated in 2006 - will not survive without strong action on the part of the Chinese government.

The only hope is for a fundamental change in attitude in China regarding its aquatic natural resources. And there is some evidence of that which could produce results, hopefully before it is all too late.

While a major producer of CO2 emissions and the greatest exporter of seafood of any country, China is also realizing the environmental impact its economic growth is having on itself. The country is making sizable investments in alternative energy and, according to the Seafood Choices operational arm of SeaWeb, China's seafood distributors are beginning to show some interest in sustainability. Seafood Choices is holding seminars with seafood exporters in advance of a Sustainable Seafood Forum to be held in China this November.

Whether all of this will produce changes that will come in time to save the finless porpoise remains questionable at best. It is unfortunate that humans seem to be a reactionary species, responding to a tragedy that might spell a better future for some but leaving victims - like the Biaji and the finless porpoise - as reminders of what we could have done if only for a little foresight.

Read about the finless porpoise in BBC Earth News.
Read about SeaWeb/Seafood Choices progress in China.

Sharks Win By A Nose: research details stereo olfactory ability

To be the efficient predators and scavengers that they are, sharks have an amazing array of sensory functions - from smell, sight, hearing/vibrations, to sensing electrical impulses. Working in coordination or in a sequence, these capabilities give sharks the edge to survive whether cruising an ocean reef or plying the wide open oceans hundreds of miles offshore.

Now, new research by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the University of South Florida shows how shark's sense of smell is even more refined than previously thought, by sniffing scents one nostril at a time - a sort of stereo smell-o-vision!

In a recent press release, WHOI researcher Jelle Atema said, “The structure of an odor plume is chaotic and not at all coherent. It’s just like what you see with the Gulf oil spill, which is essentially a gigantic odor plume. The plume breaks up into pieces, floats to different levels and gets transported in a current.”

By determining which nostril detects the odor first, the shark is able to determine a direction, much like our stereo hearing allows us to determine direction based on which ear detects a sound first or with greater intensity. The researchers confirmed this with tests using smooth dogfish, a small shark local to New England waters, and squid odor as an attractant.

But as Atema said, odors are transported rather haphazardly by currents, so sharks bring another sensory ability into play to help steer them in the right direction: the lateral line. This sensitive organ along a shark's body can detect faint vibrations in the water - vibrations like those given off by an injured fish or by the movement of water currents. Previous studies by Atema and fellow colleague Jayne Gardiner of the University of South Florida, showed that sharks use the lateral line to detect the direction of subtle currents - much like sensing wind on the hair of our bodies but with much, much greater sensitivity.

Combining these sensory abilities - stereo olfactory perception and lateral line vibrations - sharks are able to determine a direction and follow an odor to its source. “Inspired by odor, sharks also look for current,” Atema said. “The two together is what makes them so efficient.”

One more reason to look at sharks with awe and fascination and not ignorance or fear.

Read the Woods Hole press release.

Ban the Bag: California moves toward eliminating single-use plastic shopping bags

Plastic bags - in particular, the flimsy grocery store variety - have become the target of a wave of anti-bag fervor as more and more people become aware of plastic bags as an unsightly blight, a pollutant, and a threat to ocean sealife. In several California cities, the bags have been banned from use and now there is legislation moving forward that would eliminate the plastic grocery bags statewide.

First introduced in February by Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, AB 1998 passed the Assembly and is headed for the Senate Environmental Quality Committee for review before moving to the Senate for a vote. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has expressed interest in signing it. The bill currently provides for the elimination of the single-use plastic shopping bag and a 5-cent charge to the shopper for each paper bag used (a concession to the grocers as paper bags cost more than the plastic variety).

The single-use plastic shopping bag has become the dark iconic symbol of our growing plastic pollution problem. It is a very visible component of the ocean's plastic pollution problem, exemplified by the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but it must take its place in the ocean with a long list of other plastic items that break down into micro-particles that leach chemicals into the water and disrupt the fundamental food chain when ingested by embryonic sealife all the way to adult animals. Many plastics are supposedly "biodegradable" but do so only in the right set of conditions - circumstances that often don't exist in reality. So, to "ban the bag" is a step in the right direction, but only a step.

Without the single-use shopping bag, we still must be mindful of these:

• Eliminate or recycle as much plastic as possible. Or turn it over to recycling centers so that it doesn't end up in landfills where little if any biodegrading takes place.
• Use paper bags instead of plastic. I've been saying "Paper, please," in my local supermarket for years. But be sure to recycle or dispose of properly - remember, landfills have been dug up only to find 50-year old newsprint intact and readable.
• Use reusable shopping bags, typically made of canvas or burlap. But be sure to occasionally disinfect them as they can have trace moisture from meat products that can produce bacteria which can be later transferred to other perishables like fruits and vegetables.

Read LA Times article about AB 1998.

Fins to Limbs: study identifies possible gene trigger

In the complex web of evolution, one of the pivotal moments occurred with the transition from aquatic animals to land animals - an event marked by the change from fins to limbs. While fossils have shown us evidence of this transition, the actually biological processes, what accomplished this change, has not been clear.

In a report recently published in Nature, a research team from the University of Ottawa conducted experiments that could shed some light on evolutionary change. Their studies identified a group of genes responsible for the supportive fibers found in fish fins, not found in tetrapods (land animals). These genes, known as actinodins, were found in both the researchers' primary laboratory specimen, the zebrafish, and in the elephant shark - an example of an ancient fish that has changed very little from its millions year old ancestors.

By chemically suppressing the actinodin genes in zebrafish embryos or in adults that were regenerating new fins, the resulting fins lacked the supporting fibers. What could not be tested is the causal event that might have triggered the gene change millions of years ago or whether the gene loss occurred as the instigator of change or as a reaction to some other evolutionary biological process.

"It's a very nice example of how changes in one or two genes can be responsible for a huge evolutionary transition," says Axel Meyer, a evolutionary biologist at the University of Konstanz. "We tend to think that new genes bring new functions, but this study shows that the presence of genes constrains or directs development in certain directions. Gene loss is actually a creative force in evolution."

Evolution is an incredibly complex process that not only provides historical insight but has the potential for unlocking secrets into the processes that impact species today in their ability to alter or adapt to changing circumstances. While some people do not subscribe to theories of evolution for religious reasons, I find that, if there is a higher power, there is no clearer evidence than in the intricacies of evolution, from single-celled organisms eons ago to the diversity of life that graces this planet today - a diversity that is being threatened by one of its most successful species.

Read more about the study in Scientific American.

Whales & Heavy Metals: new study documents high levels of toxins

Because of the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) this week, there has been a lot of related cetacean news with various scientific reports being issued for the benefit of the commission.

BTW: The IWC went into closed door sessions regarding potential changes in the current whaling moratorium. Apparently, the issue was tabled, which is being considered a good or bad thing by observers, depending on who you talk to. Good because the status quo remains and nations like Japan and Norway haven't stormed out; bad because it's still an issue that has sticking points for some and the delay allows opposing parties to exert more influence against the moratorium as it currently exists.

The Associated Press recently reported on a disturbing scientific study presented to the IWC by Dr. Roger Payne and the Ocean Alliance, which conducted the research. According to the report, whales are carrying a stunningly high level of various toxic heavy metals including cadmium, aluminum, chromium, lead, silver, mercury, and titanium.

The research, begun in 2000 by taking tissues samples from 995 whales over a five-year period, was initially designed to track persistent organic pollutants (DDT, PCB, etc.). The researchers were surprised by the levels of heavy metals in their samples.

"The researchers were stunned with the results. 'That's where the shocking, sort of jaw-dropping concentrations exist,' Payne said. Though it was impossible to know where the whales had been, Payne said the contamination was embedded in the blubber of males formed in the frigid polar regions, indicating that the animals had ingested the metals far from where they were emitted. 'When you're working with a synthetic chemical which never existed in nature before and you find it in a whale which came from the Arctic or Antarctic, it tells you that was made by people and it got into the whale,' he said. How that happened is unclear, but the contaminants likely were carried by wind or ocean currents, or were eaten by the sperm whales' prey."

The report cited levels of mercury at an average of 2.4 parts per million (ppm), with some whales recording as high as 16 ppm. Chromium - a known carcinogen used in the making of stainless steel, dyes, paints, and leather tanning and the subject of a major environmental civil suit made famous in the movie "Erin Brockovich" - was found in all of the study's 361 sperm whales.

Mercury pollution has become a hot topic in the shark and tuna conservation movement with levels typically around 1 ppm. There has been considerable industry opposition in the form of conflicting or disputing counter-reports as to either the levels or toxicity of mercury in seafood. It would not be surprising to see a similar response to this Ocean Alliance report from nations with an economic interest in continued whaling.

"'The entire ocean life is just loaded with a series of contaminants, most of which have been released by human beings,' Payne said in an interview on the sidelines of the International Whaling Commission's annual meeting. Payne said sperm whales, which occupy the top of the food chain, absorb the contaminants and pass them on to the next generation when a female nurses her calf. 'What she's actually doing is dumping her lifetime accumulation of that fat-soluble stuff into her baby,' he said, and each generation passes on more to the next. Ultimately, he said, the contaminants could jeopardize seafood, a primary source of animal protein for 1 billion people. 'You could make a fairly tight argument to say that it is the single greatest health threat that has ever faced the human species. I suspect this will shorten lives, if it turns out that this is what's going on,' he said."

Dr. Payne is well known for his studies in the late 60's of humpback whale songs. His research advanced our understanding of the intelligence and complex social behaviors of whales and significantly added to the public groundswell in support of a whaling moratorium. But his recent research gives him much reason for concern as to the whales' future.

"'I don't see any future for whale species except extinction,' Payne said. 'This is not on anybody's radar, no government's radar anywhere, and I think it should be.'"

Read entire Associated Press article.

Filmmaking & Conservation: wrestling with the Faustian bargain

The picture above shows me on the job recently as director of photography on a recent film shoot (see previous post about reluctant sharks on this same shoot). I enjoy many aspects of location filming and this image represents some of the particularly fun moments - getting an interesting camera angle, doing something a bit different, maybe even a bit risky.

But there are moments when you are reminded that you are part of a large organization, simply a hired hand with a defined role. A recent post by David Shifman/Why Sharks Matter (portions of which are copied below) is a perfect example of the dilemma that filmmakers face when trying to both educate and entertain. David cites an episode of the Animal Planet series River Monsters about bull sharks and how it is full of over-the-top killer shark hyperbole. The host of the show, biologist Jeremy Wade, describes the bull shark and its ability to move within fresh or brackish water rivers in very alarming terms. If I was on the film crew, I would have been most likely rolling my eyes around, hearing this dialog - but I would know that I was hired to do a specific job and that I was not the screenwriter.

Jeremy Wade is in the same position. Hired as the on-screen host, with his biology credentials adding a degree of credibility to the show, the reality is that he is very limited as to his input regarding content. I'm sure he is able to make some suggestions, but if the producers or the network want more sensationalism, 99 times out of 100 they will get it. Sometimes a host, if he/she was the original developer of a show, might be able to initially negotiate with the networks to have some degree of editorial oversight - but that is a very, very rare occurrence.

The issue is the fundamental business model of broadcasting which has not changed in decades: the need for the broadest audience, which equates to high ratings (used to determine how much advertisers pay for commercials) and the tendency for that need to pander to a lower common denominator.

The world of digital online video has begun to shake the foundations of that business model in recent years but the type of productions that many of us in the nature documentary field would like to make are not necessarily cheap and so, if we expect to pay our bills, we work with the networks and hope the end product is something that is factual and enlightening. It is often a Faustian bargain.

Anti-shark stereotypes in River Monsters

By WhySharksMatter, on June 21st, 2010

Over Memorial Day weekend, Animal Planet aired a marathon of it’s new hit show “River Monsters”. The show focuses on self-described “biologist and extreme angler” Jeremy Wade’s attempt to find some of the largest freshwater fish on Earth. I’ve heard good things about the show in the past but had never seen it before. After discovering that there were two episodes that dealt with bull sharks, and I immediately DVR-ed them to make sure I didn’t miss anything. I was absolutely shocked at what I heard Jeremy Wade say about sharks:

“No fish inspires the same terror as the shark… but at least these killers are confined to the oceans… or are they?”

“As an angler and biologist I wanted to find out how this is possible, and how far inland these sharks will bring their reign of terror. My mission is to find out whether it’s safe to get back in the water even if you’re miles from the sea.”

“It would mean that there is no water safe from these predators. It can happen anywhere. The danger they present isn’t restricted to Australia.”

“Their ferocity is the stuff of nightmares… the ultimate killer shark”

“…there lurks a beast that is the embodiment of savagery…”

“…a battering ram armed with razor sharp teeth…”

Are you kidding me?

Most ridiculous of all was Wade’s constant assertions that bull sharks swimming into freshwater was a new behavior. He describes this several times:

“more and more, it seems like this freshwater Jaws is bringing its savagery into our once tame backyard”

“This is totally not normal in a river”

“I’ve hooked a creature so strong there’s no way that it should ever be in this river”

“This unstoppable predator is bringing its savagery into the very heart of our civilized world”

“Now we know that there’s more than one shark using this river, and that’s a concern”.

“It seems one species of shark has been trespassing… fresh water, operating where people thought no danger existed”

Actually, Mr. Biologist, bull sharks have been doing this for millions of years. And of course there’s more than one.

This kind of unscientific fearmongering would be intolerable from anyone, but it is completely inexcusable from a scientist who works for a nature channel.

Read David's entire post.

Africa's Great Green Wall: renewed interest in project to combat encroaching desert

Centuries ago there was the Great Wall of China, built to thwart marauding invaders. Recently, the United States talks of a wall along its southern border to resist illegal immigrants. And then there is the Great Green Wall of Africa, literally a wall of trees stretching across the African continent, designed to fight the encroaching Sahara Desert, which is consuming vital farmland.

An effect of climate change and the reduction in rainfall throughout central Africa, the Sahara Desert has been slowly expanding southward for decades. This desertification process reduces usable farmland critical for feeding developing African nations. While some research has indicated that desertification can actually provide some relief from climate change by reflecting the sun's heat outward - much like what the polar ice caps do - the agricultural impact is considered a more pressing issue.

The Great Green Wall of Africa was first proposed over five years ago and supported by the African Union but the project has languished due to lack of funds. A conference involving ten African nations is taking place in Chad in the hopes of revitalizing the project. The Global Environment Facility (GEF), an independent financial organization consisting of governments and international groups committed to addressing worldwide environmental issues, has proposed funding support of as much as $119 million dollars USD.

For the Great Green Wall of Africa to succeed, it will need that kind of support. Trees have been shown to be proven barriers against wind, sand, and erosion. For Africa, the proposed wall would consist of drought-resistant trees indigenous to each region and would need to be approximately 9 miles wide and over 4,800 miles long. Not only is it an ambitious project but there are concerns as to whether it can be properly maintained. But with the Sahara's relentless drive southward, it may be the best defense against loss of farmland and the risk of widespread starvation.

Read BBC News article.
Read Yahoo News article on GEF support.
Read Treehugger article of desertification research.

International Whaling Commission: crucial annual meeting underway

Without too much fanfare and media scrutiny, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has been holding their annual meeting in Morocco for the past several weeks. The meeting began on May 27 with "pre-meetings" and scientific committee meetings while the formal commission meeting began today and will run through June 25th.

There are both whale conservation organizations and commercial whaling groups in attendance - each making their case for either the greater protection of whales or the maintaining (or increase) of current catch quotas. Several nations including Japan and Norway have expressed a desire to resume full-scale whaling operations. Having been shown on the worldwide stage of public opinion that their "whaling for scientific research" to be largely a farce, Japan has, in particular, been rumored to favor major expansion of its whaling activities.

We'll have to wait and see what the final outcome of the IWC meeting will produce. The petitions have all been signed, the key players are there, and the backroom political leveraging, I am sure, is in full swing - so all we can do is hold our breath and hope that reason prevails in determining the future of what is, by today's standards, an archaic activity and an ironic reminder of the consequences of dependence on a limited resource - once it was whale oil, now it's crude oil.

My brother Chris alerted me to a clever and interesting interactive article in the BBC News that lists a variety of whale species and then provides key information as to their size, range, and current population and threatened status (Click on the image of a particular whale species and up pops a photo and key data). I don't know how long the article will be available in the BBC archive, so take a look now to get a handle on some of the key cetacean species that are of concern with many conservation groups.

And let's cross our fingers and flippers and hope for the best for earth's dwindling cetaceans.

Read more about the IWC's meeting agenda.
Read the BBC interactive article.

Gulf Oil Disaster: a few items of interest

News coverage of the Gulf oil disaster continues unabated, as well it should - we must never become anesthetized to this environmental bombshell of an event. Because there are so many news and conservation outlets following this on a daily basis with much better skill and detail than I could provide, I have left the subject in their able hands.

But here are a couple of items I wanted to bring up today:

IfItWasMyHome.com
My good colleague, multimedia producer Liz Smith, brought this web site to my attention. Assembled by Andy Linter, it brings together several timely widgets and news feeds, some of which I have mentioned in past posts. Included are the live camera feed, the counter showing the number of gallons leaked to date, the spill zone map that can be transposed to your region or community to give you an idea as to the scope of the spill, and several news feeds from leading news outlets.

Visit the If It Was My Home website.

Lawsuit to Lift Deepwater Drilling Moratorium
On May 27th, a federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling was put in place, following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Earlier this month, a group of companies that provide oil drilling services, including Hornbeck Offshore Services, filed a lawsuit against the government, declaring that the moratorium violated the Outer Continental Lands Act and would impose financial hardship on the plaintiff companies. With support from several conservation organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Secretary of the Interior and several related agencies intend to continue with the moratorium.

“The Secretary’s decision was a valid exercise of his discretion predicated on the need to ensure that no further drilling accidents occur pending review and implementation of safety protocols and procedures,” lawyers for the agencies said. “The short-term economic harm asserted by the plaintiffs fails to meet their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm.”

Here is the dilemma: when a society's economy is so entrenched in oil, that businesses will sue to maintain the status quo even in the face of one of the largest environmental disasters ever.

Read Businessweek article.

Petition to Prevent Drilling Without Environmental Review
And speaking of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the organization filed a legal petition with the Department of the Interior, requesting the elimination of the "categorical exclusion" which allows the infamous Minerals Management Service (MMS) to approve drilling plans without the usual environmental review as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

According to a CBD press release, "BP [British Petroleum] received approval for its Deepwater Horizon operations under a NEPA categorical exclusion, which allows MMS to greenlight oil and gas exploration and development activities without companies needing to submit an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, as typically required under NEPA."

"The petition also charges that MMS violated NEPA in its approval of Gulf oil and gas exploration activities. According to the center, the environmental assessment prepared by MMS for the 2007 lease spill — the one that parceled out the Deepwater Horizon well — concluded that the lease sale would have 'no significant environmental impacts.'”

Read Law360.com article.

The Blame Game
While certainly BP and several federal agencies have to take responsibility for setting the stage for this now ongoing disaster, we ourselves are not free of blame, as a recent issue of TIME pointed out.

"And all of us bear responsibility too for depending on and demanding cheap oil underwritten by risky drilling while showing again and again at the ballot box that we wouldn't support a government that really regulated the industry. 'This failure of government is government acting the way the American people have said they want it to act,' says Sarah Elkind, a political historian at San Diego State University. 'We get what we deserve.' The question is whether we have the strength and smarts to recognize how Americans got to this oil-soaked moment and to force the changes needed to make sure it never happens again."