Headline reads like these salmon are being killed by science.
LostMyLogin · 1h ago
I was intrigued because I genuinely thought that’s what it said.
dfxm12 · 57m ago
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!
BigFnTelly · 34m ago
hungmung's comment is alluding to the misleading syntax of the submission title
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 45m ago
It's not? Industrialization, pollution, and climate change are downstream effects of science.
thfuran · 37m ago
They're all being killed by the big bang.
Melatonic · 29m ago
Yeah this should seriously be re-titled lmao
ruralfam · 18m ago
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.
ruralfam · 17m ago
Have "been" a home... Sorry for the typo.
doakes · 11m ago
Ironically, this year has been particularly good for salmon fishing in south-central Alaska, where the large majority of the population lives. But who knows for how long.
dec0dedab0de · 48m ago
I wonder if the ones that make it to spawn had something in their genes to help them survive the parasites and warmer temperatures. Hopefully they do, and the overall population adapts.
"Chinook in the Yukon River appear to be particularly vulnerable to a common parasite—and warming waters may be abetting the infection"
Mistletoe · 1h ago
Different stories, same culprit everytime.
ToucanLoucan · 54m ago
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.
mhb · 49m ago
Wouldn't it still be a problem if it wasn't human-caused?
awjlogan · 15m ago
The two big differences are 1) the rate of change (a huge amount higher than most planetary systems) and 2) that we have a large and growing population dependent on the many services our planet provides at a stable temperature. Of course, completely neglecting the rest of the natural world.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 44m ago
Sure, but that's not what's happening.
mc32 · 22m ago
Warming and cooling would and will happen with people or without people -that's fact. The issue that many people have is about "when" it's happening. It upsets those that it's happening now as induced by people's activities and not by natural cycles or natural causes (eruptions, new species producing/emitting GHGs, etc.)
ToucanLoucan · 29m ago
It is human caused. It simply is. We have decades of research all saying the exact same thing, some of which was funded directly by the energy industry trying desperately to prove it's not.
It is. This is not a debate anymore, if you disagree, you either don't understand or don't want to understand and neither of those is my or anyone else's problem to solve. You're wrong.
colonCapitalDee · 24m ago
I share your frustration, but I think you're blaming the wrong group. The median voter simply does not care about climate change, and is not willing to shoulder any of the short-term costs necessary to address it. They'd rather have cheap gas for their car, not have to look at fields of solar panels, and signal their opposition to "wokeness".
coldpie · 4m ago
> They'd rather have cheap gas for their car, not have to look at fields of solar panels, and signal their opposition to "wokeness".
None of that has to change to solve climate change, so that's good news for those voters. The bad news for them is that not solving climate change will make their gas, food, housing, and healthcare prices skyrocket. The choice for most voters is like deciding whether to spend $0 now, or $10,000 later. Choose wisely...
ToucanLoucan · 22m ago
The culture war bullshit you're referencing is a propaganda effort on the part of corporate media to manufacture outrage around policies their funding organizations and figures disagree with, namely the promotion of clean energy and weaning us off fossil fuels and cars more generally.
You aren't wrong but that block of ill-informed voters didn't simply manifest from the ether. It was created for a purpose and it's working.
dec0dedab0de · 50m ago
Wait, we know the solution? What is it?
nosignono · 46m ago
Stop burning fossil fuels, build infrastructure to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Extract the minimum number of fossil fuels necessary to serve non-fuel uses.
The solution is not easy. But it is known.
dec0dedab0de · 2m ago
But would that reverse our current problems?
coldpie · 36m ago
> The solution is not easy. But it is known.
It's definitely not easy, but it's not even particularly hard, either. The solutions are there and ready to go. Everything we need to do to solve it has been done before[1]. We have done and continue to do many more difficult things than solve climate change.
The only difference between the hard things we are doing, and solving climate change, is the latter would make the ludicrously-wealthy very slightly less wealthy, instead of very slightly more. That's it. That's the whole debate. That's what we're burning the planet for.
[1] With the exception of carbon capture, which is only necessary now because we wasted so long doing nothing.
I occasionaly imagine a satire skit where "The great mistery of the dissapearing Salmon" episode is done on fishing boat decks, fish plants and the super market fresh and canned fish sections, montyesk AMAZMENT! and OUTRAGE!, whilst the whole industrial mining operation goes on around them
jmpetroske · 1h ago
If you’re implying that fishing is the main culprit, I’d invite you to do some further reading. These fisheries are carefully managed to ensure that salmon are able to spawn. Granted, there is the existence of trawling boats which do cause real harm. Yet, almost all commercial fishermen detest the practice of bottom trawling due to the harm it causes.
41 millions pounds of sockeye were caught in Bristol Bay this season. I was up there working on a boat myself. Yet, the rivers were still thick with sockeye at the end of the season. It is not a free-for-all where people are allowed to catch fish in any manner they want, the rules and regulations are there to ensure that fishing is not impacting the long-term viability of these runs.
dogman144 · 1h ago
Well the detesting trawling angle is valid but similar to how you could detect coal mining in West Virginia the mountains/sea bottom is gone either way.
I believe the single most important policy change for fishiers would be to end trawling, second being sort out international regs.
Both very hard, both bad news for kings. But at some point people are going to see the outcomes in their grocery stores and maybe that’ll start change.
vkou · 51m ago
The fisheries are carefully managed to keep the fishermen happy.
Whether or not that results in collapse of fishing stocks is down to greed and blind luck. When the coin lands heads, you get the Atlantic cod fishery collapse, where all the fishermen were insisting that the existing regulations were already onerous enough, and then one day there was no more cod.
zzzeek · 2h ago
The killer is as always side effects and direct effects of global warming. Meaning humans are the killer.
No comments yet
more_corn · 1h ago
I cannot stand withholding headlines.
single-celled fish parasite called Ichthyophonus
Especially on paywalled content.
whycome · 49m ago
The headline clearly says that 'Science' is the culprit.
ninetyninenine · 1h ago
without reading the article it must be humans.
jandrese · 1h ago
Or the "global warming left the environment more hospitable to some horrible parasite/disease".
jjtheblunt · 1h ago
you missed the gory parasite details
Pxtl · 33m ago
Root cause is still humans. Parasite is thriving because of warming waters, caused by anthropogenic climate change.
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.
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.
It is. This is not a debate anymore, if you disagree, you either don't understand or don't want to understand and neither of those is my or anyone else's problem to solve. You're wrong.
None of that has to change to solve climate change, so that's good news for those voters. The bad news for them is that not solving climate change will make their gas, food, housing, and healthcare prices skyrocket. The choice for most voters is like deciding whether to spend $0 now, or $10,000 later. Choose wisely...
You aren't wrong but that block of ill-informed voters didn't simply manifest from the ether. It was created for a purpose and it's working.
The solution is not easy. But it is known.
It's definitely not easy, but it's not even particularly hard, either. The solutions are there and ready to go. Everything we need to do to solve it has been done before[1]. We have done and continue to do many more difficult things than solve climate change.
The only difference between the hard things we are doing, and solving climate change, is the latter would make the ludicrously-wealthy very slightly less wealthy, instead of very slightly more. That's it. That's the whole debate. That's what we're burning the planet for.
[1] With the exception of carbon capture, which is only necessary now because we wasted so long doing nothing.
41 millions pounds of sockeye were caught in Bristol Bay this season. I was up there working on a boat myself. Yet, the rivers were still thick with sockeye at the end of the season. It is not a free-for-all where people are allowed to catch fish in any manner they want, the rules and regulations are there to ensure that fishing is not impacting the long-term viability of these runs.
I believe the single most important policy change for fishiers would be to end trawling, second being sort out international regs.
Both very hard, both bad news for kings. But at some point people are going to see the outcomes in their grocery stores and maybe that’ll start change.
Whether or not that results in collapse of fishing stocks is down to greed and blind luck. When the coin lands heads, you get the Atlantic cod fishery collapse, where all the fishermen were insisting that the existing regulations were already onerous enough, and then one day there was no more cod.
No comments yet
Especially on paywalled content.