Listen to this Podcast
More 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The NOAA ship Pisces discovered a dead sperm whale on June 15—a possible victim of the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
There are at least 1,600 such sperm whales in the Gulf, according to marine biologist Thomas Shirley of Texas A&M University. Minus one.
The irony is that sperm whales can thank oil for their species's survival. Kerosene refined from such petroleum helped displace the whale oil that lit lamps in the 19th century and led to the near extinction of many whale species.
Saving the whales has proven a benefit to the marine environment, including helping storage of the greenhouse gases produced by burning oil that are changing the global climate. Sperm whale poop helps fertilize algae, which in turn suck up carbon dioxide via photosynthesis.
Samples from the dead whale (pdf) will ultimately tell what killed this denizen of the deep. Those won't be handed off for testing until July 2 when the Pisces returns to port. And the tests take weeks.
Regardless, it is known that such sperm whales feed on deepwater squid that may be impacted by plumes of dispersed oil . The endangered whales have also been spotted surfacing into the slick. How the millions of liters of oil will impact sperm whales and other cetaceans is an ongoing, unintentional science experiment.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentI doubt that oil in the water benefits whales, though it should be kept in mind that they are capable of moving away from polluted waters when they are detected, and as intelligent creatures such as they are it would make sense to think that they can detect and move away from irritants such as an oil slick might represent. It is also significant that while many oil slicks have happened in the past I've never heard of whales being killed by them, but we have heard of many instances of whales being struck by ships causing fatal injuries and considering the number of ships in the Gulf it seems like that would be the more likely culprit. How would a sample detect death due to trauma?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I doubt that oil in the water benefits whales, though it should be kept in mind that they are capable of moving away from polluted waters when they are detected, and as intelligent creatures such as they are it would make sense to think that they can detect and move away from irritants such as an oil slick might represent. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-The issue isn't intelligence, it's magnitude. Imagine you live in Georgia and all of a sudden oil starts to seep up from all over the state through the ground, eventually covering the entire state with patches of clearness here and there. No information is given to you about the spill. You know there is a danger and want to get out. It doesn't matter whether your in the middle or the edge of the state since you have no information about the extent of the nasty stuff. Do you think you could walk to safety? Niether can the whales...
I witnessed a fish kill on 6-04-10, that was almost heart breaking, hundreds of dead fish! I'm thinking, possibly,the toxic, insidious, desperant, Corexit. I collected, five, dead fish ,which are now in our freezer. It would be great, to get these victims, of an environment crime scene tested. But how to go about it, with a trusted agency?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make no mention of the insidious, toxic, diserant, Corexit which BP is using, by the millions of gallons! I stress the word; INSIDIOUS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this