General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNorth American Birds Declining as Threats Mount
Throughout the year, birders look forward to changing seasons and avian scenes as they explore woods, grasslands, and wetlands: the spectacle of spring migration, the songs of breeding birds, the autumn southward flight of wintering species from northern nesting grounds.
Increasingly, though, both casual bird-watchers and ornithologists note a steady decline in numbersnot just of endangered species, but also of common birds not usually considered to be at risk. Study after study, survey after survey show a worrisome downward trend in populations.
A National Audubon Society report called "Common Birds in Decline," for instance, shows that some widespread species generally thought to be secure have decreased in number as much as 80 percent since 1967, and the 19 others in the report have lost half their populations. The figures reflect an array of threats faced by birds throughout North America.
Migrants return from Central America to find that the brushy field where they nested the previous year is now a strip mall. Millions of songbirds annually suffer bloody death in the claws of domestic cats. Millions more collide with city skyscrapers or communications towers, or fly into the glass windows of suburban houses.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130621-threats-against-birds-cats-wind-turbines-climate-change-habitat-loss-science-united-states/
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)Maybe it was due to a cold snap in late May/early June, but black fly season never came this year. Annoying as they are, black flies provide an important part of the diet birds feed their newly hatched young.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That is the problem. Especially for those species who have short lifespans.
First we bombed the atmosphere with weapons testing.
Then Chernobyl. Then Fukushima added to it. The EPA even admits we got doses from Chernobyl and Fukushima right here in the US.
There is a very good reason they don't test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere any more.
bhikkhu
(10,724 posts)Not that one shouldn't be concerned about Chernobyl and Fukushima-type events and the potentials for nuclear contamination, but it is better to keep these worries in perspective.
In any case, when you look at the decline of insects and bird populations, the 3% addition to radiation background levels that humans are responsible for is the least likely culprit.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)What was the background radiation before the nuke bombs?
And all that was natural radiation source. Radiation that we adapted to and grew with.
Now our sources are from manmade elements like plutonium, cesium 134 +137. Strontium 90. Etc., etc.
When we add up all the other pollutants and dose the natural world with them, and the manmade radiation and radioactive isotopes that have been spread around the world due to explosions, it is no wonder the natural world is being harmed.
Heck, just look at what 400ppm of co2 is doing to the natural world. And co2 is not deadly like plutonium is.
bhikkhu
(10,724 posts)So the background radiation currently is 3% more, because of human activity. Your body doesn't care whether radiation comes from the sun or from man-made elements; the radiation referred to is gamma rays, and all gamma rays are equivalent regardless of source. The increase is 3%.
There are plenty of real concerns as you mention, and Co2 is certainly one of them.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)According to wikipedia, but not Princeton, as your link indicated.
The real key to the danger of radioactive isotopes is ingestion. Meaning if you swallow or eat a radioactive element and it stays in you and it decays, it causes not just cancers but all kinds of illnesses.
There are three types of radioactive elements: gamma, beta and alpha. Each has different properties. And then there are decay rates and daughters.
To say that there has been just an increase of 3% is not a good indicator of danger. 3% more radiation from the sun won't kill you. But if that 3% is a plutonium element and it gets lodged in your lung, you're dead.
It was a nice try to say that the extra radiation is not harmful. All you really need to know is that the scientists raised hell about atmospheric testing when they found out what it did.
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima and operating plants around the world are still producing atmospheric isotopes. Really, the 3% figure is just bad science. Now you know!
bhikkhu
(10,724 posts)bad science is what some people might do with it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That extra 3% that is man made is deadlier than the 97% natural.
Or are you thinking sunshine is equally as dangerous as plutonium? Cause if you are.....
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)They hit here in May and again in Sept. but this May, none....which is really saying something.
And last year we had only very very light swarms of them.
Meanwhile, as of last year, I was complaining because there were so few birds around, and we live in 15 acres of woods.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Just talked with a 92 year old neighbor of mine, as we were looking over her garden. Asked her if she'd seen many butterflies. "No" Birds? "No". Bugs? "No"
Here, in the Smokies, crows were always crowing. Only see a few now and then. Had lots of wasps after the last thaw, but now never see any. There were once a great many mud-dauber wasp, a pretty blue wasp with yellow feet. Yet to see one this year.
I am getting concerned.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)There are multiple causes, of course, but in my neck of the woods in GA, most the birds died.
flvegan
(64,416 posts)Or is it navigation fail?
Oh wait, all of the above...yeah, it's all our fault. So, what do we do about it?
Please don't say kill all the pitbulls.