To me this headline is phrased in a way that gives the impression that whales are visiting places because they are prospective mining sites (maybe curious).
However, the text makes clear that that outfits are exploring places which coincidentally seem to be used by whales --if confirmed mining plans may need to be altered.
[in other words it implies some causation, but there appears to be none]
Newly Conjectured Whale Habitat May Thwart Deep Sea Mining Prospects
I'd still read that as whales fighting 'the man', as in, they need to defend their natural home turf from destructive resource harvesting, ala Ferngully or Avatar.
They acknowledge that more research will need to be done to prove that the marks were made by whales—but if their suspicions turn out to be correct, it could impact licensing for mining in such areas.
Right, it should be phrased the other way around - researchers find that prospective mining sites are being placed in deep locations that whales visit to forage for food.
Eh, no. They did not discover that mining sites are being placed in deep locations. They discovered that whales visit those locations because they dive deeper than thought.
So maybe: "Deep diving whales may cause licensing issues for prospective mining sites".
The use of the word "that" and the lack of a comma means that "that whales visit ..." is a restrictive clause. Contrast with "placed in deep locations, which whales visit ...".
The phrase is ‘deep locations that whales visit’. My intent was to phrase it in a more precise but not necessarily more poetic way.
I think the issue is that the mining sites are going to cause issues for whales, which in turn causes issues for mining licensing, due to the environmental portion of regulations. The whales were there first, and your version again inverts the main topic of the article, which is actually beside the point.
The sentence is a bit unusually phrased; I parsed it several times as prospective mining sites being visited by depressed whales and became rather puzzled.
And in my quick first read I thought they were accusing the whales of making 4000 meter deep tracks (which would be a serious mining operation for a whale!) as opposed to finding tracks at a depth of 4000m, which makes way more sense.
> Eager to cash in, companies have begun the process of sending machinery down to the bottom of the sea to set up mining operations.
What regulatory body would or does oversee that? That makes me really sad... so much of the earth destroyed, and now one of the last (if not the last?) untouched part of nature.
I understand the need to preserve - but what's the point of preserving an environment we'll never, ever see, touch or notice? If the trade off is that we slow economic growth and human prosperity, I'm not sure I'd take it. Of course if there are serious impacts (e.g. climate change or mass extinction of species) then we need to tread carefully.
The idea that an air-breathing animal can free dive to 4000 m is astounding. How long would it take a whale to even get down that far? How do they handle the enormous pressure, and change thereof?
Beaked whales are a really special type of animal. Can hold their breath typically for more than one hour, and even more than 2 hours if needed, and can dive 7Km underwater without breathing.
"Elusive Whales Set New Record for Depth and Length of Dives Among Mammals. A new study of elusive Cuvier's beaked whales shows they can dive to nearly 10,000 feet (3,000 meters)." [1]
Must be noted that Cuvier's beaked whales are big animals (I had touched several of then and they are impressive) but even at their 5m long they are like small cats against the much bigger Berardius. Those can dive probably much deeper than the standard beaked whale.
The article talks about a track of holes of about 1x3m diameter. It could fit with the beak of a Berardius (or a Sperm whale?) picking things from the bottom.
3000 meters is amazing, but the comment and article above said 4000 -- an additional 1000 meters. at this depth, the whale's body would have tensile strength of something like steel. my bullshit alarm is going off. This is kind of like saying the international space station might be hit by seagals. If I told you that, I'm sure you might have some doubts. ???? whats going on here did they discover a new whale or something
Deep-water diving mammals have a wide range of adaptations to survive pressure. Their lungs collapse while they dive, they don't have frontal sinuses like land-living mammals, and they have special venous plexuses inside their air cavities (inner ear etc.) that expand when they dive and reinforce these cavities.
Deep-water fish OTOH have been caught in the Mariana trench at down to 8000 meters. No reason why 3000 meters is the magic limit for whales.
Bottom line, they don't need the tensile strength of steel as they avoid having body parts in tension or bending (by reducing differential pressures to almost zero), they just rely on the (in)compressibility of the water-filled tissue making up their body.
Yes but there are no whales that can go 4000 meters deep. This is a fact. The article says they are going 4000+. So what is going on here? The fact that fish might be able to do this, which are in a different animal kingdom, isn't being disputed -- that's all great and wonderful but the article is talking about whales. Whales not fish.
"Whales have not been observed going 4000 meters deep" is a fact. "Whales cannot" doesn't appear to be, unless you can point to some physiological reason 3000ish is the unbreakable limit.
physiological reason is the pressure of water at 4000 meter is 5846.27 PSI.
some simple depth pressure calculator
a heavy duty pressure washer is about half that 2000-3000 psi. Industrial pressure washer is 3500.
The deepest-diving large, military-style submarine was the Soviet submarine K-278 Komsomolets, with a hull made of titanium, making it very expensive, but able to withstand significantly deeper dives than the best submarines made of high-grade steel, like American nuclear submarines. The Komsomolets was a nuclear powered submarine specially designed to make trips as far down as 1300 meters (4265 feet) below sea level, definitely less than the Trieste, but very significant because the Komsomolets had to "defend" a much larger air bubble against the encroaching pressure of the surrounding ocean.
Compared to the best American nuclear submarines, of the Seawolf class, Komsomolets had about 78% better diving capabilities. Seawolf submarines have an estimated crush depth of about 2400 feet (730 m). The Seawolf submarines are constructed of a high grade steel called HY-100, capable of withstanding 100 atmospheres of pressure. As a rule of thumb, the pressure increases by one atmosphere for every 10 m of descent.
The pressure of water at 3000 meters is 4268.33 PSI, and whales have been actually observed there. I don't see how sustaining 30% more pressure than they've been observed to do is an insane idea.
Submarines don't have the option of getting rid of all the air - the crew would die. Whales can exhale the air in their lungs before a dive, and the rest of their body is largely non-compressible water.
The very article you're citing even shows where your logic is failing:
> very significant because the Komsomolets had to "defend" a much larger air bubble against the encroaching pressure of the surrounding ocean
I'm not sure why 3000 is "amazing" but 4000 is unbelievable. Neither one would be tenable without being evolved for it, but deep-diving whales have all sorts of adaptations like exhaling all their air and shutting off blood supply to non-vital organs.
_(20525816381).jpg){kind=link}
[in other words it implies some causation, but there appears to be none]