The BBC has recently produced several reports on documents detailing the state of our oceans.

Reading them it is clear they are in real trouble with many of the issues I’ve already mentioned on our other website stopptt.no.

In them is there no mention of seaweed harvesting – so I got in contact with the scientists concerned – to my surprise I’ve been asked for information – here are eminent marine biologists who have just written major documents on the state of our oceans asking me for information on what seaweed does and how much is harvested worldwide.

This leads me to some interesting thoughts – how is it possible that this kind of information is not well known – there is no joined up research? In fact is it possible that this kind of information is owned by the corporations concerned?

What I have read shows that seaweed binds co2 – in fact a figure has been put on the worlds seaweed – it binds over 30 million tons.  I have figures from the crown services document on seaweed cultivation that Laminaria hyperborea removes approximately 480 tons of nitrogen per 20 square kilometers – I have papers that reveal that seaweed in general removes many chemical substances, including TNT, 5 times faster than terrestrial plants – it is well known that every marine organism concentrates anything dissolved in the seas including heavy metal which is why it is so dangerous to eat fish from polluted areas, so why is this not in their calculations – why???

The most logical explanation is that if seaweeds role in maintaining our seas was revealed then they would be more valuable than any monetary value placed on them.  This could lead to a moratorium of the activities of companies such as fmc biopolymers who after all belong to a corporation guilty of some of the most grievous pollution committed anywhere, whose greed is exemplified by world record fines for price fixing cartels – that is they conspired with other companies to fix prices of chemicals – that last sentence is probably the key.

Global warming is now not in question.  The Philippines and other natural disasters are increasing as predicted.

Major scientists are warning us that our seas are dying.  Can we afford in view of that to allow our seas and their ecology to be ravaged for a product that is mainly a food additive and by companies with such a dubious record when it is cultivated anyway?

Just a last little comment – I have just been watching a video about a man whose child was taken from him by the UK social services – his investigation shows that there is a huge money making business involved – with consultants getting huge fees, homes getting incredible sums for looking after these children – the ramifications go right into parliament, the press is being censored– if this can happen then what is a little fooling with statistics and figures to a big international company.

http://www.biology-online.org/articles/marine-seaweed-detoxify-organic-pollutants.html

page 10

When we posed this question at Runde we were told that seaweed removes little pollution from the sea – documents we trust tell us otherwise. 

Our dialogue with marine biologists have not reinforced our trust particularly as we are told(privately) that many reports are censored and that those that speak out loose their jobs.   It is nearly impossible for a qualified marine biologist to find work if he or she has upset anyone in either the industry or the state.

It was interesting to hear a very senior official from the fiskeriedirektoratet tell the meeting at Trondheim that taretrawlers have the same rights as any other fishing boats and that the old law of first right applies to them as to any fisherman – he was quoting from a 1995 law – we had a copy of the 2011 update which denies that.

This article from the BBC paints a intriguing picture of how the state and industry can become so entwined that the work of either is hampered, it is called regulatory capture.

The regulators are promised work in the industry they are supposed to regulate, as a result regulation comes second.  In the case of Fukushima the cost will be the highest for any disaster ever.

It is possible that every person on this planet may be paying for that soon.

 
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24332346

There are some distressingly similar characteristics here.  For instance the rawstoffchef in FMC biopolymer O:D: Kvilhaug worked for the fiskeriedirektoratet as a case handler for 12 years, there are many other instances.

We work in conjunction with a number of organizations and pass information though most of ours is freely available on the internet

• • when we were told about Thiamine deficiency affecting many birds and animals in Scandinavia and the north it was not difficult to find an article detailing the one of the  sources of this essential vitamin as plant material.
    https://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/12001.full

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiamine

  It is reasonable to assume that if the defense mechanism of tare is triggered then many species of animals would not choose to be in the seaweed forests.  It is logical to assume that there is a general

page 12

• • lowering of the amount of thiamine available as a result to those animals at the top of the food chain such as birds.

We contacted Lennert Balk the lead scientist in this work and he agreed that this was a strong possibility.

Some countries such as Chile and Peru have had a very aggressive seaweed harvesting industry.  We have evidence to suggest that the seaweed beds in Brazil suffered collapse from overharvesting –  though we have only vague reports.

It was noted that in January 2012 there was a very large die off of marine mammals and birds along that coast.  Reasons given varied from mobilovirus to pollution, but finally the state declared it was starvation

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0509/What-s-causing-mass-pelican-and-dolphin-deaths-in-Peru

Lennert Balks article  states that many observers are unable to distinguish between starvation and the effects of the Thiamine deficiency syndrome.  There have been large die-offs of birds along the Norwegian coast put down to the presence of large numbers of mackerel removing food normally taken by the birds however attempts at finding out if there has been any research done on this matter have led nowhere with no response at all from ornithological groups or individual scientists.

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/12001.full

Commercial scale seaweed harvesting in the west is a relatively new phenomena – the income is impressive – we have information that the best alginates fetch up to 180 dollars per gram – if the yield per load is between 5 and 10 tons per boat then the income is indeed huge and would account for ecological consequences coming second

Page 13

Recent articles and papers talk about ecological disaster concerning our seas –  the enrichment is approaching catastrophic proportions – the channel coasts of France and the uk are annually covered by huge drifts of Ulva species of seaweed. (this is the same in many parts of the world)

This type of plant takes over after ordinary seaweeds have been removed. 

Decomposing seaweed on the Brittany coast have led to the deaths of many mammals – horses, wild boars and even the death of at least one man – the cost of the annual clean up is over 160 million euros and is born by the French Government.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/10/france-brittany-coast-seaweed-algae

 – officially it is due to effluent from pig farms but no one can say that the annual French seaweed harvest is not having an effect.

Even Seaweed cultivating can have an effect – in Shingdao china there is an annual slick of this type of seaweed – 2013 the slick covered over 30,000 square kilometers.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1284156/cause-qingdaos-green-tide-algae-mystery

The effects of our seas becoming enriched are well documented – a major effect is the increase of harmful algal blooms.  These are population explosions of microscopic algae which as a by product of their metabolism produce toxins such as domoic acid which are nerve agents. Normally these would effect shellfish and make those eating them very sick, however in the USA these toxins are reportedly becoming airborne effecting all on or near the sea.

http://www.rense.com/general63/redtide.htm

Norway is not immune from this either – we have an organization monitoring this

(http://algeinfo.imr.no/eng/html/11/

In the USA harmful algal blooms have been increasing massively – but the sickness that occurs from this is not as major an issue as the occurrence on the coast of Peru and Chile in the 70s where over 500 people died from a cholera epidemic – this is caused by contamination of drinking water however in this case it was carried in the sea by an unusual enrichment of algae – the bacteria attached themselves to the drifting plants and were carried from place to place along the coast – this document from the lancet publication details the events – the article goes further to mention marine enrichment.

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/005-390/005-390.html

We are told repeatedly by fmc biopolymers that there is no documented proof that taretråling does any harm.  Repeat anything enough and you will come to believe it –        

However in view of the reports and scientific documents and the health of the Norwegian coast it is foolhardy to allow this to continue without further research.  One vital element of which should be careful analysis of what has happened in

Page 16

other countries(by independent researchers) concerning this industry and why so much of the world currently only grows seaweed  and doesn’t harvest it from the wild as it has done in the past!!

• Our communications with marine biologists worldwide indicate a culture that is not perceptive of new ideas. 

• It has few specialists and few who dare publicly to call in question the activities of large companies using the sea,  nor produce information that may harm the seaweed harvesting industry.

• There is also a  suspiciously consistent ignorance of the activities of commercial seaweed harvesting companies with environmental charities and organizations. 

Dette papir kommer fra Stopptt.com

Bertram Sømme  95093533

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Page 1

Why Taretråling should be stopped

Seaweed harvesting on the scale that it is currently undertaken needs to be researched before it is allowed to continue for the following reasons

•   Historically there is evidence that it has been stopped in other countries due to changes it has wrought in the environment and ecology

• There are currently major changes in the ecology of the worlds oceans – the cause is supposedly unknown.  However if you combine the amounts harvested by all countries then the amount is considerable.  No research is or had been conducted on the overall effect. 

•  Seaweed binds an estimated 30 million tons of co2 endangering this is foolhardy.

•   Seaweed removes many dangerous chemicals and heavy metals from the sea – it is a vital defense against pollution

• Norway top marine biologists have admitted in public they know nothing of the defense chemicals seaweed produces when under stress – the effect this is having on the ecology is unknown.

• Norway’s top marine biologists have admitted in public they know nothing of the thiamine deficiency in seabirds that has been described decimating seabird populations.

• Senior members of the fiskeriedirektoratet have been quite happy to make statements in public about taretrawlers and the current regulations which are untrue (at Trondheim)

        Page 2

•  Attempts were made to prevent the first prosecution of taretrawlers for trawling in areas which were set aside for ecological reasons.

•  Senior members of fmc biopolymers are or have been employed by the fiskeriedirektortet and other marine protection organizations demonstrating captive regulation and a clear conflict of interest.

• Taretråling now occurs along the entire length of the coast where there is enough weed to harvest – this has never happened before

http://www.netalgae.eu/uploadedfiles/Norwegian_seaweed_industry_WP12.pdf

In the late 1800s a Japanese firm engaged in seaweed harvesting found that removing the weed from the seabed

Page 3

constantly led to unwanted species taking over the place of the original plant.

 This led to cultivation as the only way forwards and is continued to this day.

There is ample evidence to suggest that something similar is happening on the coast of Norway with the disappearance of sukker tare and other plants in skagerak

 

This is from the  xx seaweed symposium 2010 in California

http://www.isaseaweed.org/pdf/XXISSFinalProgram.pdf

    This article mentions the possibility of marine enrichment as a possible cause – as seaweeds remove large amounts of

Page 4

nitrogen, phophate and other chemicals it is entirely possible that a change in the amount of seaweed along Europe’s coasts may be responsible.  Figures for the amount of Nitrogen that laminaria Hyperborea removes per year are very high – it is an estimated 480 tons per 20 square kilometers if the figures from the crown services document are to be believed.

(this again from the crown services document)

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/358662/initial_environmental_consideration_of_large-scale_seaweed_farming.pdf

Further if the amount of Laminaria Hyperborea on the Norwegian coast is accurately accessed then the amount it removes is well over 100,000 tons per year. 

To endanger this by allowing a American owned company (from a corporation with with possibly the worlds worst record of environmental pollution, permanent environmental damage, record fines for price fixing cartels and even record fines for fraud ) totally free access is reprehensible to say the least.

 

http://www.netalgae.eu/uploadedfiles/Norwegian_seaweed_industry_WP12.pdf

       Unfortunately we have not been able to find out how this figure was arrived at.

      This information comes from Netalgae sponsored by the European Union and other organizations.  The documents also have information on the harvesting in

Portugal, France, and Spain. 

https://hal-agrocampus-ouest.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/840572/filename/3744.pdf     http://www.netalgae.eu/uploadedfiles/Portugal.pdf

http://www.netalgae.eu/industry-directory.php

The combination of all this harvesting must be having a profound effect on the ecosystem – in fact France is still harvesting Calcified seaweed which is against the ospar agreement – the uk also harvested this for some years before it was banned.

   Taretråling is illegal in the uk, in fact there is only one license for harvesting in the uk, and that is a one man operation and that is cutting by hand.  

     The netalgae document on Norwegian taretråling echoes all the other literature we have seen – essentially it says that the forests are harvested before they reach maturity – in other words there is a systematic attempt at lowering the amount of wildlife in the seaweed forests – apparently this is to produce a better alginate extract – but it may also have the effect of reducing the amount of food and its quality available

Page 6

for our fish and birds

There is no doubt that the areas harvested are severely reduced in wildlife after the harvests and are not allowed to recover – this quite obviously affects bird and other wildlife as seen in this paper by sv lorentzen.

Essentially it says that the skarv are unable to survive after taretråling – this is noted in many parts of Norway by other observers.  If it affects Skarv (cormorants) it also effects other birds – but unfortunately there seems to be no or little research on this issue.

  The crown services document mentions iodine in the plants

• apparently it is used as a defense mechanism by the plants.

• https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/9/823/2009/acp-9-823-2009.pdf

• http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/toxic-algae-coral-reefs/

We have found a report indicating this to be a powerful tool.

• many terrestrial plants have a similar mechanism.

Page 6

• One of the most researched is the acacia tree

  – the poison is produced within 20 minutes of an attack – signals are passed to other plants rapidly and they also produce the poison.

In one nature reserve a group of 300 kodu were fenced in and had no other food – they all died within a very short period.  It is reasonable to assume that the effect of major disturbance in a seaweed forest would be similar.  If signals are passed from area to area it is possible that the overall effect would be to empty the forests.

https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/acacia-self-defense/

After harvesting we have observed drifts of seaweed washed ashore at Hustadvika – sometimes as much as a metre deep – the stalks are completely bare of epiphytes.  This is not a one off occurrence but happens every time they trawl and they trawl in the same area at Hustadvika for up to a year. 

Unfortunately there seems to be very little research on the iodine  issue – we asked the biologists present at the taretråling meeting in trondheim in public, if they knew anything about this – they answered they knew nothing – present were many leaders from the havsforsknings institut, nina etc.

Taretråling started in September of 2012 at Hustadvika – shortly afterwards we noticed that all the cod livers inshore had turned black or looked as if they were bruised.  The livers were also severely reduced in size having a weak jelly-like appearance

Later we noticed other species had similar – but they were all inshore, futher out the livers were normal.  We contacted the mattilsynet  – they told us this was normal but could not tell us why. They also refused our offer of liver samples.

Later we also wrote to the havsforsknings institut but received no reply. 

    Many of the papers we have read talk about fish livers being the first sign that there is something wrong with the environment.

  We asked the mattilsynet if the livers were poisonous as many people here liked to eat them – in reply we got a article saying that you should not eat cod livers at all as many were too polluted https://www.matportalen.no/matvaregrupper/tema/fisk_og_skalldyr/ikke_spis_fiskelever_fra_selvfangst this led to a further article mentioning over 30 places on the coast of Norway  that are so polluted that nothing from the sea should be eaten 

http://www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Hav-og-kyst/Miljogifter_marint/Kostholdsrad/

If this is the case then we should be looking to seaweed to clean up this mess

The Norwegian coast has a large number of wrecks containing everything from Mustard gas to high explosive – clear documented evidence shows that many species of seaweed remove tnt and other substances from the seas.  Many Marine biologists point out that seaweed is the liver and lungs of the sea.