SHOCK: World's 4th Largest Lake Has Shrunk By 90 Percent

www.huffingtonpost.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2846dc1d5c58.jpg[/atsimg]

It's incredible how humans can impact the earth to such a staggering degree. We all better work on this water use/access issue, as large-scale wars will likely be fought for this most basic of resources if we continue down the path of sticking our heads in the sand.

Best,
Skunknuts





[edit on 4/4/2010 by skunknuts]

Ya, the water was diverted to cotton fields or something... on one hand people got work i guess but at the cost of the lake.

[edit on 4/4/10 by Edews]

the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet Union irrigation projects.

Source

it's source (for maintaining the lake) was used for irrigation and by the Soviet Union to boot.

i think we can all agree that at the time, water conservation and proper planning for such projects wasn't nearly as high as the "get it done right now" factor.

edited for clarification



[edit on 4/4/2010 by Alaskan Man]

Originally posted by Alaskan Man

the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet Union irrigation projects.

Source

it's source (for maintaining the lake) was used for irrigation and by the Soviet Union to boot.

i think we can all agree that at the time, water conservation and proper planning for such projects wasn't nearly as high as the "get it done right now" factor.

edited for clarification

Yeah for sure. But our 'collective knowledge' (when it's not being sullied by pay for outcomes research) is much higher now, and we need to think of the big picture effects when implementing policy. This isn't one of Minnesota's 10,000 lakes, this was the world's 4th largest.

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 4/4/2010 by Alaskan Man]

reply to post by skunknuts


i understand, but it also was something under the control of the Soviet Union. they weren't exactly a "green thinking" union.

this lake dried up cause they cut off its source, doesn't mean there's any less fresh water, just means the rivers feeding it are now feeding crops and such.

this also happened 50 years ago, i dont think you have to worry about others fallowing suit anytime soon (cutting off all of a lakes feeding rivers), there's to many regulations and federal laws to keep something just like this from happening. (is western society at least).

I wasn't sure what approach you were taking with this thread, i sort of assumed it was a global warning type thread, I'm sorry if i misinterpreted.

my reply is pointing out that it is a man made occurrence (since they redirected the flow of the rivers feeding the lake), not a global warming occurrence

The Soviet's also dump many hazardous wastes including biological wastes and weapons on one of the lakes island (very slopply I may add) complicating the issue. I saw barrel's supposely filled with Anthrax on a 60 minutes section a few years back. Those barrel's barely covered in the sand.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Ikema]

Not only did they destroy the lake/sea by using its waters to irrigate, but they destroyed those same croplands as well, because the water of the Aral Sea had a fairly high salt concentration. So, this was a double disaster for the environment, both on an astonishing scale.

The Soviet Union had an amazing track record of environmental rape and destruction. I had a history of science professor in college who specialized in 'Soviet gigantism,' as he called it - massive tech or engineering initiatives that they were fond of, most of which had all sorts of dire consequences. Every now and then he'd relate some new horror or near horror that occurred under them. One that, thankfully, never quite came to fruition, was a plan to increase the rate of flow of a major river so that hydro-electric dams downstream would produce more electricity. Upriver from the dams was a large natural lake, so someone with no real engineering knowledge, but high up in the Soviet hierarchy (might have been Stalin, can't remember) decided the way to do this was to use atomic bombs to blow up the part of the lake where it dumps into the river, thus increasing the flow to the dams...

Now, you may be asking yourself, "wouldn't the lake just empty out pretty quickly after that, returning the river to it's original flow rate?" The answer is, "yes, exactly right." So after a month at best, the increased flow would have ended, you would have lost the lake, And of course, you would also have an irradiated river system and region around it for a very long time to come.

reply to post by skunknuts


Kazakhstan is taking steps to preserve the sea. And as it turns out there turning out to be effective. They are trying to dam up rivers to allow levels to rise since the rivers dried up any ways.





[edit on 4/4/10 by dragonridr]

Ah yes^ when "simps" become all powerful

Thanks for the post and videos.
I wasn't aware of this.
It has made me very sad.
I wonder will it be able to come back if the rivers are returned,is the rainfall still the same in the region as it was fifty years ago (I would imagine the local atmospherics/climate would have been very much affected by the loss of such a vast body of water.)?
And also if it came back would it be poisonous for sometime due to the residues left and exposed previously?
One would think it could take 100's of years for the sea to return to a state where it could support life ,food and people again.
Yet another example of the damage our change from use of hemp to use of cotton has caused to our planet and it's people.

reply to post by dragonridr


Ah, well that video answered one of my questions anyway.
Well lets just hope they start to save the bottom larger percentage too eh?
cheers

The rivers were diverted, why? when the rivers were diverted, did it serve a greater good for more people? Is this why the rivers were diverted? what about the other half of the story? lets see the other side of the story. maybe it is a happier one. PEACE.

Yeah, the Aral sea was diverted for cotton farming...sucks. Anyway, it is interesting to see what men can do to the earth.

I seem to remember that the South Africa water situation is the exact opposite. People clear out certain plants that grow on the river banks so that the population has access to more water (diverting water away from plants). You would be supprised at how much water can be consumed by a few trees, much less cotton fields.