Rien van den Eertwegh made the video.
This video is called Vet Operates On Goldfish George in Australia To Remove Life-Threatening Tumour.
From ABC in the USA:
George the goldfish undergoes life-saving surgery
Monday, September 15, 2014
MELBOURNE, Australia (KTRK) — A family spending hundreds of dollars for a surgery that will save a pet is not unusual.
What is, though, is when that pet is a goldfish. But that’s just what an Australian family did to remove a brain tumor from their 10-year-old fish named ‘George.’
The tumor had developed on the fish’s head over the past year.
“Fish was having trouble eating, getting around, getting bullied by the other fish,” said Dr. Tristan Rich.
“Didn’t join in as much in their afternoon party games and stuff, you know,” said George’s owner, Pip Joyce. “He never really said much to us.”
It was a delicate procedure that lasted an hour at the Lort Smith Animal Hospital, with blood loss a big concern.
“Controlling the blood loss is really important in such a small patient,” said Dr. Rich. “And then closing up did prove quite difficult because there wasn’t much skin to deal with.”
George’s owner was impressed.
“Just the way he was able to put the fish to sleep, I think,” said Pip. “And then stitching it up a little bit, minute little fishy stitches.”
George is now recovering at home with 20 of his closest friends. As for Pip, he talked about the surgery he chose for his pet.
“Yeah it’s a goldfish, all creatures great and small,” he said. “A goldfish is a pet, a family pet, just as important really. They bring a lot of pleasure these fish in this pond, they’re beautiful to sit and watch.”
The fish should now be able to enjoy another 20 years of life.
This video is called Butterfly ‘Morpho peleides’ in the Botanic Garden of Belgium.
Today, to our botanical garden.
Various South and Central American butterfly species live in this hothouse. Including Dryas julia. One individual sat on top of a plant. However, another one had died of old age, and drowned. Fish had eaten parts of its wings. The Dryas butterflies lay their eggs on Passiflora plants in the hothouse.
Two beautiful blue freshly hatched Morpho peleides butterflies took off for a flight together over the Victoria amazonica pond. Mating takes about 30 hours. Females lay their eggs only on Mucuna atrocarpa plants, of which there is only one in the hothouse. So, the beekeeper knows where to look for eggs to bring to safety in the caterpillar box. Next to the caterpillar box is a pupa box, which is opened when butterflies hatch.
The best season for butterfly reproduction in the hothouse is summer. They are sensitive to temperature change.
Years ago, there were smaller butterflies from Africa in this hothouse. That did not work well: sometimes, the hothouse windows were open and the butterflies escaped. Now, when windows are open, there are butterfly nets to prevent escapes.
Outside, two ring-necked parakeets on a tree in the fern garden. Great tit sound.
A pondskater in the stream.
Two butterflies, not as big or spectacular as their relatives in the hothouse, but still beautiful: speckled wood.
In the water near the exit of the garden, two coots feeding on duckweed.
By Greg Palast in the USA:
US court cuts price for BP´s plunder
Monday 15th September 2014
Although the judge found BP liable for “gross negligence,” some US media failed to mention that Barbier let BP off the hook on punitive damages. And that stuns me, given that the record seems to identify enough smoking guns to roast a sizeable pig.
Here’s a standout example. Every rig operator knows that, before a rig can unhook from a drill pipe, the operator has to run a “negative pressure test” to make sure the cement has properly sealed the drill pipe.
If the pipe is safely plugged, the pressure gauge will read zero. The amount of pressure BP measured at 5pm on April 20, 2010, the day of the explosion? 1,400 psi (see the findings, pages 62-65).
1,400 psi is not zero. Stick a balloon in your mouth with zero pressure and nothing happens except that you look silly. Replace the balloon with a hose delivering a 1,400 psi blast and it’ll blow your skull apart.
So, how could the company record zero? Answer — BP’s crew reran the test measuring the pressure in something called the “kill line,” which is definitely not the drill pipe.
By reporting that the pipe had no pressure and all was safe, BP could begin to unhook the Deepwater Horizon from the pipe — and sail away.
Why would BP do that? In my view, there were three motives — money, money and money. It costs BP a good half million dollars each extra day the rig stays on top of the drill hole. It seems that BP wanted the rig gone and quickly.
So instead of halting the disconnection process, BP appears to have lied and recorded the pressure reading as “zero.” The rig’s owner, Transocean of Switzerland, went along with BP’s actions.
So how did BP get away with mere “gross negligence” as opposed to the more serious claim of fraud? Because the court found that the blowout, explosion, fire and oil spill were caused by “misinterpretation of the negative pressure test.”
Misinterpretation? If a woman says “thanks” when you say she’s dressed nicely and you think she wants a kiss, that’s “misinterpretation.” But on the Deepwater Horizon, the drill pipe gauge read 1,400 psi and BP picked a different pipe that gave the company the magic zero. That’s not, I contend, “misinterpretation.”
Maybe the judge thought he was pretty tough by calling out BP for “gross” negligence (rather than plain-vanilla negligence, the finding against Transocean and contractor Halliburton). But, in fact, it seems Barbier fell for the Three Stooges defence.
Throughout the 150-page decision, the judge cites one instance after another of bone-headed, buffoonish, slapstick decisions, and plenty of pratfalls and banana-peel slips by BP, Transocean and Halliburton.
You have to wonder how these schmucks even found their drill hole. It was a corporate Larry-Moe-and-Curly-Joe routine that would provide a lot of belly laughs if 11 men hadn’t died as a result.
I’ve seen the Three Stooges defence before in federal court. In 1988, the corporate owner and the builder of the Shoreham nuclear plant were on trial on accusations they bilked their New York customers out of $1.8 billion (£1.11bn) . In court, they pleaded stupidity and incompetence as a defence against deliberate deception.
As the government’s investigator, I didn’t buy it — billion-dollar corporations can’t be that stupid — and neither did the jury. The racketeering charges were settled after trial for $400 million (£245m).
And here is a new set of Stooges — BP plays Larry, Transocean puts on Moe’s wig and Halliburton makes “nyuk! nyuk! nyuk!” sounds like Curly Joe.
Halliburton, the judge found, failed to test the final cement mix and BP bitched about it — “[Halliburton engineer Jesse Gagliano] isn’t cutting it any more,” reads an email between two BP managers on the rig — but BP went ahead and used the bad cement anyway (Findings, paragraphs 227-228).
When the pressure in the drill pipe read 1,400 psi, BP and Transocean managers should have stopped the rig departure immediately. They didn’t.
Nevertheless, other systems should have prevented a blowout. According to Barbier, other safety systems were messed with to save a penny here, a penny there (or, a million here, a million there).
Example: BP used leftover cement (Findings, paragraphs 209-211) that contained chemicals that destroyed the integrity of the new cement, because using the old stuff saved some serious cash.
And this leads to the question of punitive damages.
Barbier had the power to levy a fine big enough to make BP plc, BP America’s London-based parent corporation — a company with revenue of a quarter of a trillion dollars a year — go “ouch.”
But to slam BP with a fine that would hurt, the judge needed to hear from the Justice Department about corporate-wide perfidy. He pointed out that the case would have to be made against BP plc, the international parent, if he were to level a fine that would punish the company.
Against BP there is evidence aplenty. For years BP plc has played fast and loose with safety — from Asia to Alaska. Chasing BP across five continents, I’ve found that “gross negligence” could be BP’s corporate motto.
The cause of the Caspian blowout was the same as in the Gulf disaster — mishandling of “foamed” cement. Had BP not covered up the prior blowout off the coast of Azerbaijan, the deaths in the Gulf, I’m certain, would have been avoided.
Yet on this and other examples of BP’s transcontinental penny-pinching negligence, the Justice Department was silent.
The ugly truth is that the US State Department knew of the Caspian disaster and kept its lips sealed. Our own government wasn’t going to admit that in the Deepwater Horizon trial.
Furthermore, the US government can’t tag BP as an endemically rogue, dangerous operator without casting doubt on the administration’s recent grant to the corporation of new deep tracts to drill in the Gulf of Mexico.
So maybe it was not the judge but the public that was blinded by the government and media crowing about a possible $18 billion (£11bn) fine for gross negligence.
Eighteen billion dollars may sound like a lot to us mere mortals, but to a trillion-dollar behemoth like BP, it is not a punishment, but a reasonably priced permit for plunder.
This video is called Jonathan Bird’s Blue World: Shark Biology.
From Wildlife Extra:
Protection begins this week for five more shark species and two manta ray species designated under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) that was agreed at a conference of 178 governments in Bangkok in March 2013.
There were a number of technical issues associated with the listing, such as enforcement agencies learning how to identify products in trade, especially the fins that are usually traded in dried form, and so the Parties were given an 18- month period to prepare for the introduction of CITES requirements.
Any trade in oceanic white tip shark, porbeagle, scalloped hammerhead shark, smooth hammerhead shark, great hammerhead shark, and manta ray products is now to be restricted via national regulations to “avoid utilisation incompatible with their survival.”
Their commercial trade must be strictly regulated and the species can only be exported or taken from national and international waters when the exporting / fishing country certifies they were legally sourced and that the overall level of exports does not threaten the species.
Many shark and both manta ray species have suffered drastic population declines in recent years due to commercial fishing, mainly to feed demand in China.
An estimated 100 million sharks are killed every year, with fins from up to 73 million used for shark fin soup.
Some shark populations have declined by up to 98 per cent in the past 15 years, and nearly one-third of pelagic (those that inhabit the open sea) shark species are considered threatened by the IUCN’s Red List.
Secretary-General of CITES, John E Scanlon said: “Regulating international trade in these shark species is critical to their survival.
“Implementation will involve some challenges to ensure that this trade is legal, sustainable and traceable, and this will include practical issues such as identifying the fins and meat that are in trade.
“But by working together we can and will do it.”
Work is also being done in China to reduce the demand for these endangered marine animals, spearheaded by conservation charity WildAid in conjunction with Shark Savers, the Manta Trust and SOS – Save Our Species.
The manta effort kicks off this month with 100 billboards throughout Guangzhou, with the message “eating Peng Yu Sai [the Chinese name for manta products] leads to species extinction”. It will soon also include a new video to be broadcast on Chinese television.
Guangdong TV, a Cantonese language network, has produced a five-part segment for the news about the conservation issues facing manta and mobula, as well as the risks to public health as the gills from manta and mobula are being falsely marketed as a health tonic.
It takes eight to 10 years for a manta to mature sexually and a female manta may give birth to only one pup every two to five years. Due to this slow reproduction they cannot sustain even modest fishing levels.
WildAid argues that mantas are worth far more alive to local communities than dead. In 2013, the total sale of manta and devil ray gills in Guangzhou was estimated at $30 million, with most of the financial benefit going to the distribution channel rather than fishermen.
In contrast, coastal communities can benefit greatly from sustainable ecotourism around manta ray watching, which attracts more than an estimated US $140 million per year, globally.
This video is called Superfish Bluefin Tuna.
From the Technical University of Denmark:
Sep 05, 2014
On a warm summer day in August 2012, Greenlandic fishermen and biologists caught an unusual catch while conducting an exploratory fishery for mackerel.
Three large bluefin tuna, each weighing ca. 100 kg, were among the several tonnes of mackerel that were caught that summer. The presence of bluefin tuna in waters near Greenland is a very rare event, and there are no other scientific reports of its presence so far north as the Denmark Strait. The most recent report of its occurrence near Greenland was a stranding in 1900 in the southwesternmost tip of Greenland at Qaqortoq (formerly known as Julianehåb).
“Bluefin tuna usually search for prey in areas where surface temperatures are warmer than 11 C. However, because temperatures in August 2012 in the Denmark Strait were so warm, and because one of its favorite prey species, mackerel, had already expanded its range into the region, it is likely that bluefin tuna has expanded or is presently expanding its habitat to more northerly regions,” explains professor Brian MacKenzie, who together with senior scientist Mark Payne, senior scientist Jesper Boje (both from DTU Aqua), senior scientist Jacob Højer (Danish Meteorological Institute) and Department Head Helle Siegstad (Greenland Nature Institute, GNI), has been investigating the reasons why bluefin tuna and its summer dining menu are on the way to more northerly regions than usual.
The investigation, which was conducted as part of the EU projects Euro-Basin and NACLIM at the Centers for Ocean Life and Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, has been published in the August 2014 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Global Change Biology.
Disappearance from Danish waters
The reason why Brian MacKenzie and his colleagues initially became interested in these tuna bycatches was to document changes in its migration behaviour and distributional range, and how these are being influenced by climate change and the abundances of both bluefin tuna themselves and their prey.
“The scientific community does not have a solid understanding of the factors that affect the migrations and geographical distribution of bluefin tuna and many other migratory species, but new knowledge like this can potentially help explain the unsolved mystery of why bluefin tuna disappeared from waters near Denmark and in the Norwegian Sea during the 1960s, and especially when they might come back,” says Brian MacKenzie, noting that in addition to the appearance in Denmark Strait in 2012, Iceland and Norway have been allocated new fishing quotas (30 tonnes each) for the species in 2014.
“The new quota allocations are presumably because the species has begun to expand its northerly feeding areas farther north. If summer temperatures continue to increase during this century, and if both bluefin tuna and its prey species are managed in sustainable ways, then it is likely that bluefin tuna could become a regular summer visitor in east Greenland waters, at least as far north as the Denmark Strait,” states Brian MacKenzie.
One, two or many tuna
The Denmark Strait is normally a much colder area without warm-adapted species such as bluefin tuna. How many tuna were present in summer 2012 is unknown.
“The data we have available are too limited to estimate how many tuna came so far north, but because the species is a schooling species, with schools having ca. 10-100 individuals, and because the fishermen caught the three tuna in the same haul, it is likely there were many more present,” Brian MacKenzie said.
“We are planning further investigations to determine whether this new migration behaviour toward more northern waters could be the result of an increase in the total population of Bluefin tuna,” the DTU Aqua-professor stress.
“Regardless of whether the stock has increased or not, climate-related changes in distributions of commercial fish like these we have seen already for mackerel and herring will mean that international management authorities will need to develop new fishery and ecosystem management plans,” says co-author Helle Siegstad, Head of the Department for Fish and Shellfish, GNI.
“We have already seen during the past few years with the case of the expansion of mackerel and herring into waters near the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and now Greenland how complicated the discussions between jurisdictions can become. It will be important in future that we can provide authorities with a solid scientific and data basis, on for example bluefin tuna, when they are making new fishery management decisions,” says Brian MacKenzie.
The study, which details in depth the data as well as discusses key questions relating to the migratory origins of the tuna caught in Greenland, will form part of a theme session topic at the ICES Annual Science Conference which kicks off on 15 September in the Spanish coastal city of A Coruña.
This is a video about a spined loach feeding.
Diver Jos van Zijl made this video at night in the Netherlands.