This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
An outstanding documentary - it was amazing where the dolphins got together with the whales - were they Orcas does anyone know? It was otherworldly, I was reminded of the Alien franchise.
3
In reply to broken spectre: they were false killer whales - a member of the dolphin family. Orca easily recognisable by their black and white markings.
1
In reply to broken spectre:
Somehow, they manage to raise their game every time. The whole thing was utterly brilliant. And when I thought, oh, here we go, we're going to see another "attack on a baitball" sequence, it turned out to be entirely different ways of doing it than I'd seen before. And I thought the false killers were going to attack the dolphins...
Mesmerising stuff, the annual(ish) big BBC Nature series is pretty much the only time of the year I sit watching telly with my eyes goggling and my jaw dropping. (Except, of course, for Trump news items)
Somehow, they manage to raise their game every time. The whole thing was utterly brilliant. And when I thought, oh, here we go, we're going to see another "attack on a baitball" sequence, it turned out to be entirely different ways of doing it than I'd seen before. And I thought the false killers were going to attack the dolphins...
Mesmerising stuff, the annual(ish) big BBC Nature series is pretty much the only time of the year I sit watching telly with my eyes goggling and my jaw dropping. (Except, of course, for Trump news items)
15
1
In reply to broken spectre:
They certainly manage r to find and film 'new' behaviours with each documentary.
The mind boggles as to how dolphins have come to learn to rub themselves against a plant that has anti-inflammatory / microbial properties... and then somebody manages to observe its a recurring behaviour!
Tear jerker at the end though with the walrus'.
Looking forward to watching the deep sea episode next week for another mind bending hour!!
They certainly manage r to find and film 'new' behaviours with each documentary.
The mind boggles as to how dolphins have come to learn to rub themselves against a plant that has anti-inflammatory / microbial properties... and then somebody manages to observe its a recurring behaviour!
Tear jerker at the end though with the walrus'.
Looking forward to watching the deep sea episode next week for another mind bending hour!!
3
In reply to greylag:
Absolutely cracking episode tonight. Couldn’t believe it when that eel started curling into a fig-8 due to toxic shock of the underwater lakes!
Absolutely cracking episode tonight. Couldn’t believe it when that eel started curling into a fig-8 due to toxic shock of the underwater lakes!
9
1
2
In reply to broken spectre:
So how do they know that the mud on the bottom is a mile thick? And that the six-gill shark may not have fed for a year?
So how do they know that the mud on the bottom is a mile thick? And that the six-gill shark may not have fed for a year?
In reply to John2:
Seismic data will show how deep the mud is I'm guessing.
The shark? No idea!
Good though wasn't it!
Cheers Mark
Seismic data will show how deep the mud is I'm guessing.
The shark? No idea!
Good though wasn't it!
Cheers Mark
1
In reply to alx:
Another totally absorbing episode, some of those fish could have been straight out of doctor who
Think when I die I would like my body dumped out there, be appreciated by many creatures for years, worthwhile recycling.
Another totally absorbing episode, some of those fish could have been straight out of doctor who
Think when I die I would like my body dumped out there, be appreciated by many creatures for years, worthwhile recycling.
3
In reply to broken spectre:
I met a wildlife filmmaker on a small isles ferry a few weeks ago, he said to watch out for a new series filmed in Shetland, to be screened next year I believe, apparently it has some stunning offshore drone photography.
BP is fantastic though.
I met a wildlife filmmaker on a small isles ferry a few weeks ago, he said to watch out for a new series filmed in Shetland, to be screened next year I believe, apparently it has some stunning offshore drone photography.
BP is fantastic though.
2
In reply to alx:
Unless I misheard it, there was a rare factual error in the commentary, when it was suggested that the brine was 5 times denser than normal water, or words to that effect.
Stunning stuff, as always, though.
> Absolutely cracking episode tonight. Couldn’t believe it when that eel started curling into a fig-8 due to toxic shock of the underwater lakes!
Unless I misheard it, there was a rare factual error in the commentary, when it was suggested that the brine was 5 times denser than normal water, or words to that effect.
Stunning stuff, as always, though.
In reply to John2:
I don't think you'd eat a dead whale on the seabed if you hadn't eaten for a bit......
I don't think you'd eat a dead whale on the seabed if you hadn't eaten for a bit......
In reply to alx:
There was one of the cameramen interviewed on the Now Show on Friday, they reckon it takes 9 days of filming for a minute of footage.
There was one of the cameramen interviewed on the Now Show on Friday, they reckon it takes 9 days of filming for a minute of footage.
In reply to galpinos: "There was one of the cameramen interviewed on the Now Show on Friday,they reckon it takes 9 days of filming for a minute of footage."
The lads who film Wallace and Gromit reckon they are light weights....
The lads who film Wallace and Gromit reckon they are light weights....
8
In reply to Chris Harris:
I think they probably meant 5 times the salt concentration of normal sea water, which would be about right.
> Unless I misheard it, there was a rare factual error in the commentary, when it was suggested that the brine was 5 times denser than normal water, or words to that effect.
I think they probably meant 5 times the salt concentration of normal sea water, which would be about right.
In reply to broken spectre:
ON last nights episode.... How about the fish with the see through head so its eyes could see up - that was mind boggling as a concept and to see as well.
ON last nights episode.... How about the fish with the see through head so its eyes could see up - that was mind boggling as a concept and to see as well.
6
In reply to Phil1919:
You would if you hadn't eaten for a whole year.......
> I don't think you'd eat a dead whale on the seabed if you hadn't eaten for a bit......
You would if you hadn't eaten for a whole year.......
In reply to Ferret:
Logical evolutionary leap. Homa Belayus. A transparent head removes the need for belay glasses
Logical evolutionary leap. Homa Belayus. A transparent head removes the need for belay glasses
11
In reply to John2:
I dont really know but im sure that there will be biochemical changes over time. Or maybe they assume a shark prepared to eat rotting sperm whale is really, really hungry
I dont really know but im sure that there will be biochemical changes over time. Or maybe they assume a shark prepared to eat rotting sperm whale is really, really hungry
In reply to broken spectre:
I'm a huge fan. However, I was surprised that the dead whale's blood flowed when savaged by the sharks.
I wondered if the red blood was faked, and after re-watching I think it was.
A lot of the long shots show no blood at all, only the close ups.
I'm a huge fan. However, I was surprised that the dead whale's blood flowed when savaged by the sharks.
I wondered if the red blood was faked, and after re-watching I think it was.
A lot of the long shots show no blood at all, only the close ups.
1
1
In reply to John2:
And that the six-gill shark may not have fed for a year?
I don't think they really knew that particular shark had not eaten for over a year.
My interpretation of that statement was (based on a little knowledge) that it was a comment about its general feeding cycle. i.e...
1) Large, deep sea predator that requires large prey to meet its calorific needs.
2) Not a lot of large prey about at those depths.
3) Shark gorges itself when it does encounter a suitable (large) prey species, which can sustain it for a year or more.
And that the six-gill shark may not have fed for a year?
I don't think they really knew that particular shark had not eaten for over a year.
My interpretation of that statement was (based on a little knowledge) that it was a comment about its general feeding cycle. i.e...
1) Large, deep sea predator that requires large prey to meet its calorific needs.
2) Not a lot of large prey about at those depths.
3) Shark gorges itself when it does encounter a suitable (large) prey species, which can sustain it for a year or more.
1
In reply to John2:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01471?WT.ec_id=SREP-631-20130402
This is a recent paper on feeding requirement in great whites and suggests that one method is to estimate metabolic requirements by observing swimming behaviour in tagged animals, and relating that to how much they ingest whilst feeding.
Another way would be to look at a series of caught animals and looking at how frequently you saw evidence of recent feeding in the stomach contents. Given that, you could come up with a statistical estimate of mean feeding frequency.
Given that Blue Planet seems to be the 1st time in which this statistic has been mentioned (and they obviously filmed feeding behaviour extensively) it seems likely that they used some variant of the 1st approach. It will be interesting to see if it makes it into a publication, or if is was more of a back of the envelope calculation for the show. Absolutely stunning footage, regardless.
> Sure, but can an autopsy show that a shark hasn't eaten for a year?
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01471?WT.ec_id=SREP-631-20130402
This is a recent paper on feeding requirement in great whites and suggests that one method is to estimate metabolic requirements by observing swimming behaviour in tagged animals, and relating that to how much they ingest whilst feeding.
Another way would be to look at a series of caught animals and looking at how frequently you saw evidence of recent feeding in the stomach contents. Given that, you could come up with a statistical estimate of mean feeding frequency.
Given that Blue Planet seems to be the 1st time in which this statistic has been mentioned (and they obviously filmed feeding behaviour extensively) it seems likely that they used some variant of the 1st approach. It will be interesting to see if it makes it into a publication, or if is was more of a back of the envelope calculation for the show. Absolutely stunning footage, regardless.
3
In reply to Fredt:
I really doubt it was faked (how?) but anyway it probably wouldn't be blood - more likely
myoglobin* being released from the muscle as it was torn.
However, they used the floating carcass of a whale probably killed by a collision with a boat and weighted it so that it sank fairly quickly. As a result it was probably fresher and more complete than would have occurred naturally.
*Sperm whale myoglobin, of course, being famous as one of the first protein structures solved by X-ray crystallography (Kendrew & Perutz 1962 Nobel Prize for chemistry)...
> I wondered if the red blood was faked, and after re-watching I think it was.
I really doubt it was faked (how?) but anyway it probably wouldn't be blood - more likely
myoglobin* being released from the muscle as it was torn.
However, they used the floating carcass of a whale probably killed by a collision with a boat and weighted it so that it sank fairly quickly. As a result it was probably fresher and more complete than would have occurred naturally.
*Sperm whale myoglobin, of course, being famous as one of the first protein structures solved by X-ray crystallography (Kendrew & Perutz 1962 Nobel Prize for chemistry)...
5
In reply to Fredt:
I don't think it was faked... it would have been a lot of effort for not a lot of gain - and remember how people have reacted to finding out about BBC nature 'faking' before - e.g. Polar bear cubs. Didn't go down well with some.
Anyway, I think this settles it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-41886587/blue-planet-ii-th...
I don't think it was faked... it would have been a lot of effort for not a lot of gain - and remember how people have reacted to finding out about BBC nature 'faking' before - e.g. Polar bear cubs. Didn't go down well with some.
Anyway, I think this settles it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-41886587/blue-planet-ii-th...
In reply to Ferret:
When that first swam onto the screen, both of us went: "What the **** is that?!"
That was shortly after we'd been introduced to the squid that has one eye for looking up and one for looking down. I seriously began to wonder whether they were making stuff up for giggles at that point...
We sat in slack-jawed astonishment through the whole programme. Lakes at the bottom of the sea? Get outta here!
Even the bit about finding and fixing the puddle in the sub at 450m down was pretty mind blowing (and confirmed my resolution never to set foot in any kind of marine vehicle that I can't swim away from if it all goes pete tong).
> ON last nights episode.... How about the fish with the see through head so its eyes could see up - that was mind boggling as a concept and to see as well.
When that first swam onto the screen, both of us went: "What the **** is that?!"
That was shortly after we'd been introduced to the squid that has one eye for looking up and one for looking down. I seriously began to wonder whether they were making stuff up for giggles at that point...
We sat in slack-jawed astonishment through the whole programme. Lakes at the bottom of the sea? Get outta here!
Even the bit about finding and fixing the puddle in the sub at 450m down was pretty mind blowing (and confirmed my resolution never to set foot in any kind of marine vehicle that I can't swim away from if it all goes pete tong).
3
In reply to MarkJH:
Thanks for the detailed reply, I still remain puzzled. The paper you link to is about great white sharks rather than the six gill variety, but it does say, 'Our estimate of total daily energy expenditure (TDE) suggests white sharks feed far more frequently than previously estimated, and does not support the proposal that white sharks could survive at energy balance on 30?kg of marine mammal blubber for 1.5?months'.
As for looking at evidence of recent feeding, surely all of that would disappear after, say, a month rather than a year. I'll see if there's a discussion on the BBC web site where I can ask this question.
Thanks for the detailed reply, I still remain puzzled. The paper you link to is about great white sharks rather than the six gill variety, but it does say, 'Our estimate of total daily energy expenditure (TDE) suggests white sharks feed far more frequently than previously estimated, and does not support the proposal that white sharks could survive at energy balance on 30?kg of marine mammal blubber for 1.5?months'.
As for looking at evidence of recent feeding, surely all of that would disappear after, say, a month rather than a year. I'll see if there's a discussion on the BBC web site where I can ask this question.
In reply to shaymarriott:
And by their own admission they showed false killer whales last week...
> I don't think it was faked... it would have been a lot of effort for not a lot of gain - and remember how people have reacted to finding out about BBC nature 'faking' before - e.g. Polar bear cubs. Didn't go down well with some.
And by their own admission they showed false killer whales last week...
9
In reply to John2:
Yes, that is true, but they could have used a similar approach (using figures specific to the six-gilled shark) and arrived at that answer. i.e. work out energy requirements and compare that with the calorific intake of a single feed. I don't know that that is actually what they did, but it seems likely given what they were filming.
Probably less than that. That is why I said a series of catches. If you knew, for example, that evidence of feeding lasted for a week in the stomach contents, then by comparing the number of animals that you caught with full vs empty stomachs, you could come up with an estimate of feeding frequency in the population you were studying or (with lots of data) even make a guess at the distribution of feeding intervals.
> Thanks for the detailed reply, I still remain puzzled. The paper you link to is about great white sharks rather than the six gill variety, but it does say, 'Our estimate of total daily energy expenditure (TDE) suggests white sharks feed far more frequently than previously estimated, and does not support the proposal that white sharks could survive at energy balance on 30?kg of marine mammal blubber for 1.5?months'.
Yes, that is true, but they could have used a similar approach (using figures specific to the six-gilled shark) and arrived at that answer. i.e. work out energy requirements and compare that with the calorific intake of a single feed. I don't know that that is actually what they did, but it seems likely given what they were filming.
> As for looking at evidence of recent feeding, surely all of that would disappear after, say, a month rather than a year.
Probably less than that. That is why I said a series of catches. If you knew, for example, that evidence of feeding lasted for a week in the stomach contents, then by comparing the number of animals that you caught with full vs empty stomachs, you could come up with an estimate of feeding frequency in the population you were studying or (with lots of data) even make a guess at the distribution of feeding intervals.
1
3
In reply to alx:
The missus thought the BBC were trying to trick the viewers, bless.
Groupers - again an illustration of the film making, one hour in one year.. and bam they missed it only to return the following year!
Great stuff!!
The missus thought the BBC were trying to trick the viewers, bless.
Groupers - again an illustration of the film making, one hour in one year.. and bam they missed it only to return the following year!
Great stuff!!
1
6
In reply to broken spectre:
Yeah, the cuttlefish, and the octopus, were amazing. The way both transformed from being an almost invisible bit of nobbly reef into hypnotic mesmeriser or hungry reef-blanket was stunning.
THe clever clownfish were fun.
The worm was a creature from the darker worlds. Apparently they CAN reach 3m...
The imagery for the grouper segment was memorable.
Love it. I don't quite understand why the viewing figures for Blue Planet, including iPlayer, aren't 100% of the population.
Yeah, the cuttlefish, and the octopus, were amazing. The way both transformed from being an almost invisible bit of nobbly reef into hypnotic mesmeriser or hungry reef-blanket was stunning.
THe clever clownfish were fun.
The worm was a creature from the darker worlds. Apparently they CAN reach 3m...
The imagery for the grouper segment was memorable.
Love it. I don't quite understand why the viewing figures for Blue Planet, including iPlayer, aren't 100% of the population.
5
In reply to Mal Grey:
Because the average member of the population prefers to watch utter shite.
> Love it. I don't quite understand why the viewing figures for Blue Planet, including iPlayer, aren't 100% of the population.
Because the average member of the population prefers to watch utter shite.
8
3
In reply to elsewhere:
Completely fascinating.
Amazing also to see the octopus and whatever the fish was working together.
Really shitty how we treat the seas and their I habitats
However something needs to be done about the new horror in my nightmares: the hobbit worm.
Completely fascinating.
Amazing also to see the octopus and whatever the fish was working together.
Really shitty how we treat the seas and their I habitats
However something needs to be done about the new horror in my nightmares: the hobbit worm.
3
1
In reply to broken spectre:
Out this evening for dinner, so missed it but the spoilers have wetted my appetite even more. Catch up tomorrow.
Out this evening for dinner, so missed it but the spoilers have wetted my appetite even more. Catch up tomorrow.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Argh auto correct. Who would be scared of a hobbit worm!
Well, the worm did feature in a dream but thankfully I cannot remember the details. I probably won.
Argh auto correct. Who would be scared of a hobbit worm!
Well, the worm did feature in a dream but thankfully I cannot remember the details. I probably won.
1
In reply to Flinticus:
I believe NICE are looking at the possibility of using them in a new treatment for haemhorroids
I believe NICE are looking at the possibility of using them in a new treatment for haemhorroids
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
That's how it was named, apparently, after Lorna Bobbitt...
I was OK with them being a metre long but 3 metres long? And they inject venom too. I wonder if anyone's been seriously bitten diving?
> I thought it was the Bobbit worm. Could have your nob off that thing...
That's how it was named, apparently, after Lorna Bobbitt...
I was OK with them being a metre long but 3 metres long? And they inject venom too. I wonder if anyone's been seriously bitten diving?
Post edited at 09:09
In reply to broken spectre:
The shots of the groupers somehow reminded me of a science-fiction book cover with a picture of alien craft swarming through space. And in a similar vein the horrifying bobbit worm reminded me of the sandworms in Dune.
The shots of the groupers somehow reminded me of a science-fiction book cover with a picture of alien craft swarming through space. And in a similar vein the horrifying bobbit worm reminded me of the sandworms in Dune.
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Lorna Bobbitt had a 3 metre knob?
> That's how it was named, apparently, after Lorna Bobbitt...
Lorna Bobbitt had a 3 metre knob?
In reply to Clauso:
No, but she had a collection of smaller ones.
> Lorna Bobbitt had a 3 metre knob?
No, but she had a collection of smaller ones.
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
It truly is a blue planet.
> No, but she had a collection of smaller ones.
It truly is a blue planet.
1
In reply to Chris Harris:
Apparently more young people watched BP than x-factor (or whatever the competing shite was at the time).
Re: bobbit worms - we have a similar marine worm here which grows up to about 2 feet long and as thick as your finger known as 'verm'. It's not very mobile at all, but the jaws do close with an audible click when they do.
> Because the average member of the population prefers to watch utter shite.
Apparently more young people watched BP than x-factor (or whatever the competing shite was at the time).
Re: bobbit worms - we have a similar marine worm here which grows up to about 2 feet long and as thick as your finger known as 'verm'. It's not very mobile at all, but the jaws do close with an audible click when they do.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Before this goes any further: her name was Lorena, not Lorna.
First time I'd ever seen anything take down a lionfish. They look quite impressive but their venomous spines tend to keep predators at bay (as well as any humans with an ounce of common sense) and a couple of Pterios sp. have become significant and damaging invasive species on the western side of the Atlantic.
Before this goes any further: her name was Lorena, not Lorna.
First time I'd ever seen anything take down a lionfish. They look quite impressive but their venomous spines tend to keep predators at bay (as well as any humans with an ounce of common sense) and a couple of Pterios sp. have become significant and damaging invasive species on the western side of the Atlantic.
Post edited at 11:24
In reply to Martin W:
You're right, it was Lorena - blame Wikipedia!
A current approach to dealing with the Lionfish invasion in the Caribbean is to encourage a market in them as a food fish - they are delicious, apparently. And not just to bobbit worms.
You're right, it was Lorena - blame Wikipedia!
A current approach to dealing with the Lionfish invasion in the Caribbean is to encourage a market in them as a food fish - they are delicious, apparently. And not just to bobbit worms.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Reminded me of the tubular giant worms in the King Kong remake, when the people fall into a gorge.
Reminded me of the tubular giant worms in the King Kong remake, when the people fall into a gorge.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Nice try, but the evidence is against you: neither the current Wikipedia entry for Eunice aphroditois nor any of its predecessors reference her as anything other than Lorena.
Interestingly, the reference to the Bobbitt 'episode' comes and goes from the Wikipedia page history. And the spelling of the colloquial name for the worm varies between "Bobbit" and "Bobbitt" over time as well. Strictly speaking ,of course, if it was named after Lorena Bobbitt then it should be "Bobbitt worm", but if you delve in to the origin of the nickname you find that the guy who claims to have coined it got the surname wrong right from the outset:
http://echinoblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/who-named-bobbit-worm-eunice-sp-an...
So it looks like the 'accepted' nickname is the Bobbit worm*, even though the alleged source of the name is actually spelled differently.
So, marine biologist apparently thinks it's funny to name a worm after an abused wife who was eventually driven to mutilate her husband in retaliation for his appalling behaviour, because the worm has powerful snippy jaws like, er...scissors, although the weapon involved in the assault was a knife. And he gets the name wrong. Nice. What a fine example for aspiring naturalists the world over.
* For example, it seems to be the spelling favoured by Scientific American, which is enough for me: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/eunice-aphroditois-is-r...
> You're right, it was Lorena - blame Wikipedia!
Nice try, but the evidence is against you: neither the current Wikipedia entry for Eunice aphroditois nor any of its predecessors reference her as anything other than Lorena.
Interestingly, the reference to the Bobbitt 'episode' comes and goes from the Wikipedia page history. And the spelling of the colloquial name for the worm varies between "Bobbit" and "Bobbitt" over time as well. Strictly speaking ,of course, if it was named after Lorena Bobbitt then it should be "Bobbitt worm", but if you delve in to the origin of the nickname you find that the guy who claims to have coined it got the surname wrong right from the outset:
http://echinoblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/who-named-bobbit-worm-eunice-sp-an...
So it looks like the 'accepted' nickname is the Bobbit worm*, even though the alleged source of the name is actually spelled differently.
So, marine biologist apparently thinks it's funny to name a worm after an abused wife who was eventually driven to mutilate her husband in retaliation for his appalling behaviour, because the worm has powerful snippy jaws like, er...scissors, although the weapon involved in the assault was a knife. And he gets the name wrong. Nice. What a fine example for aspiring naturalists the world over.
* For example, it seems to be the spelling favoured by Scientific American, which is enough for me: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/eunice-aphroditois-is-r...
In reply to Martin W:
That's really weird. The page I accessed was titled 'Bobbit worm' or similar, not the current specific name and referred to Lorna Bobbitt, not as a link (as now) but in bold.
Now I can't even find that page.
> Nice try, but the evidence is against you: neither the current Wikipedia entry for Eunice aphroditois nor any of its predecessors reference her as anything other than Lorena.name is actually spelled differently.
That's really weird. The page I accessed was titled 'Bobbit worm' or similar, not the current specific name and referred to Lorna Bobbitt, not as a link (as now) but in bold.
Now I can't even find that page.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Tremors!
> ...the horrifying bobbit worm reminded me of the sandworms in Dune.
Tremors!
1
Big Blue. A sobering episode. No jokes from me this week.
In reply to broken spectre:
I would agree, I found this weeks episode somber.
Anyone else sat watching today’s episode mentally calculate if a wandering albatross could fit into their living room?
3.5m wing span :-o
I would agree, I found this weeks episode somber.
Anyone else sat watching today’s episode mentally calculate if a wandering albatross could fit into their living room?
3.5m wing span :-o
3
In reply to broken spectre:
Another tour-de-force. Wonderfully understated as always - even though I wanted him to give it to the audience with both barrels re. plastics & oceans...but maybe the wrong targets were watching
Another tour-de-force. Wonderfully understated as always - even though I wanted him to give it to the audience with both barrels re. plastics & oceans...but maybe the wrong targets were watching
1
In reply to broken spectre:
Indeed.
Saw this recently ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/26/shocking-photo-shows-caribbean-s...
I only became aware of the amount of shit floating about in the oceans last year from casual internet browsing. Not much publicised really.
Indeed.
Saw this recently ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/26/shocking-photo-shows-caribbean-s...
I only became aware of the amount of shit floating about in the oceans last year from casual internet browsing. Not much publicised really.
In reply to alx:
Indeed I did! The answer is probably, but only just.
Definitely a little more sombre.
Still, the whale footage, those huge bodies just hanging there above the abyss, and the spinner dolphins/tuna/baitball/boilingsea footage, were marvelous.
Indeed I did! The answer is probably, but only just.
Definitely a little more sombre.
Still, the whale footage, those huge bodies just hanging there above the abyss, and the spinner dolphins/tuna/baitball/boilingsea footage, were marvelous.
In reply to Lusk:
There were a number of Sperm Whale strandings in the North Sea last year. They all had swallowed large items of plastic including on large length of rope.
There were a number of Sperm Whale strandings in the North Sea last year. They all had swallowed large items of plastic including on large length of rope.
In reply to alx:
I always enjoyed watching albatrosses glide alongside the ship's bridge whilst in the southern oceans. However when we threw the ship's rubbish over the side they didn't look quite as elegant squabbling over it on the water.
To my shame I've thrown huge amounts of rubbish over the side. But in the 60's & 70's , so did every single other ship on the seas.
I always enjoyed watching albatrosses glide alongside the ship's bridge whilst in the southern oceans. However when we threw the ship's rubbish over the side they didn't look quite as elegant squabbling over it on the water.
To my shame I've thrown huge amounts of rubbish over the side. But in the 60's & 70's , so did every single other ship on the seas.
Post edited at 05:10
1
1
In reply to broken spectre:
I remember seeing crew emerging onto the deck of a cross-channel ferry and heaving three or four black bags of rubbish straight over the side, as recently as 20 years ago. I'm absolutely certain that all rubbish gets thrown off ships all over the world. What would the crew of a freighter arriving in a tropical port do with a pile of festering black rubbish bags? I can't see them being collected and carted away.
Mind you, sections of the Leeds-Liverpool canal are also choked with rubbish and a couple of years ago cycling on the towpath through Burnley I came across a lady throwing a full black bin bag into the canal then turning on her heel and marching back towards her house. When she saw mer staring at her she looked at me with a "yeah - so what?" expression. The canal was already choked with floating litter including several large black bin bags so I don't know quite what she thought was going to happen to the bag she had just added.
I remember seeing crew emerging onto the deck of a cross-channel ferry and heaving three or four black bags of rubbish straight over the side, as recently as 20 years ago. I'm absolutely certain that all rubbish gets thrown off ships all over the world. What would the crew of a freighter arriving in a tropical port do with a pile of festering black rubbish bags? I can't see them being collected and carted away.
Mind you, sections of the Leeds-Liverpool canal are also choked with rubbish and a couple of years ago cycling on the towpath through Burnley I came across a lady throwing a full black bin bag into the canal then turning on her heel and marching back towards her house. When she saw mer staring at her she looked at me with a "yeah - so what?" expression. The canal was already choked with floating litter including several large black bin bags so I don't know quite what she thought was going to happen to the bag she had just added.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
A huge amount of rubbish in the seas has come down rivers. I never really thought about it until I hiked the Otter trail in South Africa, the beaches were absolutely strewn with massive piles of driftwood that had come down the rivers there. I reckon I could search every single beach here today and find a maximum of half a skip-full of wood in comparison (we have no rivers as the island is too small a catchment).
A huge amount of rubbish in the seas has come down rivers. I never really thought about it until I hiked the Otter trail in South Africa, the beaches were absolutely strewn with massive piles of driftwood that had come down the rivers there. I reckon I could search every single beach here today and find a maximum of half a skip-full of wood in comparison (we have no rivers as the island is too small a catchment).
In reply to alx:
> Anyone else sat watching today’s episode mentally calculate if a wandering albatross could fit into their living room?
> 3.5m wing span :-o
My wife mentioned their size and I told her that it's wingtips would touch each end of the room! Having accidentally caught a gannet on my boat I can imagine how monstrous an Albatross would be.In reply to Greenbanks:
Had they gone in a bit harder they'd have been dismissed as loony eco-warriors.
> Another tour-de-force. Wonderfully understated as always - even though I wanted him to give it to the audience with both barrels re. plastics & oceans...but maybe the wrong targets were watching
Had they gone in a bit harder they'd have been dismissed as loony eco-warriors.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...