These are two of my favorite pictures from my research on children’s books about Einstein and Curie. (You can click on them to see the bigger images). They are I think, the most visual example of my thesis’s argument and I think they are also illustrative of exactly what we need to pay attention to in Children’s biography.
Stories about famous figures’ biographies are the most directly applicable aspect of children’s literature. This is the part of the story that with which children can most readily identify. Tragically, this part of the story of these lives is generally the thinest part of the historical record. Because children’s literature is so rarely reviewed by historians, this is not an issue for many children’s authors. They can simply invent the figures childhood.
The first picture is a picture of the young Albert Einstein terrorizing his baby sitter. Albert is described as cruel, and angry, he throws tantrums the text tells young readers that “His temper so terrifies a tutor hired to help young Albert prepare for school that she runs away, never to be seen again.” In the picture Albert and his anger are foregrounded as the tutor runs away in terror, apparently never to be seen again. You will be hard pressed to find historical precedent for this story: By all accounts Albert was a much more timid boy, but it is easy to see here how masculinity and power are imbued on this child.
The second picture is of Curie crying in the arms of her teacher. Before I get into the details, consider the differences between these two images. Notice the relative size of Curie and her teacher. Einstein is bigger than his tutor, while the small (and surprisingly Aryan) Curie is presented as significantly smaller. In the second picture, the teacher does not come down to her level and instead maintains her size and visual power. This story appears in almost every single children’s book about Curie. The young Manya Skłodowska was the youngest and smartest student in her class. Her school, which was run by Polish teachers, was under constant threat from the Russians who occupied Poland. The school was barred from teaching children in Polish and teaching Polish history. Instead, schools were required to have children memorize Russian history and learn Russian language. The school that Manya attended disobeyed these rules. When Russian school inspectors came to check on the school a look-out in the hallway would warn the class and the class would hide their Polish books. Once the inspector came in, the teacher would call on Manya to answer his questions. In the story, Manya succeeds by answering all of the Russian inspector’s questions in Russian to his liking. After he leaves she cries.
In this story it becomes apparent that while Manya is very smart and strong she still has a kind of frailty. Readers are told that Manya’s knowledge gives her a kind of importance. She is called on in class and because of her impressive memory; she saves the class from the inspector. While the stories of Einstein were exaggerate stories that stress his clashes with authority the story of the Russian inspector is usually treated in a way that is much more consistent with the authoritative texts. However, Eva Curie tells several other stories about Manya that only make it into one of the children’s books, and thus the picture of the young Manya is shaped more by exclusion than by exaggeration.
The following anecdotes come from Eleanor Doorly’s 1939 book, The Radium Women: Madame Curie. Doorly’s book went through many printings and was highly acclaimed, being recommended in three consecutive editions of the Children’s Catalogue. Doorly states quite clearly in the opening of her book that it is a children’s adaptation of Eva Curie’s biography of her mother. This book stays very close to Eva’s biography and offers insight into a different trajectory that could have been developed in accounts of Curie. These selections come from the second chapter of her book, appropriately entitled “Rebels.”
In the Russian-run high school Manya and her friend Kazia “took delight in inventing witticisms against their Russian professors, their German master, and especially against Miss Mayer who detested Manya only a little less than Manya detested her.” Their teacher Miss Mayer stated, “It’s no more use speaking to that Sklodovska girl,” she said, “than throwing green peas at a wall!” On one occasion Eva tells us of a time in which Manya was openly disrespectful, and witty. “I won’t have you look at me like that!’ Miss Mayer would shout. ‘You have no right to look down on me!’” Manya responded “‘I can’t help it,’ said Manya truthfully, for she was a head taller that Miss Mayer. No doubt she was glad that words sometimes have two meanings.”
In the second series of stories, the young Manya is openly disrespectful of her teachers. While the story of her crying in front of the Russian inspector is interesting it should be seen as just one of several stories about Manya’s school experience. Importantly, it is the only story that puts her in a position of weakness against the authority of both the teacher and the inspector. Other stories show the potential of portraying a Manya who is similar to the exaggerated Einstein, openly disrespectful of a rather hostile teacher.
Brown, Don. Odd Boy Out: Young Albert Einstein . Houghton Mifflin, 2004.
Doorly, Eleanor. The Radium Woman, a Life of Marie Curie; and Woodcuts. New York: Roy Publishers, 1939.


“If God is all-powerful and all-good, it would have created a universe in the same way it created heaven: with free will for all, no suffering and no evil. But evil and suffering exist. Therefore God does not exist, is not all-powerful or is not benevolent (good). A theodicy is an attempt to explain why a good god would have created evil and suffering. The most popular defence is that it is so Humans could have free will. However the entire universe and the natural world is filled with suffering, violence and destruction so any Humanity-centric explanation does not seem to work.”
The most common theodicy is the free will theodicy1. This is that God created evil so that we could then choose between good and evil, and make moral choices. If all choices result in good, there would be no moral choices. If love is acceptable, it must be chosen over hate and therefore evil and suffering result when we make morally poor choices. However this classical theodicy does not hold up, for many reasons. Although many believers adhere to the free will theodicy, it is not preached in the holy books of the main monotheistic religions. See: Monotheism and Free Will: The Christian Bible and the Quran both teach strict determinism - that God decides all of our fates, and our own choices and decisions cannot change God's plan for everyone. Prominent historical Christian theologians who have rejected the free will theodicy include St Augustine, Martin Luther and John Calvin2. The arguments on this page are thousands of years old, but, many continue to believe in the simplicity of the free will theodicy, so, it does no harm to state the arguments against it again.
The fact that there is both free will and no evil in heaven tells us that evil and suffering are not a requirement of free will. If there is no reason for suffering in heaven, then, God should instantly put everyone in heaven, where we would all continue to have free will, but also not suffer.
“Earthquakes, volcanoes, floods and disease affect human beings indiscriminately and result from geological factors not from free will. Unborn babies lay amongst the victims. Animals and humans alike suffer as a result of natural evil. These disasters have been prevalent for all of Earth's history so have nothing to do with human agency. Not only that, but the entire universe is steeped in large-scale destruction and violence as part of the very design of the physical world. None of this indicates that there is a 'good' design behind it all, and it especially indicates that there is no good god.”
God not only created the possibility of suffering, pain and sin, but it appears that it made us with a strong inclination towards it. Life being "unfair" is a symptom of pain or suffering, of inadequacy or feelings or even sinful emotions such as greed. God created these emotions, we do not choose to accept them, they are inherent in our nature. God could have created us so that we do not feel these emotions, that they simply don't exist. It would eliminate a lot of evil, and would not take away our free will - we'd just have a different range of emotions that we didn't choose to have. The fact that God has created our nature and instincts to be geared towards sin and imperfection means that it wants us to choose evil over good. It has created evil, and created us so that we will mostly "choose" it.
God sometimes creates people with (for example) genetic diseases that predispose them to paranoid schizophrenia, violent crime, sexual abuse and amorality and other inherited personality defects. Other people are born with a predisposition to calmness, subordination and pacifism. Both types of person have free will. God could easily create the majority of humanity so that our personality is much better and kinder in general and not just in outstanding individuals. It seems that the actual quantity and evil and suffering could be much less, and free will would still exist.
Suffering is not required for free will. When someone commits a crime or otherwise causes suffering, why does the victim suffer? The victim has not chosen evil, they are merely the unfortunate victims of someone else's choice. If justice or morality exist, and come from God, then only those acts that are evil should be punished. When someone is a victim, God itself should put the crime right, and avoid the innocent suffering. The person responsible for the evil may still suffer punishment or retribution, but why does the victim need to suffer? If suffering and evil are the result of free will, then, why is it that much suffering is caused by outside agencies?
This transmission of the effects of one person's bad choices to another's experience is unnecessary for free will. In a society where there are no victims, punishment would be unnecessary. If our nature was geared towards good, there would be no need for punishment to be used as a terror tactic to reduce crime. That punishment is necessary means that God cannot be all-powerful. It is not an effect of free will that we should suffer the consequences of each other's bad choices, it is an effect of a universe operating under a different, amoral sense of justice, and not under the care of an all-powerful, just God.
Free will is the ability to make choices. This means, we must have options. What these options are is irrelevant. A saint, Jesus, Muhammad, etc, had free will. These people also did not (perhaps) ever commit a sin. Nevertheless it is ludicrous to say that because a person does not choose evil that they have no free will. In other words, it is possible for a person never to accept evil, and still have free will. This means that we could have a nature that never wills transgression, and we could still have free will. There are many millions of choices and paths you can take in life, there is no requirement for "cause evil" to be an effect of them. Free will still exists without it.
If God was good, we would all exist (as those in heaven do) in a situation where we all continually have the free will to choose between different good courses of action. Evil simply isn't required for free will.
When a person chooses evil, God could rectify the real life effect of it, and simply let the perpetrator feel its effect. There is no need for evil to manifest outside of a person's own choices. Evil, in short, could be chosen, but not realized. There is no reason for evil to cause suffering. If we had a choice between doing something good or bad, if we chose bad, why does it cause suffering? Why must it? It seems we could chose bad, and for it to have no effect other than to prevent us feeling that we did good. That is enough for free will. A forgiving God would note that someone just chose badly, and rectify their mistake and forgive them. No suffering would result. If it means that those who choose badly fail to get to heaven then so be it, but, there is no need for actual suffering to occur. "Evil begets evil" is not the fruit of a good god; bad choices by us needn't result in the punishment of pain or suffering for anyone. The lack of separation of evil from its effects shows that God is not interested in preventing evil.
Some monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam preach that Adam and Eve were the beginning of mankind rather than our evolutionary predecessors (which was a whole species rather than two individuals). In these religions, Adam and Eve are said to have been created in paradise, but banished for committing the original sin.
The Original Sin is the reason Christians say that Human Beings experience suffering - as a result of Adam and Eve's actions. Humankind was created in, and was supposed to exist in, a state of immortal paradise. But as a result of Adam and Eve's original sin, we have all been punished with our earthly existence, completely with suffering, pain and death (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21). Genesis 3:14-19 describes some of the punishments in more detail. The reason there is any death at all is because Adam and Eve disobeyed God.
The story in the Qur'an, Sura 7:24-27, tells of when Adam and Eve are punished and banished from paradise, and must thereafter live on the Earth complete with its suffering, pain and death. This however, makes all their children and descendents suffer from the same punishment. This is despite the Qur'anic statement that "none shall bear the burden of another's sin" (35:18 and 53:38).
Before Augustine coined the phrase original sin it was known simply as ancestral sin. It is a feature of Christianity that been much criticized. Famed antagonist Richard Dawkins asks "What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?"4.
Is it is really moral to punish someone for someone else's actions? All good parents teach their children that that is not fair and unjust. Hence, the story of Adam and Eve teaches us that God is unjust or at least, not always just, and therefore is not perfectly benevolent.
The story teaches us that it is divine will that sometimes the relatives of sinners can be punished for the guilty.
The story teaches us that free will is not the cause of the suffering of mankind. We are all born in a world of pain and death because someone-else committed a crime, which was nothing to do with our own free will to choose wrongly.
The free will justification for evil does not work. Free will does not require the existence of evil or suffering - Heaven is a place where there is free will, and no suffering. There is a lot of suffering and evil that is not the result of free will such as from natural disasters, so free will could not actually account for all suffering, only some of it. The question of why God creates additional suffering would still exist. Also, the free will of one person can cause suffering for another innocent person, God should not allow the moral choices of one being affect other beings as this goes against accountability, which is the whole point of free will. In short, it seems that the existence of pain and suffering contradicts the existence of a good god.
“To the present day, all theodicies have failed to explain why a good god would create evil, meaning that the existence of evil is simply incompatible with the existence of a good god. After thousands of years of life-consuming passion, weary theologians have not formulated a new answer to the problem of evil for a long time. The violence of the natural world, disease, the major catastrophes and chaotic destruction seen across the universe and the unsuitability of the vastness of reality for life all indicate that god is not concerned with life, and might actually even be evil. Failure to answer the problem of evil sheds continual doubt on the very foundations of theistic religions.”
The Koran. Translation by N. J. Dawood. Penguin Classics edition published by Penguin Group Ltd, London, UK. First published 1956, quotes taken from 1999 edition.
The Bible (NIV). The NIV is the best translation for accuracy whilst maintaining readability. Multiple authors, a compendium of multiple previously published books. I prefer to take quotes from the NIV but where I quote the Bible en masse I must quote from the KJV because it is not copyrighted, whilst the NIV is. [Book Review]
The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987, Ed.). 16 volumes. Eliade is editor-in-chief. Published by Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA.
The Devil in Early Modern England (2000). Sutton Publishing Limited, England.


(1881 - 1973)
Regarding the canon of art history, no other artist has exerted such influence as Pablo Picasso.
Frequently dubbed the "dean of modernism," the Spanish artist was revolutionary in the way he challenged the conventions of painting. His stylistic pluralism, legendary reconfiguration of pictorial space and inexhaustible creative force have made Picasso one of the most revered artists of the 20th century.
Influenced by symbolism and Toulouse-Lautrec, Picasso developed his own independent style in Paris during his renowned Blue Period (1900-1904): motifs from everyday life...


A new world record wind gust: 253 mph in Australia's Tropical Cyclone Olivia
The 6,288-foot peak of New Hampshire's Mount Washington is a forbidding landscape of wind-swept barren rock, home to some of planet Earth's fiercest winds. As a 5-year old boy, I remember being blown over by a terrific gust of wind on the summit, and rolling out of control towards a dangerous drop-off before a fortuitously-placed rock saved me. Perusing the Guinness Book of World Records as a kid, three iconic world weather records always held a particular mystique and fascination for me: the incredible 136°F (57.8°C) at El Azizia, Libya in 1922, the -128.5°F (-89.2°C) at the "Pole of Cold" in Vostok, Antarctica in 1983, and the amazing 231 mph wind gust (103.3 m/s) recorded in 1934 on the summit of Mount Washington, New Hampshire. Well, the legendary winds of Mount Washington have to take second place now, next to the tropical waters of northwest Australia. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has announced that the new world wind speed record at the surface is a 253 mph (113.2 m/s) wind gust measured on Barrow Island, Australia. The gust occurred on April 10, 1996, during passage of the eyewall of Category 4 Tropical Cyclone Olivia.
Figure 1. Instruments coated with rime ice on the summit of Mt. Washington, New Hampshire. Image credit: Mike Theiss.
Tropical Cyclone Olivia
Tropical Cyclone Olivia was a Category 4 storm on the U.S. Saffir-Simpson scale, and generated sustained winds of 145 mph (1-minute average) as it crossed over Barrow Island off the northwest coast of Australia on April 10, 1996. Olivia had a central pressure of 927 mb and an eye 45 miles in diameter at the time, and generated waves 21 meters (69 feet) high offshore. According to Black et al. (1999), the eyewall likely had a tornado-scale mesovortex embedded in it that caused the extreme wind gust of 253 mph. The gust was measured at the standard measuring height of 10 meters above ground, on ground at an elevation of 64 meters (210 feet). A similar mesovortex was encountered by a Hurricane Hunter aircraft in Hurricane Hugo of 1989, and a mesovortex was also believed to be responsible for the 239 mph wind gust measured at 1400 meters by a dropsonde in Hurricane Isabel in 2003. For reference, 200 mph is the threshold for the strongest category of tornado, the EF-5, and any gusts of this strength are capable of causing catastrophic damage.
Figure 2. Visible satellite image of Tropical Cyclone Olivia a few hours before it crossed Barrow Island, Australia, setting a new world-record wind gust of 253 mph. Image credit: Japan Meteorological Agency.
Figure 3. Wind trace taken at Barrow Island, Australia during Tropical Cyclone Olivia. Image credit: Buchan, S.J., P.G. Black, and R.L. Cohen, 1999, "The Impact of Tropical Cyclone Olivia on Australia's Northwest Shelf", paper presented at the 1999 Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, Texas, 3-6 May, 1999.
Why did it take so long for the new record to be announced?
The instrument used to take the world record wind gust was funded by a private company, Chevron, and Chevron's data was not made available to forecasters at Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) during the storm. After the storm, the tropical cyclone experts at BOM were made aware of the data, but it was viewed as suspect, since the gusts were so extreme and the data was taken with equipment of unknown accuracy. Hence, the observations were not included in the post-storm report. Steve Buchan from RPS MetOcean believed in the accuracy of the observations, and coauthored a paper on the record gust, presented at the 1999 Offshore Technology Conference in Houston (Buchan et al., 1999). The data lay dormant until 2009, when Joe Courtney of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology was made aware of it. Courtney wrote up a report, coauthored with Steve Buchan, and presented this to the WMO extremes committee for ratification. The report has not been made public yet, and is awaiting approval by Chevron. The verified data will be released next month at a World Meteorological Organization meeting in Turkey, when the new world wind record will become official.
New Hampshire residents are not happy
Residents of New Hampshire are understandably not too happy about losing their cherished claim to fame. The current home page of the Mount Washington Observatory reads, "For once, the big news on Mount Washington isn't our extreme weather. Sadly, it's about how our extreme weather--our world record wind speed, to be exact--was outdone by that of a warm, tropical island".
Comparison with other wind records
Top wind in an Atlantic hurricane: 239 mph (107 m/s) at an altitude of 1400 meters, measured by dropsonde in Hurricane Isabel (2003).
Top surface wind in an Atlantic hurricane: 211 mph (94.4 m/s), Hurricane Gustav, Paso Real de San Diego meteorological station in the western Cuban province of Pinar del Rio, Cuba, on the afternoon of August 30, 2008.
Top wind in a tornado: 302 mph (135 m/s), measured via Doppler radar at an altitude of 100 meters (330 feet), in the Bridge Creek, Oklahoma tornado of May 3, 1999.
Top surface wind not associated with a tropical cyclone or tornado: 231 mph (103.3 m/s), April 12, 1934 on the summit of Mount Washington, New Hampshire.
Top wind in a typhoon: 191 mph (85.4 m/s) on Taiwanese Island of Lanya, Super Typhoon Ryan, Sep 22, 1995; also on island of Miyakojima, Super Typhoon Cora, Sep 5, 1966.
Top surface wind not measured on a mountain or in a tropical cyclone: 207 mph (92.5 m/s) measured in Greenland at Thule Air Force Base on March 6, 1972.
Top wind measured in a U.S. hurricane: 186 mph (83.1 m/s) measured at Blue Hill Observatory, Massachusetts, during the 1938 New England Hurricane.
Buchan, S.J., P.G. Black, and R.L. Cohen, 1999, "The Impact of Tropical Cyclone Olivia on Australia's Northwest Shelf", paper presented at the 1999 Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, Texas, 3-6 May, 1999.
Black, P.G., Buchan, S.J., and R.L. Cohen, 1999, "The Tropical Cyclone Eyewall Mesovortex: A Physical Mechanism Explaining Extreme Peak Gust Occurrence in TC Olivia, 4 April 1996 on Barrow Island, Australia", paper presented at the 1999 Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, Texas, 3-6 May, 1999.


July 18, 2012
Since the Industrial Revolution, ocean acidity has risen by 30 percent as a direct result of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation. And within the last 50 years, human industry has caused the world’s oceans to experience a sharp increase in acidity that rivals levels seen when ancient carbon cycles triggered mass extinctions, which took out more than 90 percent of the oceans’ species and more than 75 percent of terrestrial species.
Rising ocean acidity is now considered to be just as much of a formidable threat to the health of Earth’s environment as the atmospheric climate changes brought on by pumping out greenhouse gases. Scientists are now trying to understand what that means for the future survival of marine and terrestrial organisms.
In June, ScienceNOW reported that out of the 35 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide released annually through fossil fuel use, one-third of those emissions diffuse into the surface layer of the ocean. The effects those emissions will have on the biosphere is sobering, as rising ocean acidity will completely upset the balance of marine life in the world’s oceans and will subsequently affect humans and animals who benefit from the oceans’ food resources.
The damage to marine life is due in large part to the fact that higher acidity dissolves naturally-occurring calcium carbonate that many marine species–including plankton, sea urchins, shellfish and coral–use to construct their shells and external skeletons. Studies conducted off Arctic regions have shown that the combination of melting sea ice, atmospheric carbon dioxide and subsequently hotter, CO2-saturated surface waters has led to the undersaturation of calcium carbonate in ocean waters. The reduction in the amount of calcium carbonate in the ocean spells out disaster for the organisms that rely on those nutrients to build their protective shells and body structures.
The link between ocean acidity and calcium carbonate is a directly inverse relationship, which allows scientists to use the oceans’ calcium carbonate saturation levels to measure just how acidic the waters are. In a study by the University of Hawaii at Manoa published earlier this year, researchers calculated that the level of calcium carbonate saturation in the world’s oceans has fallen faster in the last 200 years than has been seen in the last 21,000 years–signaling an extraordinary rise in ocean acidity to levels higher than would ever occur naturally.
The authors of the study continued on to say that currently only 50 percent of the world’s ocean waters are saturated with enough calcium carbonate to support coral reef growth and maintenance, but by 2100, that proportion is expected to drop to a mere five percent, putting most of the world’s beautiful and diverse coral reef habitats in danger.
In the face of so much mounting and discouraging evidence that the oceans are on a trajectory toward irreparable marine life damage, a new study offers hope that certain species may be able to adapt quick enough to keep pace with the changing make-up of Earth’s waters.
In a study published last week in the journal Nature Climate Change, researchers from the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies found that baby clownfish (Amphiprion melanopus) are able to cope with increased acidity if their parents also lived in higher acidic water, a remarkable finding after a study conducted last year on another clownfish species (Amphiprion percula) suggested acidic waters reduced the fish’s sense of smell, making it likely for the fish to mistakenly swim toward predators.
But the new study will require further research to determine whether or not the adaptive abilities of the clownfish are also present in more environmentally-sensitive marine species.
While the news that at least some baby fish may be able to adapt to changes provides optimism, there is still much to learn about the process. It is unclear through what mechanism clownfish are able to pass along this trait to their offspring so quickly, evolutionarily speaking. Organisms capable of generation-to-generation adaptations could have an advantage in the coming decades, as anthropogenic emissions push Earth to non-natural extremes and place new stresses on the biosphere.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.


Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference
KPLU (NPR): Marine Conference
SEATTLE, WA (2005-03-30) The Puget Sound is in trouble and hundreds of scientists are gathering this week in Seattle to discuss why and what can be done to fix the problem. KPLU environment reporter Steve Krueger has this preview of what lies ahead.
Also posted on:
By Peggy Andersen
SEATTLE - During the great annual gray whale migrations between feeding grounds in the north Pacific and breeding spots off Mexico, about 200 individuals apparently take up "seasonal residence" in the Pacific Northwest, scientists say.
Six gray whales, for example, have been spotted around Whidbey Island nearly every spring since 1991, says biologist John Calambokidis of Olympia-based Cascadia Research. Other small groups of gray whales return annually to preferred spots along the coasts of Oregon and British Columbia.
"In recent years, we've done a much better job identifying these seasonal resident animals," Calambokidis said. In some cases, "we have evidence they don't go to Alaska. They migrate south to the breeding grounds but seem to make this their primary feeding area."
Also, he said, unusually high numbers of beached grays reported in the spring of 1999 and 2000 apparently did not mark the start of a population decline for gray whales.
"The mortality since then has been very low," he said.
Calambokidis presented recent research about grays as the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference got under way Tuesday at the downtown Washington State Convention Center. The three-day session, featuring scores of scientists on a range of topics, is sponsored by the state's Puget Sound Action Team and Environment Canada.
In a brief luncheon address, Gov. Christine Gregoire said she's making "real science" a priority in making decisions about the environment. There need not be a conflict between business and the environment, she said - businesses are drawn to the region for its quality of life.
Historically, Calambokidis said, gray whales that ventured inland were likely more vulnerable to shore-based hunters than those that swam farther offshore, churning all the way north to the Bering and Beaufort seas of Alaska and the Chukchi Sea off Siberia.
A gray whale calf emerges to be touched by tourists in Ojo de Liebre lagoon in Baja California Sur, Mexico, in March 1999 during the great annual gray whale migration between feeding grounds in the North Pacific and breeding spots off Mexico.
(Associated Press file photo)
The ones that stop in the Northwest tend to not have as many young as the larger population, he said. Determining the gender of the seasonal residents is a work in progress, but females with calves tend to start the migration late and inland stops "may not be advantageous" for them, Calambokidis said.
Some of the returnees move on in early summer and may in fact head north, he said. Some only drop in once or twice. Grays seen farther inland, in central and south Puget Sound, tend to be stragglers foraging for food - sometimes desperately - that rejoin the migration if they can.
There was a surge in reports of dead, beached gray whales five years ago, when population estimates peaked at about 27,000 and the Makah Indian Tribe moved to reaffirm its whaling rights under an 1855 treaty.
While most whale deaths occur in the ocean, the 50 carcasses found on Washington state shores alone in 1999-2000 may have marked a converging of two extremes, Calambokidis said: The whale population reaching its maximum carrying capacity and a natural downturn in the cyclical availability of food and prey.
Many researchers believe both the high population number and the big die-off were "blips," Calambokidis said.
"That's why there was a dramatic event, instead of a gradual tapering off." Records from around the Northwest indicate that the "major mortality event" was a very isolated incident, he said.
On average, Washington state has four gray whale beachings a year, based on reports from the regional stranding network that has been in place since the 1970s, Calambokidis said.
"We haven't really changed our response to strandings," he said. A beached whale carcass as long as 40 feet is hard to miss in a populated area, while dead whales on remote stretches of beach may go unnoticed.
Gray whales, the first creature listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act, were decimated by commercial whaling that peaked in the late 19th century.
Recent gray whale counts conducted along the migration route suggest the population may have settled at about 17,000 animals - roughly the pre-whaling total, Calambokidis said.
The grays' removal from the Endangered Species List in 1994 prompted the Makah to reclaim whaling rights after 70 years. The issue has been bogged down in federal court appeals since the tribe killed a single whale in May 1999.
Antiwhaling activists characterized "resident" gray whales as a separate population that warranted special protection. Some definitions of Makah whaling grounds limited the tribe to offshore whales, while others allowed whaling some distance into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waterway that divides the United States and Canada before making a sharp right into Puget Sound.
"Now that we have accurate evidence of their abundance ... it would allow someone to make estimates of what level of kills could come from that group," Calambokidis said. "We have a much more solid basis of information for either side in that debate."
On the Net:
By SUSAN GORDON
Gov. Christine Gregoire promised Monday to take action to protect and restore Puget Sound.
She told a gathering of 600 environmental scientists and others at a U.S.-Canadian research conference that the Sound's health is both central to Washington's future prosperity and a legacy important to future generations.
"Only if we redouble our efforts will we succeed," she said.
Gregoire wants to boost spending on what she described as scientifically based solutions to problems such as pollution and environmental degradation.
She proposes to spend $31.5 million over the next two years to clean up mercury contamination, control the spread of toxic flame retardants, restore polluted shellfish beds and remove spartina, an invasive beach grass, among other things.
Her proposal includes $7.5 million for continuing scientific monitoring.
"We are going to invest and we are going to deliver," she said.
Gregoire has already proposed spending $5 million on the Hood Canal, where pollution has been blamed for an oxygen imbalance that has killed fish.
Gregoire's pledge to save the Sound came during luncheon speech at the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference, a three-day event at the Washington State Trade & Convention Center in Seattle.
The annual conference brings together U.S. and Canadian scientists who present new scientific findings on some of the most pressing environmental problems facing the region.
Kathy Fletcher, executive director of the environmental group People for Puget Sound, was in the audience.
"It's music to my ears," she said of Gregoire's promise of action. "She's been around this issue long enough to know we need to do a lot more than studies and research."
The governor described the state's continuing population boom as a threat.
"We have met the enemy and the enemy is us," Gregoire said. "Our robust population leads directly to the health problems of the Sound,"
Over the past decade, Washington's population has grown by about 1 million, a 20 percent increase that means more sewage, more road runoff and more pressure on sensitive resources, she said.
Perhaps anticipating objections from the business community, Gregoire underscored the value of Washington's quality of life as a lure to enterprise.
She praised the work of scientists who have focused on both problems and solutions.
"Real science has got to be the key to our decisions with respect to the environment," she said. "Every time we make decisions based on science, the environment is always the winner."
Also Monday, she announced the reappointment of Brad Ack as director of the Puget Sound Action Team, which sets the state's environmental protection priorities for Puget Sound.
During her speech, she endorsed the team's seven-point plan for 2005-2007, which was released last December.
Gregoire told the Seattle audience her first brush with international environmental controversy came in 1988 when she was in charge of the state Department of Ecology. The barge "Nestucca" spilled 230,000 gallons of fuel oil that contaminated beaches from Grays Harbor County to Vancouver Island.
The oil spill roused the state's attention to the damage associated with the risks of oil transport. It also affected Gregoire's family, she said.
The governor recalled bringing her daughter Michelle, now 20, along when she visited a bird rescue operation.
It was "heart-wrenching," Gregoire said.
But the grim scene also influenced Michelle, who is now a college student majoring in environmental science.
What the plan would do
To view the strategy endorsed by Gov. Christine Gregoire to restore and conserve Puget Sound, go to www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/priorities_05/ Priorities_05_review.htm.
Gregoire made a commitment Monday to fund a two-year, seven-point action plan developed last year by the Puget Sound Action Team.
The team was created in 1996 to set priorities for Puget Sound environmental protection.
Susan Gordon: 253-597-8756
By Christopher Dunagan, Sun Staff
SEATTLE-- With science as a guiding light, political leaders must "redouble" their efforts to reverse a dangerous decline in the Puget Sound ecosystem, Gov. Christine Gregoire said Tuesday.
Gregoire expressed concerns about the deadly low-oxygen conditions that plague Hood Canal, and she said similar "dead zones" could develop in southern Puget Sound if people don't take appropriate action."
"We can do better," the governor said, addressing the Puget Sound and Georgia Strait Research Conference. "My friends, we have no choice. We have to do a lot better. It is not too late - but only if we redouble our efforts."
More than 700 scientists, policy makers and concerned individuals attended the first day of a three-day conference addressing scientific issues in Puget Sound and Canada's Georgia Strait. Close to 200 separate research topics are on tap for discussion at the event, which takes place every two years.
Gov. Christine Gregoire says pollution will create more 'dead zones' in Puget Sound unless action is taken now.
(AP Photo/John Froschauer)
Gregoire, former director of the Washington Department of Ecology, said Washington state residents are engaged in a fight against pollution, habitat destruction and declining fish and wildlife populations. But it simply isn't enough. Over the past 20 years, the state's own studies show that for every environmental success, there are new or growing problems for Puget Sound.
"We have a million more people putting demands on that fragile ecosystem," she said, "... and we will add a million more people."
Business owners want to come to Washington because they love the quality of life here, she said. But the challenge is for everyone to work together to improve the environment and leave things better for the next generation.
Gregoire told the scientists that research is essential. Because of dedicated scientific work, "we have a grasp today of the problems and some of the solutions."
She has called on the Legislature to create a new Washington Academy of Sciences to bring together the best minds in the state to provide answers to vexing questions.
"There were bright people who preceded me," she said, "and they couldn't solve the problem. We need new thinking ... When we make our decisions based on science, the environment is always the winner."
But Gregoire does not want to wait for the scientists to answer all the questions - which is why she demanded that the "action plan" for Hood Canal include projects for reducing nitrogen, believed to be at the heart of the problem.
The research conference, held at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, has been one of the few venues to bring together a cross-section of the scientific community studying Puget Sound. Issues range from killer whale behavior to the chemistry of sewage.
One group of researchers at Tuesday's session described an intensive effort to characterize the existing ecosystem in the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. It will be important, they said, to study the changes after two dams on the river are removed in 2007.
One thing the research has revealed, said Jonathan Warrick of the U.S. Geological Survey, is that the river above the dams is starved for nutrients, essential to the entire food chain. In rivers without blockages, adult salmon carry nutrients in their bodies from the ocean to the upper watershed.
When salmon die, they feed organisms from the bottom of the food chain, as well as eagles and bears that then distribute the nutrients over a broader area.
Other sessions on Tuesday included a discussion of how climate change could alter salmon populations, a talk about gray whales and humpback whales visiting Puget Sound in recent years, and a presentation about an advanced computer model used to describe the movement of pollutants in Bremerton's Sinclair Inlet.
Reach Christopher Dunagan at (360) 792-9207 or e-mail email@example.com.
Copyright 2005, kitsapsun.com. All Rights Reserved.
By Larry Pynn
The shared waters of the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound are home to 63 marine species at risk, with over-harvesting, habitat loss, and pollution rated as the biggest threats, according to a research study being released at an international conference starting today.
The study by Joseph Gaydos and Nicholas Brown also finds that the four jurisdictions responsible for protecting marine species -- B.C., Washington state, and the Canadian and U.S. governments -- cannot reach consensus on the level of threat facing all of those 63 species.
Of the 63 species, Washington officially considered 73 per cent of them at risk, B.C. 50 per cent, the Canadian government 36 per cent, and the U.S. government 31 per cent.
As an example, B.C. lists 12 seabirds that neighbouring Washington state does not list, even though it is common for various species to fly back and forth across the international boundary.
The high number of species at risk in the region's marine waters are evidence of "ecosystem decay," the report's authors conclude, and reflect the need for the various levels of governments to work harder on conservation and to adopt an international ecosystem approach.
Gaydos and Brown are with the SeaDoc Society, a marine ecosystem health program administered through the University of California, Davis, Wildlife Health Centre, and based in Washington's San Juan Islands.
As of September 2004, the 63 species at risk consisted of 27 fish, 23 birds, nine mammals (including the grey whale, harbour porpoise, humpback whale, and killer whale), three invertebrates, and one reptile.
Within the Puget Sound-Georgia Basin marine ecosystem, the number of invertebrate species is much greater than vertebrate species, yet only three invertebrates are listed at risk -- Newcomb's littorine snail, Olympic oyster, and northern abalone -- suggesting the category is not receiving as much attention as it should.
The results of the study are being presented at the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference running today through Thursday in Seattle and co-sponsored by Environment Canada.
Commenting on the study, Tony Pitcher, a professor at the University of B.C. Fisheries Centre, said in Vancouver that governments have been slow to adopt an ecosystem approach to marine management.
And while states and provinces can have different mandates, he agreed that the international border poses a political obstacle to good management of marine species, not just between B.C. and Washington, but between B.C. and Alaska on our north coast.
Pitcher also agreed that more research is needed on invertebrate species such as crabs, squid and octopus, and the roles they play in the greater ecosystem.
He added that despite the need for more work by Canadian and American authorities to reverse a decline in the health of our marine ecosystem, local waters are still in relatively good shape compared with other coastal areas in the Pacific Rim, including China, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
RISK TO SPECIES BY JURISDICTION:
The shared waters of Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia are home to 63 marine species that are at risk, with overharvesting, habitat loss and pollution rated as the biggest threats, according to a study being released at an international conference today.
The results show "ecosystem decay" and reflect the need for B.C., Washington state, Canada and the U.S. to work together to adopt an international, cooperative ecosystem approach. The statistics below show the differing levels of risk to some species, assigned by just two of those jurisdictions.
Source: The SeaDoc Society, The Vancouver Sun FISH, REPTILES, BIRDS AND MAMMALS ON THE AT-RISK LIST:
Also posted on:
March 24, 2005
Tacoma, WA, Mar. 24 (UPI) -- Concentrations of the banned chemical PCB are at least three times higher in Puget Sound chinook salmon than in that from other areas, a report says.
That finding, from Sandie O'Neill, a scientist with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, measured chinook salmon from Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, coastal Washington and the Columbia River.
Her report prompted the state to begin its own research. Officials say there is no immediate cause for alarm, the Tacoma News-Tribune said Thursday.
O'Neill presented preliminary data to the state Fish & Wildlife Commission last October and plans to unveil more comprehensive research at the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference next week in Seattle.
"The food chain in Puget Sound is significantly contaminated with PCBs and flame retardants," said Jim West, another state scientist.
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are banned industrial compounds that build up in the food chain and can cause developmental and behavioral problems in children.
SUSAN GORDON; The News Tribune
Concentrations of banned chemicals that are particularly threatening to children are at least three times higher in Puget Sound chinook salmon than in chinook from other areas.
In light of that finding by a state Department of Fish and Wildlife scientist, state Health Department officials are conducting their own research. While they say there is no cause for alarm, health officials acknowledge they might revise fish consumption warnings in a few months.
"I don't think the data is clear enough yet," said Rob Duff, the Health Department's environmental health director.
Sandie O'Neill, a state Department of Fish and Wildlife scientist, has found PCB concentrations in Puget Sound chinook are three times higher than what others have measured in chinook salmon from Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, coastal Washington and the Columbia River.
O'Neill has studied PCBs in salmon since 1992. But comparable data from other researchers weren't available until recently, she said.
She first presented preliminary data to the state Fish & Wildlife Commission last October and plans to unveil more comprehensive research at the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference next week in Seattle.
O'Neill's results underscore the persistence of dangerous contaminants in Puget Sound.
"The food chain in Puget Sound is significantly contaminated with PCBs and flame retardants," said Jim West, another state Fish and Wildlife Department scientist.
He recently discovered both pollutants in herring, a key component of the salmon diet.
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are banned industrial compounds found worldwide that build up in the food chain and can cause developmental and behavioral problems in children.
Testing store-bought fish
Although PCBs are found in meat and dairy products, some health experts believe humans are most at risk from eating contaminated fish.
However, because fish are nutritious and contain fatty acids that lower cholesterol, many experts are reluctant to suggest consumption limits based on PCBs.
"These contaminants are in every fish and every person on the planet," Duff said.
Current state Health Department advisories warn about contaminated fish or shellfish in eight tainted locations around Puget Sound, including Tacoma's Commencement Bay.
But that advice, which doesn't mention salmon, is complicated and might not be sufficient, Duff said.
So Health Department researchers are testing store-bought fish for PCBs, mercury and flame retardants. The sampling list includes chinook salmon, catfish, pollack, red snapper, halibut, cod and flounder, Duff said.
After that analysis, due in about three months, state health officials could revise statewide fish consumption recommendations, Duff said.
PCBs, which cause cancer, are highly toxic compounds that can be transferred from mothers to children through breast milk. Once used to cool and insulate transformers and other electrical equipment, PCBs have been banned in the United States since 1977.
Because PCBs don't break down over time, they persist in air, water and soil. The PCBs also build up in the food chain, so top predators harbor high concentrations. Because of PCBs, orca whales are some of the world's most contaminated marine mammals.
In Puget Sound chinook, O'Neill measured average PCB concentrations of 53 parts per billion. That's like a spoonful of poison in a railroad tanker car full of water, but scientists believe the toxicity of the compound makes it notable.
In Puget Sound coho, O'Neill measured average PCB concentrations of 31 parts per billion.
"These are not screamingly high levels," Duff said.
Concentrations found in Great Lakes salmon have been many times higher.
But Puget Sound chinook, also known as king salmon, are far more contaminated than other types of salmon, such as pinks, sockeye and chum, O'Neill said. That might be because young chinook spend more time in the estuaries than other young salmon, which also feed lower on the food web.
Also, O'Neill said concentrations of PCBs in Puget Sound chinook are comparable to what others have measured in farmed Atlantic salmon from Norway and Scotland.
For years, scientists have known about excessive concentrations of PCBs in bottom-dwelling Puget Sound fish, particularly those inhabiting polluted industrial areas such as Commencement Bay in Tacoma and the Seattle waterfront.
For example, state researchers have found PCBs in concentrations of 121 parts per billion in rockfish and 62 parts per billion in English sole. Both were caught in Seattle.
Harbor seals also are contaminated.
The new research suggests that efforts to confine contaminated sediments in polluted areas such as Commencement Bay might not prevent PCBs from recycling through plankton and fish, said West, O'Neill's colleague at the Fish and Wildlife Department.
"We need to better understand the dynamic between contaminants trapped in sediments and those entrained in the (salmon) food web," O'Neill said.
Bill Sullivan, environmental director for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, said he wouldn't be surprised if contaminants leak out of disposal sites.
"Obviously, we have something very wrong in the interior Puget Sound," he said.
If state officials revamp fish consumption recommendations, Duff said special outreach efforts will be made to tribes and immigrant groups of Asians and Pacific Islanders. They often eat lots of fish and might be more vulnerable to injury than the mainstream population, he said.
Most Washington residents eat no more than two fish meals a week, and that's probably not enough to cause harm, he said.
On the net:
For state Health Department fish consumption recommendations, visit www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/EHA_fish_adv.htm.
Susan Gordon: 253-597-8756
March. 23-29, 2005
Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference: Literally hundreds of scientists and scholars converge on the Washington Convention and Trade Center for this environmental confab. The Wednesday evening forum, led by a panel of researchers and policymakers, is open to the public. 800 Convention Pl., 206-694-5000. Free. 7-9 p.m. Wed., March 30.
By Warren Cornwall
A prolific and potentially toxic fire retardant is showing up in Puget Sound marine life ranging from tiny herring to massive killer whales, raising alarms among scientists who warn it could become the next big toxic threat to underwater animals.
"We've got fireproof killer whales," said Peter Ross, a research scientist with the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Canada and an expert in toxic chemicals in marine animals. "We're concerned about this."
The problem appears greatest in south and central Puget Sound - where fish, seals and whales had higher levels of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs.
Since the early 1980s, levels of those chemicals in southern Puget Sound harbor seals have soared, a sign of an emerging threat to local killer whales that also feed on fish, Ross said. The whales are on the verge of being listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act.
"I'm surprised at the rate of increase [of contamination]," said Sandie O'Neill, a research scientist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. "This is definitely an increasing concern, and that's what's getting everybody's attention."
Scientists are unsure how the chemicals are affecting marine life, or what threat is posed to people who eat contaminated fish. The state Department of Health hasn't established safety thresholds for food containing PBDEs.
A bromine-industry spokesman questioned whether the presence of PBDEs was cause for concern.
Production of some versions of the chemicals ended in 2004 because of health concerns. The most widespread version now is considered far less toxic, or not toxic at all, said John Kyte, executive director of the industry-backed Bromine Science and Environmental Forum.
"To simply say, 'We've found PBDEs' ... it's hard to make any meaningful judgment about whether this means anything."
But marine biologists worry the chemicals, used to fireproof everything from computers to mattresses, could interfere with neurological development or throw off an animal's hormones or immune system. PBDEs can linger in the environment for years, increasing the risk they will travel up the food chain as one animal eats another.
Toxic chemicals are considered one of the chief threats to the southern orcas. Their numbers have fallen from 99 in 1999 to 85 in 2004.
New research suggests those orcas may absorb much of the chemicals through the chinook salmon they eat. Puget Sound chinook had between three and five times higher levels of PBDEs and PCBs, a longstanding contaminant, compared with chinook from elsewhere, O'Neill said. This Puget Sound hot spot affects a number of marine creatures, according to studies by state, federal and Canadian agencies discussed yesterday at the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference, a Seattle meeting of scientists studying the waters shared by Washington and British Columbia.
The fire retardant may wind up in Puget Sound through storm-water runoff; or after floating into the air and then falling into the water, where they can be absorbed by animals scouring the sediment for food; or by plankton, O'Neill said. PBDEs also have been found in house dust and in women's breast milk.
The state Department of Ecology last year called for a ban on PBDEs, except in cases where no replacement flame retardant is available. But the ban proposal has stalled in the state Legislature this year.
Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Scientists find high concentrations of harmful flame retardants in Puget Sound fish and marine mammals. They say action is needed now.
SUSAN GORDON; The News Tribune
U.S. and Canadian scientists have found abnormal levels of harmful flame retardants in Puget Sound fish and marine mammals, including orca whales.
Scientists who presented their findings at the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference in Seattle on Wednesday said the results confirm the region's vulnerability to contamination from the unstable but increasingly common chemical compounds.
The findings also underscore the need for a safe substitute for the flame retardants frequently used in consumer electronics, upholstery and carpeting, they said.
The problem is polybrominated diphenyl ethers, also known as PBDEs. The chemicals cause learning and behavioral problems in laboratory rats and mice and might have a similar effect on people, health officials say.
Peter Ross, a Canadian marine mammal toxicologist, and Sandie O'Neill, a Washington fish biologist, said new research highlights the need for government action. O'Neill and Ross compared flame retardants to polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, a banned industrial compound that poses similar health threats.
Similar research, first reported last week by The News Tribune, will be presented today at the conference that shows unusually high concentrations of PCBs in Puget Sound chinook salmon.
"It's a no-brainer. We banned PCBs and it's time to do something about PBDEs. If we wait to see health effects on fish, whales or people, it'll be too late," O'Neill said after her presentation. "We've got to turn off the tap now."
PBDEs break down over time, don't stick to the products in which they are used, attach to dust particles and wind up in foods such as fish and meat.
Ross, for his part, commended Washington state's effort to reduce the risks, saying action is necessary to protect the health of the region's dwindling population of orca whales, already heavily contaminated by PCBs.
Last year, then-Gov. Gary Locke ordered the state Department of Ecology to work with health experts to reduce the threat of harm from flame retardants.
Recently, state lawmakers introduced bills to ban PBDEs, but the measures have failed to move beyond legislative committees.
Earl Tower, a lobbyist for a coalition of chemical manufactures, said the two most controversial forms of the chemical - Penta and Octa - are no longer manufactured. The third, Deca-BDE, is used in the casings for computers, TVs and wiring. It is required by federal law to be used in airplanes and automobiles.
"Deca is not toxic. It's not bioaccumulative. There are no cases noted of any ill effects related to Deca," said Tower, who represents the industry-funded Bromine Science and Environmental Forum.
The proposal to ban Deca is "based on the precautionary principle that we don't know if it's a problem but it might be," Tower said, adding, "It's the most understood and most tested flame retardant."
O'Neill and Ross on Wednesday shared new evidence of abnormal levels of PBDEs in Puget Sound harbor seals, English sole, rockfish, herring, coho and chinook salmon.
O'Neill said she didn't find excessive amounts of the chemical in chum or pink salmon, which spend more time in the open ocean than in the Sound.
Ross presented results of research on harbor seals done in conjunction with Steven Jeffries, a state Fish and Wildlife Department marine mammal expert. Harbor seal pups captured on Gertrude Island, near Tacoma, also show higher levels of PBDE contamination than samples collected from other groups of seals in the north Puget Sound and British Columbia, Ross said.
Ross and O'Neill said their PBDE findings are consistent with a pattern of bioaccumulation high in the food chain previously seen in research on PCBs.
The United States banned PCBs almost 30 years ago because of the health risks.
Flame retardants are troublesome in part because they are unstable, said Denise Laflamme, a state Department of Health toxicologist who also spoke at the conference.
Flame retardants accumulate in fat, have been found in human breast milk and can be passed from mothers to their babies.
Since Locke's call for action in January 2004, Ecology Department officials have proposed a PBDE ban, but have not put it into place.
One lingering question is what would substitute for PBDEs now on the market, said Cheri Peele, an Ecology Department official working on the problem.
Flame retardant-to-human path unclear
Human health experts believe people are not exposed to the same high levels of flame retardants as have been proved to harm laboratory mice and rats, said Denise Laflamme, a state Department of Health toxicologist. But toxicologists also haven't figured out how the chemicals get into people, she said.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers, known as PBDEs, are present in many consumer products. Because flame retardants easily bind to dust, good housekeeping can reduce exposure, Laflamme said.
While fish is the most likely dietary source of flame retardants, they also have been found in meat and dairy products, she said. And despite the presence of flame retardants in breast milk, health officials still recommend breast feeding.
Health officials are studying the presence of flame retardants and other chemicals in fish and say they might change their advisories about fish consumption in the next few months.
On the Net
Susan Gordon: 253-597-8756


The cerebrum, the largest part of the brain, is separated into the right and left hemispheres. The right hemisphere is in charge of the functions on the left-side of the body, as well as many cognitive functions.
A right-side stroke happens when the brain’s blood supply is interrupted in this area. Without oxygen and nutrients from blood, the brain tissue quickly dies. A stroke is a serious condition. It requires emergency care.
There are two main types of stroke:
An ischemic stroke (the more common form) is caused by a sudden decrease in blood flow to a region of the brain, which may be due to:
- A clot that forms in another part of the body (eg, heart or neck) breaking off and blocking the flow in a blood vessel supplying the brain (embolus)
- A clot that forms in an artery that supplies blood to the brain (thrombus)
- A tear in an artery supplying blood to the brain (arterial dissection)
A hemorrhagic stroke is caused by a burst blood vessel that results in bleeding in the brain.
Examples of risk factors that you can control or treat include:
Certain conditions, such as:
- High blood pressure
- High cholesterol
- High levels of the amino acid homocysteine (may result in the formation of blood clots)
- Atherosclerosis (narrowing of the arteries due to build-up of plaque)
- Atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm)
- Metabolic syndrome
- Type 2 diabetes
- Alcohol or drug abuse
- Medicines (eg, long-term use of birth control pills )
- Lifestyle factors (eg, smoking , physical inactivity, diet)
Risk factors that you cannot control include:
- History of having a stroke, heart attack , or other type of cardiovascular disease
- History of having a transient ischemic attack (TIA)—With a TIA, stroke-like symptoms often resolve within minutes (always in 24 hours). They may signal a very high risk of having a stroke in the future.
- Age: 60 or older
- Family members who have had a stroke
- Gender: males
- Race: Black, Asian, Hispanic
- Blood disorder that increases clotting
- Heart valve disease (eg, mitral stenosis )
The immediate symptoms of a right-side stroke come on suddenly and may include:
- Weakness or numbness of face, arm, or leg, especially on the left side of the body
- Loss of balance, coordination problems
- Vision problems, especially on the left-side of vision in both eyes
- Difficulty swallowing
If you or someone you know has any of these symptoms, call 911 right away. A stroke needs to be treated as soon as possible.
Longer-lasting effects of the stroke may include problems with:
- Left-sided weakness and/or sensory problems
- Speaking and swallowing
- Vision (eg, inability for the brain to take in information from the left visual field)
- Perception and spatial relations
- Attention span, comprehension, problem solving, judgment
- Interactions with other people
- Activities of daily living (eg, going to the bathroom)
- Mental health (eg, depression , frustration, impulsivity)
The doctor will make a diagnosis as quickly as possible. Tests may include:
- Exam of nervous system
- Computed tomography (CT) scan —a type of x-ray that uses a computer to make pictures of the brain
- CT angiogram—a type of CT scan which evaluates the blood vessels in the brain and/or neck
- Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan —a test that uses magnetic waves to make pictures of the brain
- Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scan —a type of MRI scan which evaluates the blood vessels in the brain and/or neck
- Angiogram —a test that uses a catheter (tube) and x-ray machine to assess the heart and its blood supply
- Heart function tests (eg, electrocardiogram , echocardiogram )
- Doppler ultrasound —a test that uses sound waves to examine the blood vessels
- Blood tests
- Tests to check the level of oxygen in the blood
- Kidney function tests
- Tests to evaluate the ability to swallow
Immediate treatment is needed to potentially:
- Dissolve a clot causing an ischemic stroke
- Stop the bleeding during a hemorrhagic stroke
In some cases, oxygen therapy is needed.
Medicines may be given right away for an ischemic stroke to:
- Dissolve clots and prevent new ones from forming
- Thin blood
- Control blood pressure
- Reduce brain swelling
- Treat an irregular heart rate
Cholesterol medicines called statins may also be given.
For a hemorrhagic stroke, the doctor may give medicines to:
- Work against any blood-thinning drugs that you may regularly take
- Reduce how your brain reacts to bleeding
- Control blood pressure
- Prevent seizures
For an ischemic stroke, procedures may be done to:
- Reroute blood supply around a blocked artery
- Remove the clot or deliver clot-dissolving medicine (embolectomy)
- Remove fatty deposits from a carotid artery (major arteries in the neck that lead to the brain) ( carotid artery endarterectomy )
- Widen carotid artery and add a mesh tube to keep it open ( angioplasty and stenting )
For a hemorrhagic stroke, the doctor may:
- Remove a piece of the skull ( craniotomy ) to relieve pressure on the brain and remove blood clot
- Place a clip on or a tiny coil in the aneurysm to stop it from bleeding
A rehabilitation program focuses on:
- Physical therapy—to regain as much movement as possible
- Occupational therapy—to assist in everyday tasks and self-care
- Speech therapy—to improve swallowing and speech challenges
- Psychological therapy—to help adjust to life after the stroke
To help reduce your chance of having a stroke, take the following steps:
- Exercise regularly .
- Eat a healthy diet that includes fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and fish.
- Maintain a healthy weight.
- If you drink alcohol , drink only in moderation (1-2 drinks per day).
- If you smoke, quit .
- If you have a chronic condition, like high blood pressure or diabetes, get proper treatment.
- If recommended by your doctor, take a low-dose aspirin every day.
- If you are at risk for having a stroke, talk to your doctor about taking statin medicines .
- Reviewer: Rimas Lukas, MD
- Review Date: 06/2012 -
- Update Date: 00/61/2012 -