| Author | Message | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 512 Registered: 5-2009 |
Unsurprisingly, they lost their case. But in the long run, I think, they won. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 631 Registered: 9-2009 |
Case = court case? Seal: Legal seal? Actual wax seal? Animal? A physical seal? Navy SEALs? Long run: years? Decades? Centuries? More? They: HAM? Location, era, profession relevant? Would they have lost in the long run if they had won their case? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 514 Registered: 5-2009 |
Case = court case? Yes. Seal: Legal seal? Actual wax seal? Animal? This, and something else. A physical seal? Navy SEALs? Long run: years? Decades? Centuries? More? Years to decades. They: HAM? Not H, otherwise mixed. Location, era, profession relevant? Yes. Would they have lost in the long run if they had won their case? No. | ||
| Yojimbo (Yojimbo)
New member Username: Yojimbo Post Number: 128 Registered: 11-2009 |
did someone or group advocating on behalf of seals (the mammals) lose a case in court? although they lost the case, were there positive benefits for the seals anyway? location: Arctic? Canada? Scandinavia? Alaska? Greenland? Russia? other? era: 30s? 40s? 50s? 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? 00s? profession: lawyers? biologists? media representatives? activists? other animals besides seals relevant? seal species relevant? [somewhat truncated LTPF list of seals (mammals)]: Gray seal? Ribbon seal? Caspian seal? Harp seal? Baikal seal? Ringed seal? Harbor seal? Spotted seal? Hooded seal? Bearded seal? Swan-necked seal? Ross seal? Crabeater seal? Leopard seal? Weddell seal? Elephant seal (various)? Monk seal (various)? Fur seal (various)? Sea Lion (various)? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 519 Registered: 5-2009 |
did someone or group advocating on behalf of seals (the mammals) lose a case in court? Yesish or Yope. although they lost the case, were there positive benefits for the seals anyway? Yesish. location: Arctic? Canada? Scandinavia? Alaska? Greenland? Russia? other? Location of the seals? The North Sea. era: 30s? 40s? 50s? 60s? 70s? 80s? This. 90s? 00s? profession: lawyers? biologists? media representatives? activists? All these. other animals besides seals relevant? Not directly. seal species relevant? Not really, assume Phoca vitulina. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 645 Registered: 9-2009 |
Do the seals lose anything in the short run? Food? Habitat? Hunting relevant? Does the win involve: Bigger habitat? Better living conditions? Higher population? More food? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 527 Registered: 5-2009 |
Do the seals lose anything in the short run? Yope. Food? Habitat? Not directly for both. Hunting relevant? No. Does the win involve: Bigger habitat? No (I think). Better living conditions? Yes. Higher population? And by consequence possibly this. More food? Possibly. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 651 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did humans want to do something? And (activists? biologists?) said "no, think of the seals"? And the case went to court? Which decided in favor of the human activity? Which in the end benefitted the seals? Mining relevant? Oil drilling? Fishing? Construction? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 530 Registered: 5-2009 |
Did humans want to do something? Well, humans always want to do something... And (activists? biologists?) said "no, think of the seals"? Yesish. And the case went to court? Yesish or Yope. Which decided in favor of the human activity? Yesish or yope. Which in the end benefitted the seals? The relevant human activity definitely didn't benefit the seals. Mining relevant? Oil drilling? Fishing? Construction? Nothing of these are directly relevant. All of these (except oil drilling I think) may be indirectly relevant. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 531 Registered: 5-2009 |
Correction: Even oil drilling may be indirectly relevant. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 654 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is the activity: at sea? On land? In the air? In an area normally occupied by the seals? Does it disturb the seals? By being in the way? Noise? Light? Emmissions? Is the qctivity permanent? Seasonal? Does it stay in the same place? Was something done to mitigate the impact on the seals? Relevant? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 532 Registered: 5-2009 |
Note: There are two ways you can understand "activity" in the context of this puzzle: a special one and a much more general one. I have described the special activity as "directly relevant" and the general one as "indirectly relevant" which might be somewhat misleading. The special activity doesn't include mining, oil drilling, fishing, or construction. The general one may be connected to all of these. Is the activity: at sea? The special one: Yes. The general one: Partly. On land? The general one: Partly. In the air? Assume no. In an area normally occupied by the seals? Not sure about that, probably some of it. Does it disturb the seals? No, "disturb" is not the right description. By being in the way? No. Noise? No, at least that's not the important part. Light? No. Emmissions? Yes. Is the qctivity permanent? The general one: Practically yes. The special one: Not permanent but repeated over and over. Seasonal? The kind and frequency of the activities may change but they are not seasonal. Does it stay in the same place? The general activity consists of many single activities some of which may stay in the same place. The special activity doesn't stay in the same place but probably has certain core areas. Was something done to mitigate the impact on the seals? When? Relevant? Yes. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 706 Registered: 3-2004 |
Is the general activity polluting? something else detrimental? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 534 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is the general activity polluting? Yes. something else detrimental? Assume no. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 663 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was something done to mitigate the impact on the seals: before the case? After the ruling? Was it this "something" that made it better for them in the long run? Specific kind of pollution relevant? If so, was the pollution chemical in nature? Physical (such as garbage)? Was their food polluted? Water? Land? Ice? Global warming relevant? Cold war relevant? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 538 Registered: 5-2009 |
Was something done to mitigate the impact on the seals: Yes, beware of FA. before the case? After the ruling? This, insofar as it is relevant. Was it this "something" that made it better for them in the long run? Yes. Specific kind of pollution relevant? One is especially relevant, others may be relevant, too. If so, was the pollution chemical in nature? Primarily this. Physical (such as garbage)? Was their food polluted? Probably. Water? Yes. Land? Ice? No or not very relevant for the others. Global warming relevant? No. Cold war relevant? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 676 Registered: 9-2009 |
Pollution: hydrocarbons? Heavy metals? Pesticides or similar? Industrial waste? Radioactive waste? Did "something": reduce pollution? Move pollution to somewhere else? Clean up existing pollution? Move the seals somewhere less polluted? Was "something" done by: the polluters? Activists? Organization(s)? Country/ies? Legislation relevant? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 544 Registered: 5-2009 |
Pollution: hydrocarbons? Heavy metals? Pesticides or similar? Industrial waste? This is the one which is especially relevant. Radioactive waste? Did "something": reduce pollution? This. Move pollution to somewhere else? And this. Clean up existing pollution? Move the seals somewhere less polluted? Was "something" done by: the polluters? This (directly). Activists? Organization(s)? Country/ies? This (indirectly) Legislation relevant? Yes. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 698 Registered: 9-2009 |
Does the pollution affect seals specifically? Or all animals in the area? If so, were these animals also better off (except maybe those the seals eat)? Was the waste dumped in the sea before the case? From ships? Land? Platforms? Is it now put somewhere else? Incinerated? Is the waste: solid? Liquid? Gas? Was the case made that humans should stop with the activity? But instead they continued it but with reduced impact? If the seals had won the case, would they have been even better off than they ended up being? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 545 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does the pollution affect seals specifically? No. Or all animals in the area? {Yes.} If so, were these animals also better off (except maybe those the seals eat)? Yes. Was the waste dumped in the sea before the case? Part of it. From ships? Yes for the special activity. Indeed, one of two parts of the special activities is the dumping of industrial waste into the North Sea (using ships to carry it to international waters. Land? The case probably has influenced certain land-based activities, too. Not really important, however. Platforms? Again, the case may have influenced the activities of platforms, but this isn't really important. Is it now put somewhere else? Part of it. Incinerated? Part of it, but... Is the waste: solid? Liquid? Gas? Difficult to answer. The most notorious kind of waste in this context is liquid, but solid waste may well be involved. I don't think gas plays a role. Was the case made that humans should stop with the activity? Yes. But instead they continued it but with reduced impact? For the general activity: yes. For the special acitivity: no, they stopped it. If the seals had won the case, would they have been even better off than they ended up being? Yes. I'm not really sure when to consider this solved. You have solved a crucial part by finding out that, indeed, *the seals* might have won the case (although they didn't, which wasn't a surprise). You have found out many other things, too. So find out the most important kind of waste and the reason the case helped to stop its dumping. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 1005 Registered: 3-2004 |
Water used in cleaning oil tanks? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 547 Registered: 5-2009 |
Water used in cleaning oil tanks? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 804 Registered: 9-2009 |
So humans didn't stop polluting, but stopped dumping toxic waste at sea and [another polluting thing]? Was the other thing also done from ships? Was it also done in the North Sea? Was liquid industrial waste also involved? Waste: dioxins? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 549 Registered: 5-2009 |
So humans didn't stop polluting As we all know, thei didn't while they stopped or scaled down quite a lot of polluting. but stopped dumping toxic waste at sea Not really sure about that but yes for a certain kind of toxical waste. and [another polluting thing] Yes.? Was the other thing also done from ships? Yes. Was it also done in the North Sea? Yes. Was liquid industrial waste also involved? Not sure about that. The aggregate state of the other thing isn't that important. In fact, the other thing probably isn't that important. Just name the liquid dumped into the North Sea. Waste: dioxins? No, although "the other thing" may have involved dioxins. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 841 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is the waste: from a particular industry? Is it dumped in international waters because it's forbidden to dump it where it's produced? Because it's produced aboard ships? Because dumping it other places causes even more environmental damage? Is it acutely toxic? Is it a cumulative poison? Carcinogen? Corrosive? Noxious? Does it accumulate in the food chain? "The solution to pollution is dilution" relevant? Is it poured overboard? Or dumped in sealed barrels, which eventually leak? Is it one chemical? Or a mixture of chemically related compounds? Chemically unrelated compounds produced by the same industry? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 552 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is the waste: from a particular industry? Yes, mostly. Is it dumped in international waters because it's forbidden to dump it where it's produced? Yes. Because it's produced aboard ships? No. Because dumping it other places causes even more environmental damage? Yesish or Yope. Is it acutely toxic? Part of it. Is it a cumulative poison? Part of it, this is the most important point I think. Carcinogen? Probably. Corrosive? Yes, but not sure whether this is very relevant. Noxious? What's the difference to toxic? Does it accumulate in the food chain? Part of it I think. "The solution to pollution is dilution" relevant? Yes. Is it poured overboard? This. Or dumped in sealed barrels, which eventually leak? No. Is it one chemical? Or a mixture of chemically related compounds? Chemically unrelated compounds produced by the same industry? Several compounds, some of which can be considered as chemically related, I think. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 865 Registered: 9-2009 |
Waste produced by: plastics industry? Fertilizer? Pharmaceutical? Oil? Pesticide? Other chemical manufacture? Other chemical industry? Non-chemical industry? Is the cumulative poison a metal? An organic compound? Is it useful? Is the pollution a well-known waste product? Does it have a name? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 866 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is it something that's used in a process, until it's too contaminated and/or depleted? Is it fair to invoke the periodic table of elements to find out what it's made of? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 553 Registered: 5-2009 |
Waste produced by: plastics industry? Fertilizer? Pharmaceutical? Oil? Pesticide? Other chemical manufacture? Mainly this. Other chemical industry? Non-chemical industry? Is the cumulative poison a metal? Several metals. An organic compound? Not sure whether acute or cumulative. Is it useful? What? The waste? Noish. The chemical products? Sure. Is the pollution a well-known waste product? Yesish. It was very well known at the time of the puzzle but is less so now. Does it have a name? Yesish. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 554 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is it something that's used in a process, until it's too contaminated and/or depleted? Yes (as I understand it). Is it fair to invoke the periodic table of elements to find out what it's made of? Yes. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 870 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is it called "sludge"? Is it black? Is it used in metal processing? Gold? Mining relevant? electrolysis? Is it used in manufacture of: one specific chemical? One specific element? Several related chemicals? Refining relevant? Semiconductors? Which elements are in it [LTPF periodic table of elements]? Does it contain hexavalent chromium? Elemental mercury? Is it harmful to get on the skin? Does it produce fumes at room temperature? Does it smell bad? Is it flammable? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 562 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is it called "sludge"? No. Is it black? No. Is it used in metal processing? Metal compounds. Gold? No. Mining relevant? No. electrolysis? Not sure about that. Is it used in manufacture of: one specific chemical? One specific element? Several related chemicals? This(ish). Refining relevant? No. Semiconductors? No. Which elements are in it [LTPF periodic table of elements]? The main component (besides of water) consists of hydrogen, oxygen, and sulfur. Does it contain hexavalent chromium? Elemental mercury? I'm not sure which metals can be in it. This may depend on the specific origin of the waste. Is it harmful to get on the skin? Yes. Does it produce fumes at room temperature? Thanks to the water: No. Does it smell bad? Not sure about that. Is it flammable? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 885 Registered: 9-2009 |
Sulfuric acid? Contaminated with metals? Battery acid with lead compounds? Used for: etching? Cleaning? Removing water from a reaction? Dissolving something? For a specific chemical reaction? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 567 Registered: 5-2009 |
Sulfuric acid? Yes. Contaminated with metals? Yes, and halogenated hydrocarbons. My dictionary says it's called "dilute acid" in the state it was dumped. Battery acid with lead compounds? No. Used for: etching? Cleaning? Removing water from a reaction? Dissolving something? For a specific chemical reaction? Several uses, mostly in the production of colourants. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 925 Registered: 9-2009 |
Nasty. Textile industry? Paint? Are the colorants for a specific purpose? Or just color pigments/liquids for whatever? So the acid is the acutely toxic part, and the metals and halogenated hydrocarbons the bioaccumulative? did the activists say/want something like: "stop polluting the north sea"? Which didn't happen - but the dumping of this acid waste was stopped? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 570 Registered: 5-2009 |
Nasty. Textile industry? Paint? Are the colorants for a specific purpose? Or just color pigments/liquids for whatever? For different purposes AFAIK. There's nothing left to find out about the waste. So the acid is the acutely toxic part, and the metals and halogenated hydrocarbons the bioaccumulative? Yes. did the activists say/want something like: "stop polluting the north sea"? Yesish. This, of course, was the statement in its most general form. But they sayed something more specific in the context of the case. Which didn't happen - but the dumping of this acid waste was stopped? Yes, as well as other forms of pollution (no details required here). | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 942 Registered: 9-2009 |
Were the activists specifically concerned for the seals? Was Greenpeace involved? Did they have a slogan? Did they block the dumping? Sabotage something? Was this a well know issue at the time? Were the bioaccumulative poisons found in seal meat? In alarming quantities? Or were dead seals found? Sick? Is any of the above what helped stop the dumping? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 572 Registered: 5-2009 |
Were the activists specifically concerned for the seals? Probably not. Was Greenpeace involved? {Yes.} Did they have a slogan? I'm not sure. Probably. Did they block the dumping? Yes, but irrelevant. Sabotage something? Probably not, irrelevant. Was this a well know issue at the time? What exactly? Were the bioaccumulative poisons found in seal meat? In alarming quantities? Or were dead seals found? Sick? Is any of the above what helped stop the dumping? For all questions: Possibly, irrelevant. The open part puzzle is only about how the lost lawsuit (probably) helped stop the dumping. In fact you almost solved it. Just put it all together. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 960 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the lawsuit create a public backlash against the dumping? Against the companies doing it? did they lose customers? Stock value? Or did the lawsuit bring awareness to the issue, which led to legislation to stop the dumping? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 574 Registered: 5-2009 |
Did the lawsuit create a public backlash against the dumping? Yes. Against the companies doing it? did they lose customers? Stock value? Or did the lawsuit bring awareness to the issue, which led to legislation to stop the dumping? Yes. ==== SPOILER ==== This is the story of a lawsuit eight German environmental organisations (including the German chapter of Greenpeace) filed in 1987 or 1988 "acting as agents of necessity for the seals in the North Sea" against German authorities allowing the dumping of waste (dilute acid being the best-known case) into the sea and the burning of waste on sea. The court dismissed the case because seals lack legal standing. But winning the case was not the environmentalists' only intention. It was also one of their activities to bring public attention to the problem of marine pollution and especially to the problem that even existing rules for environmental protection often couldn't be enforced because nobody could sue. I'm not sure which activities contributed how much to the changes in legislation in the following years. But I think that it contributed to the result that, for example, Germany stopped the dumping of dilute acid into the North Sea in 1990, it was outlawed by all countries bordering the North Sea in 1993 and maybe even that in 1998, the Aarhus Convention started a legislative process which at least for some cases gave legal standing not to seals but to environmental organisations (but I'm afraid this would still not apply in the original case). |
