Dead Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead Sea
A view of the sea from the shore
Coordinates	31°30′N 35°30′E / 31.500°N 35.500°E / 31.500; 35.500Coordinates: 31°30′N 35°30′E / 31.500°N 35.500°E / 31.500; 35.500
Lake type	Endorheic Hypersaline
Primary inflows	Jordan River
Primary outflows	None
Catchment area	41,650 km2 (16,080 sq mi)
Basin countries	Israel Jordan Syria Lebanon Palestine Egypt [1]
Max. length	50 km (31 mi)[2]
Max. width	15 km (9.3 mi)[2]
Surface area	600 km2 (230 sq mi)
Average depth	199 m (653 ft)[3]
Max. depth	304 m (997 ft)
Water volume	114 km3 (27 cu mi)[3]
Shore length1	135 km (84 mi)
Surface elevation	−429 m (−1,407 ft)[4]
References	[3][4]
1 Shore length is not a well-defined measure.

The Dead Sea (Arabic: البحر الميت‎  al-Baḥr al-Mayyit (help·info),Hebrew: יָם הַ‏‏מֶּ‏‏לַ‏ח, Yām HaMélaḥ, "Sea of Salt", also Hebrew: יָם הַ‏‏מָּוֶת, Yām HaMā́weṯ, "The Sea of Death",^[5]), also called the Salt Sea, is a salt lake bordered by Jordan to the east, and Palestine and Israel to the west. Its surface and shores are 429 metres (1,407 ft) below sea level,^[4] Earth's lowest elevation on land. The Dead Sea is 304 m (997 ft) deep, the deepest hypersaline lake in the world. With 34.2% salinity (in 2011), it is also one of the world's saltiest bodies of water, though Lake Vanda in Antarctica (35%), Lake Assal in Djibouti (34.8%), Lagoon Garabogazköl in the Caspian Sea (up to 35%) and some hypersaline ponds and lakes of the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica (such as Don Juan Pond (44%)) have reported higher salinities. It is 9.6 times as salty as the ocean.^[6] This salinity makes for a harsh environment in which animals cannot flourish, hence its name. The Dead Sea is 50 kilometres (31 mi) long and 15 kilometres (9 mi) wide at its widest point.^[2] It lies in the Jordan Rift Valley and its main tributary is the Jordan River.

The Dead Sea has attracted visitors from around the Mediterranean basin for thousands of years. In the Bible, it is a place of refuge for King David. It was one of the world's first health resorts (for Herod the Great), and it has been the supplier of a wide variety of products, from balms for Egyptian mummification to potash for fertilizers. People also use the salt and the minerals from the Dead Sea to create cosmetics and herbal sachets.

The Dead Sea seawater has a density of 1,240 kg/m³, which makes swimming similar to floating.^[7][8]

§Etymology and toponymy

In Hebrew, the Dead Sea is  Yām ha-Melaḥ (help·info) (ים המלח), meaning "sea of salt" (Genesis 14:3). In the Bible, the Dead Sea is called the Salt Sea, the Sea of the Arabah, and the Eastern Sea. The designation "Dead Sea" never appears in the Bible.

In prose sometimes the term Yām ha-Māvet (ים המוות, "sea of death") is used, due to the scarcity of aquatic life there.^[9] In Arabic the Dead Sea is called  al-Bahr al-Mayyit (help·info)^[5] ("the Dead Sea"), or less commonly baḥrᵘ lūṭᵃ (بحر لوط, "the Sea of Lot"). Another historic name in Arabic was the "Sea of Zoʼar", after a nearby town in biblical times. The Greeks called it Lake Asphaltites (Attic Greek ἡ Θάλαττα ἀσφαλτῖτης, hē Thálatta asphaltĩtēs, "the Asphaltite^[10] sea"). The Bible also refers to it as Yām ha-Mizraḥî (ים המזרחי, "the Eastern sea") and Yām ha-‘Ărāvâ (ים הערבה, "Sea of the Arabah").

§Geography

Satellite photograph showing the location of the Dead Sea

The Dead Sea is an endorheic lake located in the Jordan Rift Valley, a geographic feature formed by the Dead Sea Transform (DST). This left lateral-moving transform fault lies along the tectonic plate boundary between the African Plate and the Arabian Plate. It runs between the East Anatolian Fault zone in Turkey and the northern end of the Red Sea Rift offshore of the southern tip of Sinai. It is here that the Upper Jordan River/Sea of Galilee/Lower Jordan River water system comes to an end.

The Jordan River is the only major water source flowing into the Dead Sea, although there are small perennial springs under and around the Dead Sea, forming pools and quicksand pits along the edges.^[11] There are no outlet streams.

Rainfall is scarcely 100 mm (4 in) per year in the northern part of the Dead Sea and barely 50 mm (2 in) in the southern part.^[12] The Dead Sea zone's aridity is due to the rainshadow effect of the Judaean Mountains. The highlands east of the Dead Sea receive more rainfall than the Dead Sea itself.

To the east of the Dead Sea, the Judaean mountains rise less steeply and are much lower than the mountains to the east. Along the southwestern side of the lake is a 210 m (700 ft) tall halite formation called "Mount Sodom".

§Natural history

There are two contending hypotheses about the origin of the low elevation of the Dead Sea. The older hypothesis is that it lies in a true rift zone, an extension of the Red Sea Rift, or even of the Great Rift Valley of eastern Africa. A more recent hypothesis is that the Dead Sea basin is a consequence of a "step-over" discontinuity along the Dead Sea Transform, creating an extension of the crust with consequent subsidence.

Around 3.7 million years ago,^{[citation needed]} what is now the valley of the Jordan River, Dead Sea, and the northern Wadi Arabah was repeatedly inundated by waters from the Mediterranean Sea. The waters formed in a narrow, crooked bay, called by geologists the Sedom Lagoon, which was connected to the sea through what is now the Jezreel Valley. The floods of the valley came and went depending on long-scale climate change. The Sedom Lagoon^[13] deposited beds of salt that eventually became 2.5 km (1.55 mi) thick.

Approximately two million years ago,^{[citation needed]} the land between the Rift Valley and the Mediterranean Sea rose to such an extent that the ocean could no longer flood the area. Thus, the long lagoon became a landlocked lake. The Sedom Lagoon extended at its maximum from the Sea of Galilee in the north to somewhere around 50 km (30 mi) south of the current southern end of the Dead Sea, and the subsequent lakes obviously never surpassed this expanse. The Hula Depression was never part of any of these water bodies due to its higher elevation and the high threshold of the Korazim block separating it from the Sea of Galilee basin.^[14]

The first prehistoric lake to follow the Sedom Lagoon is named Lake Amora, followed by Lake Lisan and finally by the Dead Sea.^[13] The water levels and salinity of these lakes have either risen or fallen as an effect of the tectonic dropping of the valley bottom, and due to climate variation. As the climate became more arid, Lake Lisan finally shrank and became saltier, leaving the Dead Sea as its last remainder.^[13][14]

Pebbles cemented with halite on the western shore of the Dead Sea near Ein Gedi.

In prehistoric times, great amounts of sediment collected on the floor of Lake Amora. The sediment was heavier than the salt deposits and squeezed the salt deposits upwards into what are now the Lisan Peninsula and Mount Sodom (on the southwest side of the lake). Geologists explain the effect in terms of a bucket of mud into which a large flat stone is placed, forcing the mud to creep up the sides of the bucket. When the floor of the Dead Sea dropped further due to tectonic forces, the salt mounts of Lisan and Mount Sodom stayed in place as high cliffs (see salt dome).

From 70,000 to 12,000 years ago, the lake's level was 100 m (330 ft) to 250 m (820 ft) higher than its current level. This lake, Lake Lisan, fluctuated dramatically, rising to its highest level around 26,000 years ago, indicating a very wet climate in the Near East.^[15] Around 10,000 years ago, the lake's level dropped dramatically, probably to even lower than today's. During the last several thousand years, the lake has fluctuated approximately 400 m (1,300 ft), with some significant drops and rises. Current theories as to the cause of this dramatic drop in levels rule out volcanic activity; therefore, it may have been a seismic event.

§Climate

The Dead Sea's climate offers year-round sunny skies and dry air. It has less than 50 millimetres (2 in) mean annual rainfall and a summer average temperature between 32 and 39 °C (90 and 102 °F). Winter average temperatures range between 20 and 23 °C (68 and 73 °F). The region has weakened ultraviolet radiation, particularly the UVB (erythrogenic rays). Given the heavier atmospheric pressure, the air has a slightly higher oxygen content (3.3% in summer to 4.8% in winter) as compared to oxygen density at sea level.^[16][17] Barometric pressures at the Dead Sea were measured between 796 and 799 mmHg and clinically compared with health effects at higher altitude.^[18] (This barometric measure is about 5% higher than sea level standard atmospheric pressure of 760 mmHg, which is the global ocean mean or ATM.) The Dead Sea affects temperatures nearby because of the moderating effect a large body of water has on climate. During the winter, sea temperatures tend to be higher than land temperatures, and vice versa during the summer months. This is the result of the water's mass and specific heat capacity. On average, there are 192 days above 30C (86F) annually.^[19]

Climate data for Dead Sea
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high °C (°F)	26.4 (79.5)	30.4 (86.7)	33.8 (92.8)	42.5 (108.5)	45.0 (113)	46.4 (115.5)	47.0 (116.6)	44.5 (112.1)	43.6 (110.5)	40.0 (104)	35.0 (95)	28.5 (83.3)	47.0 (116.6)
Average high °C (°F)	20.5 (68.9)	21.7 (71.1)	24.8 (76.6)	29.9 (85.8)	34.1 (93.4)	37.6 (99.7)	39.7 (103.5)	39.0 (102.2)	36.5 (97.7)	32.4 (90.3)	26.9 (80.4)	21.7 (71.1)	30.4 (86.7)
Daily mean °C (°F)	16.6 (61.9)	17.7 (63.9)	20.8 (69.4)	25.4 (77.7)	29.4 (84.9)	32.6 (90.7)	34.7 (94.5)	34.5 (94.1)	32.4 (90.3)	28.6 (83.5)	23.1 (73.6)	17.9 (64.2)	26.1 (79)
Average low °C (°F)	12.7 (54.9)	13.7 (56.7)	16.7 (62.1)	20.9 (69.6)	24.7 (76.5)	27.6 (81.7)	29.6 (85.3)	29.9 (85.8)	28.3 (82.9)	24.7 (76.5)	19.3 (66.7)	14.1 (57.4)	21.9 (71.4)
Record low °C (°F)	5.4 (41.7)	6.0 (42.8)	8.0 (46.4)	11.5 (52.7)	19.0 (66.2)	23.0 (73.4)	26.0 (78.8)	26.8 (80.2)	24.2 (75.6)	17.0 (62.6)	9.8 (49.6)	6.0 (42.8)	5.4 (41.7)
Precipitation mm (inches)	7.8 (0.307)	9.0 (0.354)	7.6 (0.299)	4.3 (0.169)	0.2 (0.008)	0.0 (0)	0.0 (0)	0.0 (0)	0.0 (0)	1.2 (0.047)	3.5 (0.138)	8.3 (0.327)	41.9 (1.65)
Avg. precipitation days	3.3	3.5	2.5	1.3	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.4	1.6	2.8	15.6
% humidity	41	38	33	27	24	23	24	27	31	33	36	41	31.5
Source: Israel Meteorological Service[20]

§Chemistry

Halite deposits (and teepee structure) along the western Dead Sea coast.

Beach pebbles made of halite; western Dead Sea coast.

Until the winter of 1978–79, when a major mixing event took place,^[21] the Dead Sea was composed of two stratified layers of water that differed in temperature, density, age, and salinity. The topmost 35 meters (115 ft) or so of the Dead Sea had an average salinity of 342 parts per thousand (in 2002), and a temperature that swung between 19 °C (66 °F) and 37 °C (99 °F). Underneath a zone of transition, the lowest level of the Dead Sea had waters of a consistent 22 °C (72 °F) temperature and complete saturation of sodium chloride (NaCl).^{[citation needed]} Since the water near the bottom is saturated, the salt precipitates out of solution onto the sea floor.

Beginning in the 1960s, water inflow to the Dead Sea from the Jordan River was reduced as a result of large-scale irrigation and generally low rainfall. By 1975, the upper water layer was saltier than the lower layer. Nevertheless, the upper layer remained suspended above the lower layer because its waters were warmer and thus less dense. When the upper layer cooled so its density was greater than the lower layer, the waters mixed (1978–79). For the first time in centuries, the lake was a homogeneous body of water. Since then, stratification has begun to redevelop.^[21]

The mineral content of the Dead Sea is very different from that of ocean water. The exact composition of the Dead Sea water varies mainly with season, depth and temperature. In the early 1980s, the concentration of ionic species (in g/kg) of Dead Sea surface water was Cl⁻ (181.4), Br⁻ (4.2), SO₄²⁻ (0.4), HCO₃⁻ (0.2), Ca²⁺ (14.1), Na⁺ (32.5), K⁺ (6.2) and Mg²⁺ (35.2). The total salinity was 276 g/kg.^[22] These results show that the composition of the salt, as anhydrous chlorides on a weight percentage basis, was calcium chloride (CaCl₂) 14.4%, potassium chloride (KCl) 4.4%, magnesium chloride (MgCl₂) 50.8% and sodium chloride (NaCl) 30.4%. In comparison, the salt in the water of most oceans and seas is approximately 85% sodium chloride. The concentration of sulfate ions (SO₄²⁻) is very low, and the concentration of bromide ions (Br⁻) is the highest of all waters on Earth.

The salt concentration of the Dead Sea fluctuates around 31.5%. This is unusually high and results in a nominal density of 1.24 kg/l. Anyone can easily float in the Dead Sea because of natural buoyancy. In this respect the Dead Sea is similar to the Great Salt Lake in Utah in the United States.

An unusual feature of the Dead Sea is its discharge of asphalt. From deep seeps, the Dead Sea constantly spits up small pebbles and blocks of the black substance.^[23] Asphalt-coated figurines and bitumen-coated Neolithic skulls from archaeological sites have been found. Egyptian mummification processes used asphalt imported from the Dead Sea region.^[24][25]

§Health effects and therapies

The Dead Sea area has become a major center for health research and treatment for several reasons. The mineral content of the water, the very low content of pollens and other allergens in the atmosphere, the reduced ultraviolet component of solar radiation, and the higher atmospheric pressure at this great depth each have specific health effects. For example, persons experiencing reduced respiratory function from diseases such as cystic fibrosis seem to benefit from the increased atmospheric pressure.^[26]

The region's climate and low elevation have made it a popular center for several types of therapies:

• Climatotherapy: Treatment which exploits local climatic features such as temperature, humidity, sunshine, barometric pressure and special atmospheric constituents
• Heliotherapy: Treatment that exploits the biological effects of the sun's radiation
• Thalassotherapy: Treatment that exploits bathing in Dead Sea water

§Treatment for psoriasis

Climatotherapy at the Dead Sea is an effective therapy for patients with psoriasis,^[27] who benefit from sunbathing for long periods in the area due to its position below sea level and subsequent result that many of the sun's harmful UV rays are reduced.^[28]

§Treatment for rhinosinusitis

Rhinosinusitis patients receiving Dead Sea saline nasal irrigation exhibited significantly better symptom relief compared to standard hypertonic saline spray.^[29]

§Treatment for osteoarthritis

Dead Sea mud pack therapy has been suggested to temporarily relieve pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the knees. According to researchers of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, treatment with mineral-rich mud compresses can be used to augment conventional medical therapy.^[30]

Panorama of the Dead Sea from the Mövenpick Resort, Jordan.

§Fauna and flora

Dead Sea in the morning, seen from Masada

The sea is called "dead" because its high salinity prevents macroscopic aquatic organisms, such as fish and aquatic plants, from living in it, though minuscule quantities of bacteria and microbial fungi are present.

In times of flood, the salt content of the Dead Sea can drop from its usual 35% to 30% or lower. The Dead Sea temporarily comes to life in the wake of rainy winters. In 1980, after one such rainy winter, the normally dark blue Dead Sea turned red. Researchers from Hebrew University of Jerusalem found the Dead Sea to be teeming with a type of alga called Dunaliella. Dunaliella in turn nourished carotenoid-containing (red-pigmented) halobacteria, whose presence caused the color change. Since 1980, the Dead Sea basin has been dry and the algae and the bacteria have not returned in measurable numbers. Recently a group of scientists from Be'er Sheva, Israel and Germany discovered fissures in the floor of the Dead Sea by scuba diving and observing the surface. These fissures allow fresh water to enter the Dead Sea. They sampled biofilms surrounding the fissures and discovered a very significant number of species of Bacteria and Archea.^[31] This new research may change the current dogma that the Dead Sea cannot support life.

Many animal species live in the mountains surrounding the Dead Sea. Hikers can see camels, ibex, hares, hyraxes, jackals, foxes, and even leopards. Hundreds of bird species inhabit the zone as well. Both Jordan and Israel have established nature reserves around the Dead Sea.

The delta of the Jordan River was formerly a jungle of papyrus and palm trees. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus described Jericho as "the most fertile spot in Judea". In Roman and Byzantine times, sugarcane, henna, and sycamore fig all made the lower Jordan valley wealthy. One of the most valuable products produced by Jericho was the sap of the balsam tree, which could be made into perfume. By the 19th century, Jericho's fertility had disappeared.

§Human settlement

Settlements and ways at the south end of the Dead Sea (1823)

There are several small communities near the Dead Sea. These include Ein Gedi, Neve Zohar and the Israeli settlements in the Megilot Regional Council: Kalya, Mitzpe Shalem and Avnat. There is a nature preserve at Ein Gedi, and several Dead Sea hotels are located on the southwest end at Ein Bokek near Neve Zohar. Highway 90 runs north-south on the Israeli side for a total distance of 565 km (351 mi) from Metula on the Lebanese border in the north to its southern terminus at the Egyptian border near the Red Sea port of Eilat.

Potash City is a small community on the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea, and others including Suweima. Highway 65 runs north-south on the Jordanian side from Lebanon down past the Dead Sea to the port of Aqaba.

§Human history

Mount Sodom, Israel, showing the so-called "Lot's Wife" pillar (made of halite like the rest of the mountain)

§Biblical period

Dwelling in caves near the Dead Sea is recorded in the Hebrew Bible as having taken place before the Israelites came to Canaan, and extensively at the time of King David.

Just north of the Dead Sea is Jericho. Somewhere, perhaps on the southeastern shore, would be the cities mentioned in the Book of Genesis which were said to have been destroyed in the time of Abraham: Sodom and Gomorra (Genesis 18) and the three other "Cities of the Plain", Admah, Zeboim and Zoar (Deuteronomy 29:23). Zoar escaped destruction when Abraham's nephew Lot escaped to Zoar from Sodom (Genesis 19:21-22). Before the destruction, the Dead Sea was a valley full of natural tar pits, which was called the vale of Siddim. King David was said to have hidden from Saul at Ein Gedi nearby.

In Ezekiel 47:8-9 there is a specific prophecy that the sea will ".. be healed and made fresh", becoming a normal lake capable of supporting marine life. A similar prophecy is stated in Zechariah 14:8, which says that "Living waters will go out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea (likely the Dead Sea) and half to the western sea (the Mediterranean)..."

§Greek and Roman period

Aristotle wrote about the remarkable waters. The Nabateans and others discovered the value of the globs of natural asphalt that constantly floated to the surface where they could be harvested with nets. The Egyptians were steady customers, as they used asphalt in the embalming process that created mummies. The Ancient Romans knew the Dead Sea as "Palus Asphaltites"^[32] (Asphalt Lake).

King Herod the Great built or rebuilt several fortresses and palaces on the western bank of the Dead Sea. The most famous was Masada, where in 70 CE a small group of Jewish zealots fled after the fall of the destruction of the Second Temple. The zealots survived until 73 CE, when a siege by the X Legion ended in the deaths by suicide of its 960 inhabitants. Another historically important fortress along the western bank was Machaerus where, according to Josephus, John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod Antipas and died.^[33]

Also in Roman times, some Essenes settled on the Dead Sea's western shore; Pliny the Elder identifies their location with the words, "on the west side of the Dead Sea, away from the coast ... [above] the town of Engeda" (Natural History, Bk 5.73); and it is therefore a hugely popular but contested hypothesis today, that same Essenes are identical with the settlers at Qumran and that "the Dead Sea Scrolls" discovered during the 20th century in the nearby caves had been their own library.

Josephus identified the Dead Sea in geographic proximity to the ancient Biblical city of Sodom. However, he referred to the lake by its Greek name, Asphaltites.^[34]

Various sects of Jews settled in caves overlooking the Dead Sea. The best known of these are the Essenes of Qumran, who left an extensive library known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.^[35] The town of Ein Gedi, mentioned many times in the Mishna, produced persimmon for the temple's fragrance and for export, using a secret recipe. "Sodomite salt" was an essential mineral for the temple's holy incense, but was said to be dangerous for home use and could cause blindness.^[36] The Roman camps surrounding Masada were built by Jewish slaves receiving water from the towns around the lake. These towns had drinking water from the Ein Feshcha springs and other sweetwater springs in the vicinity.^[37]

§Byzantine period

Intimately connected with the Judean wilderness to its northwest and west, the Dead Sea was a place of escape and refuge. The remoteness of the region attracted Greek Orthodox monks since the Byzantine era. Their monasteries, such as Saint George in Wadi Kelt and Mar Saba in the Judaean Desert, are places of pilgrimage.

§Modern times

World's lowest (dry) point, Jordan, 1971

Explorers and scientists arrived in the area to analyze the minerals and research the unique climate. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, hundreds of religious documents dated between 150 BCE and 70 CE were found in caves near the ancient settlement of Qumran, about a mile inland from the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea (presently in the West Bank). They became known and famous as the Dead Sea Scrolls. A golf course named for Sodom and Gomorrah was built by the British at Kalia on the northern shore.

The world's lowest roads, Highway 90, run along the Israeli and West Bank shores of the Dead Sea, along with Highway 65 on the Jordanian side, at 393 m (1,289 ft) below sea level.

The first major hotels were built in nearby Arad, and since the 1960s at the Neve Zohar resort complex. On the Jordanian side, six international franchises have opened seaside resort hotels near the King Hussein Bin Talal Convention Center, along with resort apartments, on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea.^[38]

§Industry and tourism

View of salt evaporation pans on the Dead Sea, taken in 1989 from the Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-28). The southern half is separated from the northern half at what used to be the Lisan Peninsula because of the fall in level of the Dead Sea.

View of the mineral evaporation ponds almost 12 years later (STS-102). A northern and small southeastern extension were added and the large polygonal ponds subdivided.

§British mandate period

In the early part of the 20th century, the Dead Sea began to attract interest from chemists who deduced the sea was a natural deposit of potash (potassium chloride) and bromine. The Palestine Potash Company was chartered in 1929, after its founder, Siberian Jewish engineer and pioneer of Lake Baikal exploitation, Moses Novomeysky, worked for the charter for over ten years. The first plant was on the north shore of the Dead Sea at Kalya and produced potash by solar evaporation of the brine. Employing Arabs and Jews, it was an island of peace in turbulent times.^[39] The company quickly grew into the largest industrial site in the Middle East,^{[citation needed]} and in 1934 built a second plant on the southwest shore, in the Mount Sodom area, south of the 'Lashon' region of the Dead Sea. Palestine Potash Company supplied half of Britain's potash during World War II, but ultimately became a casualty of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

§Israel

Following the 1948 war, the Kalya plant in the West Bank was shut down, having been dismantled by the Palmach prior to their retreat. Operations restarted at the southern Sodom plant in 1952, and have continued to the present.^[40] The remnants of the Palestine Potash Company were nationalised and Dead Sea Works Ltd. was established in 1952 in its stead as a state-owned company to extract potash and other minerals from the Dead Sea. In 1995, the company was privatized and it is currently owned by Israel Chemicals.

From the Dead Sea brine, Israel produces (2001) 1.77 million tons potash, 206,000 tons elemental bromine, 44,900 tons caustic soda, 25,000 tons magnesium metal, and sodium chloride.

Israeli companies generate around US$3 billion annually from the sale of Dead Sea minerals (primarily potash and bromine) and from other products, which are derived from Dead Sea Minerals.^[41]

Israel has 15 hotels along the Dead Sea shore, generating total revenues of $291 million in 2012. Most Israeli hotels and resorts on the Dead Sea are on a six kilometer stretch of the southern shore.^[41]

§West Bank

The Palestinian Dead Sea Coast is about 40 kilometers long. The Palestinian economy is unable to benefit from Dead Sea chemicals due to restricted access, permit issues and the uncertainties of the investment climate.^[41] The World Bank estimates that a Palestinian Dead Sea chemicals industry could generate $918m incremental value added per year, "almost equivalent to the contribution of the entire manufacturing sector of Palestinian territories today".^[41]

The World Bank estimates that a Palestinian Dead Sea tourism industry could generate $290 million of revenues per year and 2,900 jobs.^[41] However, Palestinians have been unable to obtain construction permits for tourism-related investments on the Dead Sea.^[41] According to the World Bank, Officials in the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities state that the only way to apply for such permits is through the Joint Committees established under the Oslo Agreement, but the relevant committee has not met with any degree of regularity since 2000.^[41]

§Jordan

On the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea, Arab Potash (APC), formed in 1956, produces 2.0 million tons of potash annually, as well as sodium chloride and bromine. The plant is located at Safi, South Aghwar Department, in the Karak Governorate.

Jordanian Dead Sea mineral industries generate about $1.2 billion in sales (equivalent to 4 percent of Jordan’s GDP). The Jordanian shore has 5 hotels that are classified as either 5-star or 4-star, generating total revenues of $128 million in 2012.^[41]

§Extraction

Both companies use extensive salt evaporation pans that have essentially diked the entire southern end of the Dead Sea for the purpose of producing carnallite, potassium magnesium chloride, which is then processed further to produce potassium chloride. The ponds are separated by a central dike that runs roughly north-south along the international border. The power plant on the Israeli side allows production of magnesium metal (by a subsidiary, Dead Sea Magnesium Ltd.).

Due to the popularity of the sea's therapeutic and healing properties, several companies have also shown interest in the manufacturing and supplying of Dead Sea salts as raw materials for body and skin care products.

§Recession and environmental concerns

The dwindling water level of the Dead Sea

Since 1930, when its surface was 1,050 km² (410 sq mi) and its level was 390 m (1,280 ft) below sea level, the Dead Sea has been monitored continuously.^[42] In recent decades, the Dead Sea has been rapidly shrinking because of diversion of incoming water from the Jordan River to the north. The southern end is fed by a canal maintained by the Dead Sea Works, a company that converts the sea's raw materials. From a water surface of 395 m (1,296 ft) below sea level in 1970^[43] it fell 22 m (72 ft) to 418 m (1,371 ft) below sea level in 2006, reaching a drop rate of 1 m (3 ft) per year. As the water level decreases, the characteristics of the Sea and surrounding region may substantially change.

The Dead Sea level drop has been followed by a groundwater level drop, causing brines that used to occupy underground layers near the shoreline to be flushed out by freshwater. This is believed to be the cause of the recent appearance of large sinkholes along the western shore—incoming freshwater dissolves salt layers, rapidly creating subsurface cavities that subsequently collapse to form these sinkholes.^[44]

Gully in unconsolidated Dead Sea sediments exposed by recession of water levels. It was excavated by floods from the Judean Mountains in less than a year.

In May 2009 at the World Economic Forum, Jordan announced its plans to construct the "Jordan National Red Sea Development Project" (JRSP). This is a plan to convey seawater from the Red Sea near Aqaba to the Dead Sea. Water would be desalinated along the route to provide fresh water to Jordan, with the brine discharge sent to the Dead Sea for replenishment. The early planning called for developer and financier selection to be completed by year's end, with detailed design to begin in early 2010, and water delivery by 2017. Israel expressed its support and will likely benefit from some of the water delivery to its Negev region. Some hydro-power will be collected near the Dead Sea from the dramatic change in elevation on the downhill side of the project.^{[citation needed]}

At a regional conference in July 2009, officials expressed increased concerns about the declining water levels. Some suggested various industrial activities around the Dead Sea might need to be reduced. Others advised a range of possible environmental measures to restore conditions. This might include increasing the volume of flow from the Jordan River to replenish the Dead Sea. Currently, only sewage and effluent from fish ponds run in the river's channel. Experts also asserted a need for strict conservation efforts. They also said agriculture should not be expanded, sustainable support capabilities should be incorporated into the area and pollution sources should be reduced.^[45]

Year	Water level (m)	Surface (km2)
1930	-390	1050
1980	-400	680
1992	-407	675
1997	-411	670
2004	-417	662
2010	-423	655
2014	-429	600

Sources: Jewish Virtual Library,^[46][47] Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research,^[48] Jordan Valley Authority.^[49]

In October 2009, the Jordanians announced accelerated plans to extract around 300 million cubic meters of water per year from the Red Sea, desalinate it for use as fresh water and send the waste water to the Dead Sea by tunnel, despite concerns about inadequate time to assess the potential environmental impact. According to Jordan's minister for water, General Maysoun Zu'bi, this project could be considered as the first phase of the Red Sea–Dead Sea Project.^[50]

In December 2013, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement for laying a water pipeline to link the Red Sea with the Dead Sea. The pipeline will be 110 miles (180 km) long and is estimated to take up to five years to complete.^[51] In January 2015 it was reported that the level of water is now dropping by three feet a year.^[52]

Views in 1972, 1989, and 2011 compared^[53]

Beyond ‘romance’ of organics: 6 ignored sustainable practices organic proponents should embrace

Steve Savage | March 16, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Project

 

Original link:  http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/16/beyond-the-romance-of-organics-6-ignored-sustainable-farming-practices-that-organic-proponents-should-embrace/

 

 

 

Pretty picture, but such practices are not sustainable when it comes to soil erosion and soil health.

Almost any farmer or consumer could agree on the following ideals for our agricultural system:
“Farming in ways that are best for us, best for the environment, and best for providing an adequate food supply.”

I believe that these are the goals and ideals of organic customers and organic farmers, and I share them. If organic could deliver on these “triple best” goals, I would be among its strongest supporters, but I don’t believe that it can.
The organic rules are based on the assumption that “natural” is always best. That assumption originated in a pre-scientific era, and it does not hold up to what we have learned over the last century. The “natural” definition is great for marketing purposes, but often not the optimal criterion to guide farming practices.

Original contribution of ‘Organic Movement’

The important contribution of organic early in the last century was its focus on improving soil health/quality. The pioneers of the organic movement worked out certain farming methods using “natural fertilizers” to mitigate the nutrient-depleting and soil-degrading effects of the plow-intensive farming of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. The organic focus on natural also meant that it eschewed some of the early pesticides, which were later found to be problematic for health and the environment. For a period of time, organic may have been, in fact, the best farming option for us and for the environment.

Since then we have learned more and more about environmental systems, genetics, microbiology and human health. Based on that, increasingly rigorous regulatory processes were put in place and farming practices have changed dramatically.  Sometimes organic growers were in the lead in making those changes. But increasingly, the “natural” constraints of organic are making it difficult or even impossible for organic farmers to implement what we now know to be best for us, best for the environment, or best for the food supply. I’d like to describe six specific examples of those limitations.

1. Nitrogen fertilization

One of the greatest challenges of farming is providing a growing crop with the necessary mineral nutrients when it needs them. When nutrients are free in the soil and not being actively absorbed by
the growing crop, they have the potential to move into groundwater, or to wash off into surface water.  If they do, they can become health issues and/or foster algal blooms that cause “dead zones” in bodies of water. Excess nitrogen in soils can lead to the generation of the potent greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide. There are specific conditions under which natural fertilizers like manures or compost can reduce these problems, but there are also conditions under which the uncontrolled, nutrient release pattern from natural fertilizers can be quite problematic.

Depending on how and when they are delivered, “synthetic” fertilizers can be deployed in ways that do a better job of providing the crop’s need without as much risk of these forms of pollution. For example, drip irrigation systems are very efficient ways to deliver fertilizers but cannot be used for most forms of organic fertilizers. Triple-best farming requires the ability to use both natural and synthetic fertilizers in the right settings and with the right delivery methods. There is even the possibility of making synthetic nitrogen using renewable energy.

2. Low risk pesticide use

What makes a pesticide safe for us or for the environment is not related to whether it is “natural.”  Some of the most toxic chemicals known are produced in nature. The reason that the American consumer can have confidence in the safety of crop pesticide use is that the EPA demands a great deal of data for its multi-dimensional risk assessment for any chemical, natural or not, that is going to be used for pest control. These tests involve multiple dimensions of human toxicity as well as

Based on CalPIP Top 100 Acre and Pound Listings for 2012. Options approved for organic tend to be high use rate materials like sulfur, copper salts or parffinic oils – hence they represent 73% of total use based on pounds but only 17.8%of treated area. Those materials are used by both organic and conventional farmers. We don’t have good data on exactly how
much is being applied in each system.

assessments of environmental fate and environmental impact. Some, but not all “natural products” meet those standards. Some, but not all, synthetic products meet those standards.

The details of how synthetic or natural pesticides can be used are then dictated in “label requirements” specific to the properties of that chemical (e.g. how long before the crop is harvested, what worker protection standards are needed, what considerations are needed relative to sensitive environmental settings…). It is this regulatory process, not naturalness, which ensures environmental safety and residue levels that are safe even by very conservative standards.  In many cases the “synthetic” options are the very best choice among the approved options.

3. Fully integrated pest control

Organic farmers have been early adopters of many pest control options other than classical, chemical pesticides (genetic resistance, biological controls, crop rotations, natural pest enemies, and pheromone-confusion…), but at least since the 1970s, this has also been a growing component in “conventional agriculture” called Integrated Pest Management(IPM). In many crop systems, modern synthetic pesticides are one important component in these mixed approaches.

Baby spinach growing in coastal California

For example, there is a problem in the current, California spinach crop, which has around 50% organic production. There is a disease of that crop called downy mildew and it is transmitted from season to season via survival in the seed. Through conventional breeding, it has been possible to develop spinach that is resistant to that fungus. The conventional growers also use a relatively benign synthetic fungicide as a seed treatment against the disease – thus they are using an integrated program of genetics and a fungicide.

For the organic production, the seed treatment is not allowed. Without the multiple control strategy, the fungus has rapidly mutated to get around the genetic resistance, and six good sources of resistance have been lost within a few years. Each time, the newly virulent strains have emerged first in the organic fields. This gap in the IPM program is now putting the entire California spinach industry at risk. There are similarly precarious situations in other crops.

4. Biorationals

It takes a lot of money to do the testing needed to commercially develop and insure the safety of any new agricultural pesticide – more than $200MM. That level of spending is appropriate to meet our modern safety standards, but it means that the commercial development of any new synthetic pesticide can only be justified for a very large market within the agricultural realm. For problems that only affect a small part of the food supply, it is not possible to justify the investment in a new option.  Fortunately, the EPA has a special, lower cost registration process for low toxicity chemicals that already occur within the food supply.

A good example of this is a new product for preventing sprouting in stored potatoes. The compound

Sprouts of potatoes are actually rather toxic, so don’t eat them

3-decen-2-one already occurs in at low levels in potatoes as well as in mushrooms, tuna fish, yogurt and soy.  An identical, synthetic version of the chemical can now be used with stored potatoes and it is a better, safer option than the old sprout inhibitor, CIPC. Because of a purist interpretation of the organic rules, the new sprout inhibitor cannot be used for organic potatoes. Instead they are treated repeatedly with clove oil – a more costly and less effective option with no other “triple best” advantages.

5. Soil building

Starting in 1960, farmers have been working out farming systems that do not require physical tillage of the soil.  When these are combined with the use of cover crops and GPS guided equipment use, it

No-till soybeans following corn

is possible to raise the important row crops (wheat, barley, canola, soybeans, corn, cotton…) in no-till or minimum-tillage systems that improve soil health and quality. It is also an important “best” system to prevent soil erosion, reduce water pollution risk, and sequester carbon to mitigate climate risk.

This system is much more like the way soils are built in natural prairie habitats and is not dependent on outside inputs of organic matter as is the case in the typical organic systems.  In order for these new options to be pursued efficiently on a large scale, herbicides are necessary as are controls for certain pests which are favored in a non-tillage system. Organic growers don’t have many of the practical tools to manage these issues, and so they are ironically unable to fully or cost-effectively pursue these best, reduced tillage protocols.

6. Genetic improvements

Genetic modification of crop plants has always been an important means of making farming better able to meet our food supply goals.  In recent history it has become possible to make more precise genetic modifications using the tools of genetic engineering – tools which were in fact drawn from nature. For example,  restriction endonuclease enzymes occur naturally and cut DNA at specific target sites, and the Ti plasmid of Agrobacterium which inserts DNA into chromosomes of plants. 

Diagram of CRISPR system via Wikipedia

In the last few years, even more precise and efficient tools for genetic modification have been discovered within a group of ancient microbes we call the Archaea (e.g. the CRISPR-Cas9system). As deployed within the unprecedented and rigorous regulatory framework for “GMO Crops”, these tools have become an important means through which triple-best crop improvements can be made.  In her book “Tomorrow’s Table,” UC Davis molecular biologist Pamela Ronald has made an articulate argument for why these tools should be embraced for organic farming. But such suggestions are not even considered by the fierce defenders of the organic rules.  Even when genetic engineering is used to transfer something like a gene from wild potatoes into commercially relevant potatoes, the resulting triple-best crop will not be available to organic farmers (as in the case of the new, Innate 2 potato from Simplot)

Missed opportunity for organic proponents to embrace best practices 

There was a window of opportunity in 1990 when the organic rules could have been updated to use science-based criteria rather than the restrictive obligation of natural. In that year, the US Congress tasked the USDA with formulating a national organic standard, and that research-oriented agency was inclined to bring modern knowledge into their rule-making process. Such an approach was vigorously opposed by key elements of the existing organic advocacy community. When the national standard emerged in final form in 2000,  at had only enshrined the “natural requirement” which continues to limit the ability of farmers to pursue many triple-best strategies such as those I’ve described above.

Unfortunately, some of those who market organic products, and some who advocate for organic, continue to make unsupportable claims that organic is best for us and for the environment. Many consumers accept these claims and believe that they are doing the right thing by paying the premium prices for organic items.  If we really had a food supply that was only safe and responsible for those able and willing to pay higher prices, that would represent a huge failing of public policy. Fortunately, that is not the case.  Consumers and farmers with high ideals for the food supply can support farming in the ever-innovative mainstream system as it continues to find ways to farm that are best for us, best for the environment.

The biggest biotech discovery of the century will make designer babies and genetically edited humanhttp://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-make-a-genetically-edited-human-2015-3?utm_content=buffer49feb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffers possible

• Kevin Loria
• Original link:  http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-make-a-genetically-edited-human-2015-3?utm_content=buffer49feb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 
Alex Mit/Shutterstock

The idea that you can modify genetic code before a person is born is becoming more and more realistic.

Designer babies, genetically engineered to be super-smart, disease free, and physically fit, are the stuff of science fiction. But science fiction often predicts reality.

The ability to edit human genes and, consequently, actually engineer a human being from birth, is something science is far closer to achieving than many may think.

A fascinating new deep dive from MIT Technology Review explains just how close this technology is and why at this point, even though there are still scientific hurdles that need to be cleared, it's almost more a question of ethics than science: what kind of genetic edits to a person are acceptable, especially before they are even born?

The simple and marginally more accepted use of this technology would be to make sure that no one is born with a genetic condition like Huntington's disease, which causes an incurable breakdown of the brain. The scarier and seemingly sci-fi scenario is that genetic editing could allow an elite group to create children who are naturally smarter, stronger, and healthier than everyone else in society.

Jennifer Doudna, a Berkeley biologist who co-discovered the key technology that will theoretically make genetic engineered children possible, is so concerned about what this technology could do that in January she held a meeting to try to get American scientists to pause research before it's irreversible. But with studies being carried out all over the globe and rumors of experiments editing human embryos already said to be under review for publication in China, the fact that this will happen seems inevitable.

"Most of the public," Doudna told MIT Tech Review's Antonio Regalado, "does not appreciate what is coming."

Where the science is now

 
Cell, Niu et al.Researchers achieved precise gene modification using CRISPR in these monkeys.

The key to gene editing that Doudna helped discover three years ago is CRISPR-Cas9, a technology from the natural world that she and Emmanuelle Charpentier harnessed and that is now already in wide use. Regalado describes CRISPR as a tool that allows biologists to basically "search-and-replace" components of DNA, meaning they can rewrite specific segments of something's genetic code.

Don't want the code that's related to a particular disease? This will allow us to rewrite it.

That can't be done with perfect accuracy yet: CRISPR currently successfully deletes target code 40% of the time and switches it out correctly about 20% of the time. It can make other unwanted changes too, meaning that now, it's largely unreliable and inconsistent. But researchers expect these rates to improve.

Despite these imperfections, CRISPR has already been used in livestock like cows and pigs and even in monkeys, which showed last year for the first time that targeted genetic editing could be done successfully in primates.
Livestock have been engineered to be healthier, while in the monkeys, researchers modified genes that regulate metabolism, immune cell development, and stem cells.

The video below explains how CRISPR works:

Researchers are developing ways to use CRISPR to treat genetic conditions like sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, and are also experimenting with genetic changes that could eliminate viruses like HIV. Even though viruses aren't genetic diseases, certain gene edits have been shown to prevent the virus from spreading to new cells and to "destroy inactive HIV residing in the human genome by altering critical viral genes," according to a look at genome surgery in MIT Tech Review. Experts even think these types of changes could eventually help treat complex conditions with genetic components like schizophrenia and autism, according to MIT Tech Review — though we still need to understand those conditions better.

Still, editing adult genes to cure conditions or even hacking the adult genome to make stronger, smarter humans (something George Church, a leading researcher in the field at Harvard, thinks will eventually be possible) doesn't change the genes that'll be passed on to any children that person has. As Regalado explains, these adult changes might replace the faulty genes in adult blood or bone cells, but that wouldn't affect the sperm and egg cells, which are what pass DNA on to the next generation.

In order to pass those fixed or augmented cells on, you'd have to edit a human embryo or the sperm and egg (or the adult cells that produce sperm and eggs, as another MIT Tech Review story points out) used to create the embryo — something called "germ line editing."

Designer babies

 
Kevin Dooley / Flickr

Editing an embryo wouldn't just remove a health problem — or, in the dystopian future model, create an augmented human. It would leave lasting changes that are passed on, something that many scientists say is desirable in the case of awful health problems, but much more questionable in the case of enhancements.

"It makes you ask if humans should be exercising that kind of power," Doudna told Regalado, of MIT Technology Review. "If germ line editing is conducted in humans, that is changing human evolution."

Of course, some would say that that's the point, that humanity needs to be improved and that we should hasten the process. Regalado quotes bioethicist John Harris, who says "the human genome is not perfect," and "it's ethically imperative to positively support this technology."

Most researchers told Regalado that they wouldn't do embryo enhancements other than the ones that would remove disease, at least not at this point — but he also says that many stopped answering his questions after he'd asked about the existing research in that area.

So how close are we?

Some skeptical researchers told Regalado that even though "we know it's possible," it's still far too error prone to be considered practical to use in editing human embryos for now.

However, progress is being made. Researchers told Regalado that using CRISPR right now, they probably have to edit 20 embryos to make a monkey in the way that they want. Guoping Feng, a researcher at MIT's McGovern Institute (who made the video explaining CRISPR above), thinks that making a genetically edited human — either without disease or augmented — will be possible in 10 to 20 years.

Other researchers said the key would be editing the DNA of stem cells using CRISPR, then growing and replicating those cell into human egg or sperm cells — something that isn't possible yet, but scientists "think they will soon be able" to do, according to MIT Tech Review. Those new sperm and egg cells could be joined to create an embryo. In that case, researchers could make sure the embryo they'd created had the specific changes they wanted and no unwanted other substitutions before creating an embryo.

Even though the technology required to turn stem cells into those egg and sperm cells is still being developed, stem cell expert Jonathan Tilly at Northeastern told Regalado that his lab is already trying to edit egg cells with CRISPR. Once CRISPR can be used more stably and once the stem cell puzzle is solved — no small thing — that'll be the key, Tilly suggested, to actually growing an animal from a stem cell.

Tilly said that once this is done with animals, it'll prove that it can be done, but at that point you'd want to think long and hard before doing such a thing with humans.

"'Can you do it?' is one thing," he said, but then you ask "'Would you do it? Why would you want to do it? What is the purpose?' As scientists we want to know if it's feasible, but then we get into the bigger questions, and it's not a science question, it's a society question."