Why Topical fish trade is a serious problem to the environment?
339834
It's because they are also collecting coral.  They break of large chunks of coral to sell to tropical fish tanks.  The loss of this coral can destroy the coral reefs.  The tropical fish live off of the coral, so with less coral around, the environment supports less fish.  With constant collection eventually all of the coral and fish will be gone.  AND THEN.... after the coral reefs are destroyed there will be nothing really protecting the beaches around that area.  The coral reefs put up a kind of barrier that deadends the ocean's power.  With that gone, the ocean water will be able to "attack" everything after the reef closer to the beach.  That beach area also had its ecosystem setup around the deadened ocean, so when the reef is gone, the ocean will come in at full force and then destroy that area too.
393256
There are a number of things to consider:\n1) Persistence - the time chemical substance remain in the ecosystem before degrading.  Elements are persistent in the extreme, most do not change during the lifetime of the solar system.  They only change by nuclear processes (fission or fusion).  Some organic substances, such as DDT, persist for decades or centuries simply because there are no efficient mechanisms for their degradation. \n\n2) Bioaccumulation - does the substance accumulate in the the tissues of organisms exposed in the environment due to \na) biocenentration - the tendency of a substance to be found at higher concentration in the organism that in the environment (i.e. higher in fish tissue than in the water they swim in) and \nb) biomagnification - the tendency of a substance to be found at higher concentration in organisms higher up the food chain (higher trophic levels).  There are some substances that bioconcentrate in fish, but do not biomagnify because the things that eat the fish can efficiently metabolize the substance.  \n\n\nand 3) Transportation/exposure - the tendency of substance move from the location it is released in the ecosystem.  More volatile substances are more easily transported around the globe (hence the many problems associated with mercury).  Give a long enough lifetime, most things will be cycled throughout the global ecosphere (to the poles, oceans, all land masses, etc.). \n\nThere are a handful of POPs (persistent organic pollutants-- of which DDT is one of the most infamous, see http://www.pops.int) which persist in the environment for decades or centuries.  The key to minimizing the risk from these substances is to stop their release into the environment so that even the very slow degradation can eliminate them from the ecosystem.\n\nTo sum up, DDT (and other POPs) is very persistent, it bioaccumulates up the food chain (so high-level predators like eagles and polar bears have higher concentrations in their tissues) and is fairly easily transported.
331403
I'd say pretty dang important.\nYou've got competition between plants for resources, like Nitrogen and Phosphorus.  You've got competition between birds for nesting sites.  Fish also play a role here; those that have gills better adapted to salty water can take oxygen out of the water more efficiently than fish that have gills more adapted to freshwater.
874044
I do not believe that it is the fish itself that is the problem. There is a disease that can be passed if the bacteria get from the fish into a skin cut on a hand or foot or whatever. There are accounts of deaths from rockfish caught and handled without gloves. Check out the bacteria carried on them.
1055387
deforestation removes the protective layers of the earth ,and the soil dries out by the sun ,if the land has been used for agriculture ,the now dry and dusty soil impregnated with agro chemicals (.including pesticides) ,are easily washed into the rivers by the rains.\nhere the mud effects aquatic life because the waters PH levels are  raised in acidity.\nwhich can affect sexuality as well as kill marine life.\nso most of the Damage is in the rivers and coastal areas and lagoons.\nby the time it all reaches the seas things are too diluted to have a marked difference.\n\nbut there are always limits to tolerance .\nif things go on long anough and in increasing quantities ,the life in the sea will also be affected .it already has with the red killer algae(Red tide),a result of chemical contamination
677256
I don't really know.... my guesses would be regulating the fish population. I think a negative effect might be that fact that because they're an endangered creature wherever they build their nests, they can't be moved regardless of how inconvienet it is to people.
383254
Among the most dangerous of all water pollutants is fuel oil. Oil spills from tankers at sea or leaks from underground storage tanks on land are very difficult to control as oil tends to spread very fast, affecting a large area in a very short time. They are a major menace to the environment as they cause severe damage to surrounding ecosystems.
194730
I think it has something to do with the fact that the fish are not grounded to the earth so the current just travels around them not through them.
1150778
It's not exactly a moral issue.  I don't think God's punishing us for our sins or something.  If the scientists are correct, and we assume that global warming is occurring, *and* it is due to pollution, etc., then I think it's our duty to protect the environment to help decrease the amount of toxins we constantly spew into the air and water.
934263
bikesamt, hi!\n\nyou must remember that every type of industry creates different kind of damage to the environment.  for example a company that uses lot of ground water (like coke, pepsi, kingfisher) causes problems with salinity in the water reservoir, and pollution seepage into the water system.\n\nthe following are common ways that companies create pollution:\n\n1. Power Consumption : large offices tend to use more power, and thus the State needs to generate more power to feed their power-hungry ways.  \n2. Traffic : with more and more employees in their premises, these people need to travel long distances, and every single vehicle creates a lot of pollution.\n3. Erosion of Green Belt : Industrial areas are often located in what used to be green cover, or green belts of forests or wasteland.  the plants and animal life are razed to make way for the corporates and their factories.\n4. Conspicuous Consumption : they make a lot of money, and pay their employees well.  these employees have a lot of money, and so spend it on other luxury goods that are not nature-friendly.  instead of man being at harmony with nature, he starts destroying it through his desire for luxury.  this is an indirect way to pollute.\n5. Sewage : large manufacturing units generate billions of litres of sewage and other pollutants that are either released into rivers, streams, lakes, oceans or the air.  this has a very adverse effect.\n6. Air-conditioning : the huge AC units required to cool offices, etc., need a lot of power, and they generate indirect pollution.  also, non-CFC based coolants are very expensive, and few companies make that investment.  CFC destroys the earth's ozone layer.\n7. Building Design : modern offices are designed with lot of glass and metal so that the buildings look "sexy".  but glass is a poor insulator, and air-conditioning needs to work for more time to maintain the temperature inside.  this creates indirect pollution.\n\nthese are the few things i could think of at the moment... \n\nhope it helped... if you need more ideas, drop me a line, and i could be able to help you out.\n\nenjoy!
895388
of course not. The lobster market is one of the fastest growing markets.  Yet, it is kept in check by regulations. Only so many can be caught and it in no way hurts the population. Actually helps it. Less lobsters on the ocean bottom means healthier lobster. Not having to compete for food.
454734
It's politics but it's also the incredible egotism human beings have that we are at the center of everything. Sure, we need to be concerned about pollution. We have to breathe the air and drink the water. Human beings have clearly had an adverse effect on local ecosystems, but whether we are powerful enough to warm up the whole planet is an open question. I am afraid that all the focus on global warming is taking attention away from environmental issues where there is a clearer cause and effect.
504703
No, it isn't.\nhttp://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/fish-safety-704-fish-tuna-mercury.htm
1327
There is this really great book called EXTINCTION by the Ehrlichs(?)...which starts out with a beautiful analogy about the environment. It starts off with this guy who removes rivets (screws) from an airplane wing so that he could sell them for profit. Each rivet/screw represents a unique species that plays an important role in our ecosystem. The loss of each one has an adverse effect on the whole structure. It is true that such effects may or may not have an immediate recognizable effect on us but that does not mean that it is not happening. Also, we humans, have proven that we are really self centered that we do not recognize the damage that we are doing unless it hits us in the face. There are countless examples of chain reactions in the ecosystem due to a loss of an integral species. For example, (although I am no longer certain about the details) due to the misuse of a pesticide by farmers in rural Peru, an outbreak of more resistant  pests evolved. The farmers in reaction started to use more pesticides which affected the other species that naturally feed on and control these pests. The situation got so bad that it escalated to such an extent that cats which controlled the rat population died out because they got the higher dose of the poisonous pesticide in their system. Finally, (believe it or not) they had to fly cats to the area and dropped them from helicopters...thus it did rain cats that day in Peru.
1184308
the surrounding area that is hit is temporaily electrified (no more than a second or so) this is due to the fact that the sheer size of the ocean, and the fact that water dicipates electricity so quickly.  There really isn't any thing out of the ordinary cept the poor fish that was caught in the affected area might be floating.
630429
Almost all countries have this problem ; some big , some small.\nIn many cities in Asia the sewage water disposal system is very badly managed. They are not treated effectively before it is allowed to be discharged into rivers or seas. Some do not have the treatment plant and in some the plants are not maintained propery.\nNear the butcheries where the hides and skins are washed and proceesed , in sugar industries the molasses, in dyeing industries the wastages etc etc are polluting the ground water resources.Earlier the film industry used to pollute the ground water ,.\nMany chemical industries the toxiv wastes pollute the water sources.\nI remember my child hood days when we used to drink the free flowing river waters with our hands. No more now.
417391
1. Global warming of the surface layers of the oceans reduces the upward transport of nutrients. \n\n2. Plankton growth becomes unstable when the supply of nutrients is reduced. \n\n3. This has a negative impact on the food chains of the oceans  - demograghic species shifts occur in fish who are reliant on plankton for nutrition. In turn, fish who feed on THOSE fish are either forced to move to new feeding grounds or are themselves in danger of extinction.\n\n4. This in turn impacts on the marine food chain available to humans, putting strain on resources elsewhere (more reliance on crops and alternative forms of proteins, which may not be asgood for us). Thus gobal warming could store up a future of disease for mankind.\n\n5. Plankton also acts (along with rainforests) as the earth's 'filter' so a reduction in plankton also has an impact on the uptake of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the oceans. Hence more greenhouse gasses are in the atmosphere because there are fewer plankton to absorb them. In addition, the few plankton that are left become saturated.\n\n6. Scientists speculate that eventually global warming will cause the collapse of the plankton ecosystem and, when this happens, all food chains leading up from plankton will be in danger of extinction.