Artificial reefs

I dropped a line to David Miliband,
the DEFRA minister, yesterday, along the following lines;

'Artificial reefs - could they provide an elegant solution to waste disposal?

Are you aware of the power of artificially created reefs in the sea, to boost biodiversity and provide sanctuary for marine wildlife, at a time when it much of this wildlife is under the threat of over-exploitation?

Artificial reefs can be created out of large man-made objects like decommissioned ships and planes (and no doubt trains and large vehicles) that are disposed of on the sea bed a suitable distance offshore, after any potentially toxic components have been removed. Over time these structures that have been dumped become colonised by marine wildlife of all kinds, starting with smaller life forms and ending with fish.

Contrary to what one might expect, disposing of waste of this kind at sea whilst appearing to be the opposite of ?green?, in fact delivers the ?greenest? of outcomes, as well as hiding the waste from human view and reducing energy inputs into its disposal.

I understand the artificial reef movement is alive and well in the USA and Canada, and I?m wondering whether the Government might consider looking at expanding the creation of such reefs in UK coastal waters.'

It seems to me that creating reefs in the sea from suitable waste is a no-brainer. But why have we only one 'living reef' in UK waters?

It works in a small way in rivers and canals already. Look at all those shopping trolley swims that are stuffed with chub...

And every bottle and can that's littering a riverbed will be giving sanctuary to some invertebrate life or other.....

When I was working in the States in North Carolina in the 80?s there was a program on the TV about huge reefs made off the South Carolina coast with millions of old tiers. It was a remarkably short time before they attracted huge shoals of bass which were feeding off the millions of smaller fish. I thought it a brilliant idea, it might be interesting to know if after 20 years there are any adverse effects.

Dave you letter misses the point about what the 3 Rs are all about!

The 3 Rs being Reduce, Recycle and Reuse.

All man-made material are extracted from the earths finite resources, many of which are either running out, or have environmental impacts greater than the usefulness the end product they provide. Rain forest destruction (hardwood timber) being a case in point!

The products you list can all be successfully recycled and the material reused, and so they should, as that reduces the global impact of quarrying for ore on ever increasing fragile habitats, in more and more remote regions of the world. The easy less environmental impacting stuff has long gone!

The problem mankind faces is disposing of the ?toxic stuff? as you put it. We have to a greater degree slammed Pandora?s box lid firmly shut on sea disposal of that and the last thing we want or need is to open it even slightly.

We owe it to future generations to use the finite resources the earth has in a sustainable way, without over-exploitation, as we?ve done in the past.
We have no excuses for this now, we know the consequences, and can likely predict accurately, the outcomes of our actions on those generations to come if we don?t!

Sorry Dave to take out of the chain of utility, perfectly good reusable material(s) and dump it/them in the sea is short-sighted at the best.

Let's face it, back in the 80's we were warned of an impending ice-age. Now in the noughties we have global warming. Which is the correct prediction?

Governments are busting a gut to find new ways to add to our tax burden, this is yet just another. Wait twenty years and they will have to find another, even less plausible excuse. The scientists can't agree on Global Warming and those that espouse it are generally in the pay of their respective government. Conspiracies?? Let's not go there.

Man made reefs would add to the biodiversity of the global ecosystem. At least some of those micro-organisms would feast upon the rest of the crap that has already been and continues to be dumped into the oceans of the world by the very countries who pay their scientists fortunes to sex-up their reports.

Me? I just wanna go fishing!

Of course you're right Phil but as we are not, right at this moment in time, going to recycle or have the means to do it, one could consider dumping millions of tires into the sea to make an artificial reef just another way of saving a possible future resource. At least the environment, namely the fish, would get a bit more use out of it than dumping it in landfill site. Another use of an artificial reef is it can reduce coastal land erosion.
Gary, the scientist do agree that the world is getting warmer it just how much we humans are contributing to the rate at which it is happening that they can't agree on and as Phil has said regardless of global warming we shouldn't be wasting finite resources

Glad someone else is takign up the battle 33 years after I had a go, a Labour Government then and it got nowhere!

A good idea is to sink all the foreign cheating trawlers and redundant English trawlers in preservation areas to serve as a reminder of those who screwed it all up for us.

now in complete contrast to phil. i reckon we should recycle one thing at sea.
That one thing being people.

it's the most environmentally friendly way of disposing of em once they're dead.

lets look at the alternatives.

burial in the ground.
advantages, feeds the worms,
disadvantages. ties up a piece of land for aeons and has a tendency to get you dug up again by some crazed archaeologist years later.
then they tie up yet another piece of land reburying the bones.


cremation uses loads of gas and causes global warming, but better than burial at least.


burial at sea, feeds the fishies. and they would have to close off a chunk of sea bed so that the trawlers couldn't dredge you up again. so it automatically creates an area of protected sea bed which gets a regular feeding. it's recycilg at it's best.

Nice one Captain, you'd have to watch the tides though!!!!!!

It's a shame the debate about this is spread over two threads. It never works to post two threads about the same issue. It just dilutes both of them.

Gary where did I mention anything about global warming or climate change?

As John points out, I based my point on over-exploitation of the world's finite recourses. Which are running out....FACT! Perhaps you think that is another world's govt. conspiracy theory to increase taxes?

A rudimentary understanding about market forces will tell you, as something becomes less plentiful the price goes up. The rarer it becomes the higher the price?.diamonds, gold, etc as examples.

John I have serious misgivings about tyre reefs given the chemicals and compounds used to manufacture them. Many of which are known endocrine disrupters and are likely to breakdown in salt water and over time.
BTW the landfilling of tyres across the EU is about to come to an end under more stringent EU regulations on landfilling.

Phil it?s not the bulk tire you have to worry about it?s the millions of tones of micro particles of rubber from tier ware that end up in our river systems and eventually the sea.
Re the breakdown of rubber in salt water I?m not sure if once the surface has been colonized or covered in calcium that the decomposition stops? I suppose it?s a matter of balancing the pros and cons of having a reef that?s mildly toxic to not having a reef at all. The tire reefs off the coast of South Caroline have been there long enough to probably indicate possible concerns re endocrine disrupters.