![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In this article the author analyses how scientific ideas about anthropogenic nutrient load in the sea changed in Finland and Sweden from the 1950s to the early 1970s. In the 1950s, marine scientists considered an artificial increase in the volume of nutrients beneficial to the oligotrophic Baltic Sea. This conception was challenged in the late 1960s by the Swedish hydrologist Stig Fonselius. He theorized that nutrient discharge from municipalities and factories had set in motion a vicious cycle: the growth in biomass consumed oxygen in the depths of the sea, which in turn fed the accumulation of nutrients in the productive surface layer. This process led to eutrophication, which is now widely considered to be the most serious environmental problem in the Baltic Sea. However, Finnish marine scientists divided into two camps vis-à-vis Fonselius’ theory of anthropogenic eutrophication. So-called alarmist scientists argued that the Baltic Sea was a victim of industrial development and demanded stricter wastewater treatment. Conversely, eutrophication sceptics insisted that the observed environmental changes originated from natural cycles. The author argues that this division stemmed from the different perceptions of the scientists in regard to the role of the marine environment for the benefit of human society.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. For cyanobacterial blooms as a natural phenomenon in the Baltic Sea, see Furman and Niemi, ‘Itämeren suojelutarve kasvaa’, 67–8; and, Myrberg, Leppäranta, and Kuosa, Itämeren fysiikka, tila ja tulevaisuus, 183.
2. For Carson’s role in launching environmental studies in Sweden and Finland, see Räsänen, ‘Converging Environmental Knowledge’, 159–81.
3. For the human impact on oceans, see for example, Matthews, Smith, and Goldberg, Man’s Impact on Terrestrial and Oceanic Ecosystems.
4. For the allusion to the Mediterranean case, see Haas,Saving the Mediterranean, 111.
5. Laakkonen and Parpola, ‘Rehevöitymiskäsitysten historiaa’, 86–91. Laakkonen and Parpola’s article is one of the very few historical studies that addresses the discussion regarding the impact of nutrients in open Baltic Sea areas.
6. Bolster, ‘Opportunities in Marine Environmental History’; and Hughes, What is Environmental History?, 111–12.
7. See, for example, Laakkonen, Vesiensuojelun synty; Laakkonen and Laurila, ‘The History of Urban Water Management in the Baltic Region: Special Issue’, European Water Management 2 (1999): 29–73; and Laakkonen and Laurila, ‘Man and the Baltic Sea, part II’.
8. Elmgren. ‘Understanding Human Impact on the Baltic Ecosystem’ and Fonselius, ‘History of Hydrographical Research in Sweden’.
9. Pfister. ‘The “1950s Syndrome” and the Transition from a Slow-Going to a Rapid Loss of Global Sustainability’.
10. Erkola, ‘Water Supply and Sewage in Finland’, 111; Fonselius, Hydrography of the Baltic Deep Basins III, 75; Grigg. The World Food Problem 1950–1980, 126–7; Laakkonen, ‘Waves of Laws and Institutions: The Emergence of National Awareness of Water Pollution and Protection in the Baltic Sea Region over the Twentieth Century’, 305–6, 308, 311; Niemelä, ‘Hevosista traktoreihin – Lannasta väkilannoitteihin’, 219–21; Ponting, A Green History of the World, 247; and Räsänen. ‘Itämeren ympäristökriisi ja uuden merisuhteen synty Suomessa 1960-luvulta 1970-luvun puoliväliin’, 109–11.
11. Myrberg, Leppäranta, and Kuosa, Itämeren fysiikka, tila ja tulevaisuus, 189; Gren, Turner, and Wulff, ‘Introduction’, 3.
12. See, for example, Cajander, Ranta- ja merivesitutkimuksia Helsingissä v. 1947–1962; and Leino-Kaukiainen, ‘Vesistöistä viemäreiksi. Vesiensuojelu Suomessa 1945–1970’, 35–9.
13. Rozwadowskim, The Sea Knows No Boundaries, 154.
14. Hela, ‘Meritieteen kehitys ja nykyiset tehtävät’, 64.
15. Hela, ‘Meritieteen kehitys ja nykyiset tehtävät’, 63–4; Hela, ‘Talassologeista ja heidän työmaastaan merestä’. For international discussion among oceanographers, see Hamblin, Oceanographers and the Cold War, 112–13, 121.
16. Voipio, ‘Meri liikkuu’.
17. Voipio, ‘Meren mahdollisuudet jätevesien puhdistuksessa’ and Voipio, ‘Meren saastuminen. Saastumisongelman tarkastelu erityisesti Itämeren kohdalla’.
18. For the Odum brothers, Eugene and Howard, and their concept of ecology, see Worster, Nature’s Economy, 309–14.
19. Hela, ‘Utilization of Physical Oceanography in the Service of Marine Fisheries’.
20. Hela. ‘Itämeren tutkimus’, 291.
21. Sjöblom, ‘Muuttuvat rannikkovetemme ja jätteiden purkaminen mereen’, 36; Finnish Institute of Marine Research to Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry; Voipio to E.J. Manner; Juuti and Rajala, Veden vuosisata. Espoon vesihuolto 1930-luvulta 2000-luvulle, 189–95. Other cities with similar plans of conveying wastewater to the outer see included Helsinki, Kotka, Porkkala and Oulu.
22. For longer chimneys as a solution to air pollution, see for example, Radkau, Nature and Power, 244–5.
23. Voipio. ‘Itämeren likaantumistutkimukset’. This manuscript was most likely written in 1966 or 1967, since the text closely resembles his published works written in these years. A similar argument was put forward by Ilmo Hela. See Hela, ‘Merien käyttö ja suojelu’, 66.
24. Voipio, ‘On the Total Phosphorus Content in the Northern Baltic Sea’; Voipio and Särkkä, ‘Kokonaisfosforin taso Suomen rannikkovesissä’, 2–4. Stratification is produced by salinity. Water with a greater quantity of salinity is also denser. Consequently, it sinks to the bottom. The so-called halocline zone lies between the more saline bottom water and less saline surface water. The halocline zone prevents much of the water exchange between the two layers, and was also thought to prevent nutrient welling from the deeps.
25. Voipio, ‘Merentutkimus ympäristöntutkimuksen osana’, 40.
26. On the stability of the Baltic Sea, see also Hans Luther, ‘Suomen osuus Itämeren tutkimuksessa’, 64.
27. See Steinberg, The Social Construction of the Ocean, 138–9, 169–72.
28. Fonselius, ‘History of Hydrographical Research in Sweden’, 125–6.
29. In subsequent decades it was demonstrated that the role of nitrogen in regulating biological production in the sea had been underestimated. On the role of nitrogen in the Baltic Sea, see Elmgren, ‘Understanding Human Impact’, 227; Jouko, Haaveilua ja vedenpesua, 232–3. On the general discussion, see, for example, National Research Council, Clean Coastal Waters, 67–70.
30. Fonselius, Hydrography of the Baltic Deep Basins I–III.
31. The Swedish marine scientist Ragnar Elmgren has also underlined the importance of Fonselius’ work on Baltic marine science. Elmgren, ‘Understanding Human Impact’, 226.
32. Fonselius, Hydrography of the Baltic Deep Basins I, 21–30.
33. Fonselius,Hydrography of the Baltic Deep Basins II, 24–6.
34. Ibid., 26–8.
35. Fonselius, Hydrography of the Baltic Deep Basins III, 50.
36. Fonselius, ‘On Eutrophication and Pollution in the Baltic Sea’, 25.
37. Fonselius, Hydrography of the Baltic Deep Basins III, 91.
38. Dybern, ‘Pollution in the Baltic’, 16–17. The theory on the correlation between rising salinity and deoxygenation was later proved false. See Elmgren, ‘Understanding Human Impact’, 227.
39. Voipio and Hannerz, ‘Östersjön försämras när den förbättras’, 11–16. It should not confuse the reader that Voipio and Hannerz, who embodied the opposite sides in the discussion on the human impact on the marine environment, appeared as authors in the same article. This was not a joint article, but a feature in the magazine, in which both scientists had an opportunity to present their own stand in separate section.
40. Luther, ‘Itämeri – Jätemeri’, 123.
41. Ibid. See also, Luther, ‘Östersjön – Lortsjön?’, 14–15.
42. Niemi and Pesonen. ‘Kasviplanktonin perustuotanto Suomenlahden trofia-asteen ilmentäjänä’, 1. See also Åke, ‘Förändringar i skärgårdsvattnen’, 47–8.
43. Lassig and Niemi, ‘Meribiologian nykyisiä suuntauksia’.
44. Bagge, ‘The State of Pollution of the Baltic Sea’, 55.
45. Tulkki. ‘Itämeren likaantuminen’, 138–9. See also p. 136.
46. Voipio, ‘Luonnonvesien likaantuminen’, 98; and Voipio, ‘Merentutkimus ympäristöntutkimuksen osana’, 41.
47. Hela, ‘Marine Productivity and Pollution’, 261.
48. Koroleff, ‘Yleiskatsaus Itämeren veden kiertoon’, 71. See also Koroleff, ‘En översikt av de kemiska förhållandena i Östersjön’, 58.
49. Homer-Dixon, The Upside of Down, 132–3.
50. Voipio, ‘Pollution and Hydrographic Features of the Baltic’; Voipio, ‘Suomenlahden pilaantumisongelma. Yleiskatsaus’; Voipio, ‘On the Cycle and the Balance of Phosphorus’, 50; Voipio, ‘Meren saastuminen’.
51. Voipio, ‘Meren saastuminen’; Voipio, ‘Luonnonvesien likaantuminen’, 97–8; Voipio, Merentutkimus ympäristöntutkimuksen osana’, 40–1.
52. Aarno Voipio. ‘On the Estimation of Material Budget in the Baltic Sea’ Voipio, ‘Merentutkimus ympäristötutkimuksen osana’, 41. See also, Heikki, Niemistö, and Voipio, ‘Variations of Redox Conditions in the Recent Sediments of the Gotland Deep’, 43–6.
53. Fonselius, On the Stagnant Conditions in the Baltic, 88.
54. See, for example, Voipio, ‘Itämeri eilen, tänään, huomenna’, 6–7; Aarno Voipio, ‘Itämeren tila ja kansainvälinen tutkimusyhteistyö’, 238–40; and Aarno Voipio, ‘Itämeren tila’, 14.
55. For Mannheim’s theory of generations, see, for example, Pilcher, ‘Mannheim’s Sociology of Generations’, 481–95.
56. For a wider discussion on the Finnish environmentalism in the late 1960s and early 1970s, see Räsänen, ‘Converging Environmental Knowledge’.
57. Inglehart, Silent Revolution, 45, 48–50. Interestingly, in Inglehart’s study, many older respondents valued the environment more than younger cotemporaries. This may be due to the phrasing of questions, which in Inglehart’s enquiry emphasized aesthetic experiences. Since the publication of this research it has been demonstrated in numerous studies that modern environmentalism appealed specifically to educated young adults.
58. Hela, ‘Merien käyttö ja suojelu’, 64–6.
59. Voipio, ‘Meren saastuminen’; and Ryhänen and Voipio, Vesien suojelun ja käytön ekologinen tutkimus, 9.
60. Voipio, ‘Itämeren pilaantumisen ongelmat’, 6; Voipio, ‘Miten Itämeren pilaantumisastetta voidaan arvioida’, 7–9; Voipio, ‘Suomenlahden pilaantumisongelma’; Voipio, ‘Meren saastuminen’; Voipio and Hannerz, ‘Östersjön försämras när den förbättras’, 11; and Voipio, ‘Pollution and Hydrographic Features’.
61. Steinberg calls that this latter attitude towards the sea as a postmodern capitalist construction. Steinberg, The Social Construction of the Ocean, 165–77.
62. Earle, A Message of the Oceans, 227.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Tuomas Räsänen
Tuomas Räsänen is post-doctoral researcher in the Department of European and World History and Turku Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of Turku, Finland. He is an environmental and animal historian, who specializes in the anthropogenic environmental changes in the latter part of the 20th century.
Address: Department of European and World History, 20014 University of Turku, Turku, Finland. [email: [email protected]]