# The Panama canal Is 100 Years Old, Has It Caused Any Ecological Disasters?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [September 4, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912 "2015-09-04T16:52:21Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/21 "2015-09-05T19:20:44Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#):
>
> The big driver has been the growth in the size of container ships. In the early days of containers the ships fit through the canal. Now they don’t.
The biggest ones don’t, but a lot of ships, called [Panamax,](http://www.edwardredlich.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/cargo-ship-panamax-panama-canal.jpg) are built to the precise dimensions of the existing locks.
> [@](#):
>
> So if we can dock the ship, offload it, railroad the containers to the other side, and reload another ship faster than the time to wait + sail the canal, it becomes more efficient overall to do so.
>
> The new and improved canal which can accommodate more and much larger ships will alter the balance between canal transits and portage-cargo-via-rail transits. But it won’t eliminate the need or desire for the rail system.
Yes, there are a number of factors involved in whether it is more efficient for a container ship to transit the canal, or offload the containers and ship them across via the railroad. One can also break down an original cargo and send it to multiple destinations by offloading and reloading on other ships.
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> And while a sea-level canal was basically impossible across Panama, wasn’t there another proposed site in Nicaragua that would have been much closer to sea level?
The Nicaragua Canal also needs to be a lock canal, since the route transits Lake Nicaragua, which is actually slightly higher in elevation than Lake Gatun that forms the center section of the Panama Canal.
> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> The Nicaragua canal proposal looks like it is viable, but given the Chinese stock market, unlikely.
Given that it will require something like five times the length of excavation of the Panama Canal, and is supposed to be wider and deeper, I can’t see it being viable economically on it’s own terms. It can only be done if the Chinese government supports it as a prestige project. Given the present economy, that seems doubtful.
---
### Author:  [@Anita\_Dayoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anita_Dayoff)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2015, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/22 "2015-09-05T22:55:07Z")
The introduction of lionfish as a destructive, invasive species has been attributed to to ship ballast water taken up in the Pacific and then discharged in the Caribbean.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/23 "2015-09-05T23:36:54Z")
> [@Anita\_Dayoff](#):
>
> The introduction of lionfish as a destructive, invasive species has been attributed to to ship ballast water taken up in the Pacific and then discharged in the Caribbean.
Where did you hear that? I’ve never heard any such thing. Ballast water is a pretty toxic environment and not really a suitable environment for fish of any size. The organisms that are transferred this way are mainly invertebrates that don’t have large oxygen requirements.
Lionfish first appeared in Atlantic waters in the 1990s off Florida, possibly in part due to fish that escaped from aquaria during Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but probably also due to released pets. They have spread rapidly southward into the Caribbean and also northward along the eastern US coast. In Panama, they first appeared in northwestern Panama and then spread eastward along the coast, not near the mouth of the Panama Canal.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/24 "2015-09-06T01:38:36Z")
> [@Dune vs. Islam](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dune-vs-islam/95713/11):
>
> …So if we can dock the ship, offload it, railroad the containers to the other side, and reload another ship faster than the time to wait + sail the canal, it becomes more efficient overall to do so…
You are assuming too close an association between time and efficiency. Changes of transport mode tend to be personnel and equipment expensive. Likely it would be cheaper and more efficient to not change mode and just have the ship wait for some period. In the transport industry there is an oft quoted allegation that it is cheaper to load a ship at Long Beach, sail it around the world and discharge it back at Long Beach than it is to load the ship, leave Port, immediately return, discharge and repeat.
---
### Author:  [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/25 "2015-09-06T03:34:54Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> You are assuming too close an association between time and efficiency. Changes of transport mode tend to be personnel and equipment expensive. Likely it would be cheaper and more efficient to not change mode and just have the ship wait for some period. In the transport industry there is an oft quoted allegation that it is cheaper to load a ship at Long Beach, sail it around the world and discharge it back at Long Beach than it is to load the ship, leave Port, immediately return, discharge and repeat.
I don’t understand this. The difference in this supposedly illustrative anecdote is that in case one, the ship travels thousands of miles, in case two, it travels a few miles. How is case one supposed to be cheaper? It simply cannot be true, or there’s an element missing.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/26 "2015-09-06T04:01:00Z")
> [@TSBG](#):
>
> I don’t understand this. The difference in this supposedly illustrative anecdote is that in case one, the ship travels thousands of miles, in case two, it travels a few miles. How is case one supposed to be cheaper? It simply cannot be true, or there’s an element missing.
I don’t understand this either.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/27 "2015-09-06T04:02:22Z")
“…and repeat”.
In other words, it’s cheaper to
a) load, sail around the world and discharge
than it is to
b) 2 x (load, leave port, immediately come back, discharge)
The cost is all in the handling.
---
### Author:  [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/28 "2015-09-06T04:03:32Z")
> [@TSBG](#):
>
> I don’t understand this. The difference in this supposedly illustrative anecdote is that in case one, the ship travels thousands of miles, in case two, it travels a few miles. How is case one supposed to be cheaper? It simply cannot be true, or there’s an element missing.
The “repeat” at the end is the clue, I think. The repeat adds another loading and unloading of the ship, so the point is that sailing the ship around the world is cheaper than one load/unload cycle at the port.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/29 "2015-09-06T04:07:11Z")
> [@Ale](#):
>
> The “repeat” at the end is the clue, I think. The repeat adds another loading and unloading of the ship, so the point is that sailing the ship around the world is cheaper than one load/unload cycle at the port.
Ok. So two load/unloads are more expensive than one load/unload and sailing around the world. It would be simpler just to say one load/unload costs more than sailing around the world outside of the loading/unloading costs.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/30 "2015-09-06T04:11:13Z")
I didn’t put it very well, sorry guys. And it’s not just load/unload. It’s also port dues, tugs, pilots etc. And of course in the train across the isthmus idea it’s worse because it’s also load onto train/unload from train.
---
### Author:  [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/31 "2015-09-06T06:53:25Z")
> [@Ale](#):
>
> The “repeat” at the end is the clue, I think. The repeat adds another loading and unloading of the ship, so the point is that sailing the ship around the world is cheaper than one load/unload cycle at the port.
Plus two port charges / waiting time.
I crossed the canal on a cargo ship when I was pregnant with my daughter. I hope to be able to cross it again some day without having to go to the toilet every 10 mins.
---
### Author:  [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/32 "2015-09-06T10:13:33Z")
> [@Carl\_Pham](#):
>
> Two other unintentional and very successful wildlife preserves are the Korean DMZ and Chernobyl.
That’s not an uncommon phenomenon. Other examples are the [German-German border](http://www.esterbauer.com/db_detail.php?buecher_code=DDR_E) and the buffer area around the [Hanford Reservation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Reach_National_Monument). The area around Fukushima Dai-ichi will also become one.
The US has a number of areas reserved for military training that are sort of like this. They’re not perfect, since they get messed up some by bombing practice or maneuvers with tanks, but they have little permanant development or farming.
> [@Colibri](#):
>
> The biggest ones don’t, but a lot of ships, called [Panamax,](http://www.edwardredlich.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/cargo-ship-panamax-panama-canal.jpg) are built to the precise dimensions of the existing locks.
Also, there are now some New Panamax ships that are the precise dimensions of the new locks they’re building.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/33 "2015-09-06T16:20:05Z")
> [@dtilque](#):
>
> The US has a number of areas reserved for military training that are sort of like this. They’re not perfect, since they get messed up some by bombing practice or maneuvers with tanks, but they have little permanant development or farming.
There are some extensive areas in the former Canal Zone that were used as bombing ranges when they were on US bases where development is pretty much precluded due to unexploded ordinance. (It’s particularly difficult to clear it in tropical forest areas without cutting down the forest.)
> [@](#):
>
> Also, there are now some New Panamax ships that are the precise dimensions of the new locks they’re building.
Also known as [Post-Panamax](http://www.githy.com/img/panamax_vs_post-panamax.jpg) ships.
---
### Author:  [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/34 "2015-09-06T23:17:46Z")
> [@Lumpy](#):
>
> The canal is not a sea level man-made strait: it’s a series of locks that raise and lower ships over the spine of the isthmus, using the fresh water mentioned upthread. One reason a sea-level canal has never been constructed is precisely because of the concern over invasive species.
So, did the sea level Suez Canal cause any problems? Did Red Sea fish move into the Mediterranean?
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/35 "2015-09-06T23:39:03Z")
> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> So, did the sea level Suez Canal cause any problems? Did Red Sea fish move into the Mediterranean?
Yes. It’s known as[Lessepsian migration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lessepsian_migration).
> [@](#):
>
> Invasive species originated from the Red Sea and introduced into the Mediterranean by the construction of the canal have become a major component of the Mediterranean ecosystem, and have serious impacts on the Mediterranean ecology, endangering many local and endemic Mediterranean species. To this day, about 300 species native to the Red Sea have been identified in the Mediterranean Sea, and probably others are yet unidentified. In recent years, the Egyptian government’s announcement of its intentions to deepen and widen the canal have raised concerns from marine biologists, fearing this will worsen the invasion of Red Sea species into the Mediterranean, facilitating the crossing of the canal for additional species.[2]
---
### Author:  [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/36 "2015-09-06T23:53:12Z")
> [@Colibri](#):
>
> I don’t understand this either.
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> b) 2 x (load, leave port, immediately come back, discharge)
>
> The cost is all in the handling.
What I don’t understand is _ **this** _. Why would anyone load a ship, leave port, and then suddenly just return to the the port only to unload it.
Because that’s what you’re saying here. Why would anyone do that in the first place?
Of course that’s not only more expensive–it’s also pointless.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 6, 2015, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/37 "2015-09-06T23:55:21Z")
> [@guizot](#):
>
> What I don’t understand is _ **this** _. Why would anyone load a ship, leave port, and then suddenly just return to the the port only to unload it.
>
> Because that’s what you’re saying here. Why would anyone do that in the first place?
>
> Of course that’s not only more expensive–it’s also pointless.
It’s just an example to illustrate the relative costs. He’s not suggesting that anyone actually does this.
---
### Author:  [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)
#### Post date: [September 7, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/38 "2015-09-07T16:39:10Z")
> [@Colibri](#):
>
> Yes. It’s known as[Lessepsian migration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lessepsian_migration).
Thanks for the info-has it goen the other way too? Med fish entering the Red Sea?
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 7, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/39 "2015-09-07T17:50:21Z")
> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> Thanks for the info-has it goen the other way too? Med fish entering the Red Sea?
According to [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lessepsian_migrants), only three have gone the other way.
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [September 8, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912/40 "2015-09-08T14:10:40Z")
> [@Carl\_Pham](#):
>
> Two other unintentional and very successful wildlife preserves are the Korean DMZ and Chernobyl.
Yes. See Alan Weisman’s excellent _The World Without Us_ for more: [The World Without Us - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Without_Us)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-panama-canal-is-100-years-old-has-it-caused-any-ecological-disasters/729912.md?page=1)