Speaker 1: Hey, you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My
Speaker 1: name is Robert Lamb.
Speaker 2: And I am Joe McCormick, and it is Saturday. We
Speaker 2: are going into the vault for part two of our
Speaker 2: series The Arsy Blows about whale spout. This one originally
Speaker 2: published April twenty seventh, twenty twenty three. Let's see if
Speaker 2: this whale spout burns our skin off.
Speaker 3: Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My
Speaker 1: name is Robert Lamb.
Speaker 2: And I'm Joe McCormick, and we're back with part two
Speaker 2: in our series on that most charismatic anatomical feature of whales,
Speaker 2: the blowhole, also known as the spiracle or the spout.
Speaker 2: If you are just joining us and you haven't heard
Speaker 2: Part one, on a hot back in the timeline and
Speaker 2: listen to that one first. That's where we go over
Speaker 2: a lot of the basic science of the blowhole. But
Speaker 2: as I mentioned last time, this is a subject that
Speaker 2: I was tempted to look into because there is a
Speaker 2: whole chapter about the spout in the classic nineteenth century
Speaker 2: American novel Moby Dick by Herman Melville. Now If you've
Speaker 2: ever read Moby Dick, you'll probably recall that it is
Speaker 2: not all high speed whale chases and heroics by Queek
Speaker 2: Wegg and mad sermons of vengeance by Captain ahab An.
Speaker 2: Awful lot of the book is made up of chapters
Speaker 2: that could be considered strange, thoughtful little essays on objects
Speaker 2: both technological and biological. Technological subjects like various pieces of
Speaker 2: whaling equipment and things on ships and biological subjects like
Speaker 2: the various parts of a sperm whale's body. And one
Speaker 2: of the latter chapters is called the Fountain. It concerns
Speaker 2: the blowhole, and I thought this was this would make
Speaker 2: an interesting subject for us, in particular because the chapter
Speaker 2: raises a number of practical controversies about the biology of
Speaker 2: whale spouts, as well as some tantalizing but questionable claims
Speaker 2: about sprays of blubbery venom from the hole. Now, among
Speaker 2: the primary controversies that concern the narrator Ishmael in this
Speaker 2: chapter is the question what is it exactly that shoots
Speaker 2: out of the whale's spout? What are the plumes that
Speaker 2: whaling ships used to locate these animals out on the
Speaker 2: high seat, And of course these are still you know,
Speaker 2: people looking for the whale blow? Is still what like
Speaker 2: whale watchers today would use to look for these animals?
Speaker 2: Is it a towering jet of water blasting as if
Speaker 2: from a fire hose, as it is often depicted, I'd say,
Speaker 2: most often depicted, or is it nothing more than gas,
Speaker 2: vapor or mist? And to get us started here, I
Speaker 2: want to read from the this chapter in Moby Dick
Speaker 2: articulating this first question. Are you all right if I
Speaker 2: read this?
Speaker 1: Rob go for it?
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, this is what Ishmael says. You have seen
Speaker 2: him spout? Then declare what the spout is? Can you
Speaker 2: not tell water from air? My dear sir, In this
Speaker 2: world it is not so easy to settle these plain things.
Speaker 2: I have ever found your plain things the naughtiest of all.
Speaker 2: And as for this whale spout, you might almost stand
Speaker 2: in it and yet be undecided as to what it is.
Speaker 2: Precisely the central body of it is hidden in the snowy,
Speaker 2: sparkling mist enveloping it. And how can you certainly tell
Speaker 2: whether any water falls from it?
Speaker 1: When?
Speaker 2: Always, when you are close enough to a whale to
Speaker 2: get a close view of his spout, he is in
Speaker 2: a prodigious commotion, the water cascading all around him. And
Speaker 2: if at such times you should think that you really
Speaker 2: perceived drops of moisture in the spout, how do you
Speaker 2: know that they are not merely condensed from its vapor,
Speaker 2: Or how do you know that they are not those
Speaker 2: identical drops superficially lodged in the spout whole fissure which
Speaker 2: is countersunk into the summit of the whale's head. For
Speaker 2: even when tranquility swimming through the midday sea in a
Speaker 2: calm with his elevated humps sun dried as a dromedaries
Speaker 2: in the desert, even then, the whale always carries a
Speaker 2: small basin of water on his head. As under a
Speaker 2: blazing sun, you will sometimes see a cavity in a
Speaker 2: rock filled up with rain.
Speaker 1: Whoaoa, whoa, whoa, this kind of went off the rails. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and here what.
Speaker 2: You do not agree that whales always have a pool
Speaker 2: of water on top of them, like a rock filled
Speaker 2: up with rain.
Speaker 1: Right, Or that they keep their elevated humps sun dried
Speaker 1: as a camel's in the desert. Yeah, that is.
Speaker 2: A good cause. I don't know if there's anything to
Speaker 2: that claim or not, Like, would a whale ever keep
Speaker 2: a part of its body consistently exposed over the surface
Speaker 2: or do they? I mean, what I feel like I've
Speaker 2: seen most of the time is repeatedly going on and
Speaker 2: then coming back up to breathe and then returning correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I think there'll be a hint of
Speaker 1: this in one of the sources I refer to in
Speaker 1: a bit concerning depictions and iconography of whales, which very
Speaker 1: often still do picture the whale as having a large
Speaker 1: portion of its head above the water, as if that's
Speaker 1: just how it rides around. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Now, we already discussed discussed this question to some extent
Speaker 2: in the last episode, and the consensus of experts, marine biologists,
Speaker 2: and just whale watchers that we were reading last time
Speaker 2: seemed to be that what comes out of the whales
Speaker 2: blowhole is not primarily water. It is not a jet
Speaker 2: like from a fire hose, but it is the explosive
Speaker 2: exhalation of gas from the whale's lungs, and to be clear,
Speaker 2: that can be quite explosive, because when a whale breathes out,
Speaker 2: especially after it has been under for a long time,
Speaker 2: it nearly totally collapses its lungs. It is like a
Speaker 2: blast of breath, and that excellent can create a very
Speaker 2: watery looking blow for several reasons. First of all, the
Speaker 2: exhaled breath contains vapor, which condenses into mist and droplets
Speaker 2: when it leaves the warmer environment of the whale's lungs
Speaker 2: and airways and enters the colder environment of the atmosphere above,
Speaker 2: similar to how you can see your own breath on
Speaker 2: a cold day. Then, of course there's also some droplet
Speaker 2: content in the whale's breath that is just mucus being exhaled,
Speaker 2: kind of like when we sneeze. And then there's probably
Speaker 2: also some splashing of sea water, which may happen if
Speaker 2: the exhalation begins before the blowhole breaks the surface of
Speaker 2: the water, so some water is just getting sort of
Speaker 2: splashed up by the blast, or if there was some
Speaker 2: amount of seawater trapped in the airways robbed. Is that
Speaker 2: about the gist of it, you think?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, And like I say, from my family's trip
Speaker 1: down to Mexico to observe the gray whales and their lagoons,
Speaker 1: very much the cave with those exhalations that occur below
Speaker 1: the surface of the water. Those can be quite explosive
Speaker 1: and create what feels like a fountain next to you
Speaker 1: in the water.
Speaker 2: But that does not mean the whale spout is shooting
Speaker 2: a jet. It is breathing out, and that breath is gas,
Speaker 2: though it contains probably some mucus droplets and bits of water.
Speaker 1: Now of note, I've run across various descriptions, both in
Speaker 1: literature and in just you know, discussions of whale behavior
Speaker 1: of the spout with a rainbow within it. You know,
Speaker 1: the spout mist goes up into the air and you
Speaker 1: can see the reflection, the refraction and the dispersion of
Speaker 1: light in the water droplets. I don't have much to
Speaker 1: say about that other than it is neat to see,
Speaker 1: and you've certainly seen it see that. It has captured
Speaker 1: people's imaginations over the years, and you can find various
Speaker 1: photos of this today from whale watchers. Rob.
Speaker 2: When you mentioned this, did you know that this actually
Speaker 2: connects to the final paragraph of this chapter in Moby Dick.
Speaker 1: Moby Dick was coming up in my searches, and I've
Speaker 1: never actually read Moby Dick. I've only seen the film adaptations,
Speaker 1: but I did suspect that Melville also touched on this.
Speaker 2: I actually he writes about it quite beautifully, so if
Speaker 2: you don't mind it. In the last paragraph, he says,
Speaker 2: and how nobly it raises our conceit of the mighty
Speaker 2: misty monster. To behold him solemnly sailing through a calm,
Speaker 2: tropical sea, his vast, mild head overhung by a canopy
Speaker 2: of vapor engendered by his incommunicable contemplations. And that vapor,
Speaker 2: as you will sometimes see it, glorified by a rainbow,
Speaker 2: as if Heaven itself put its seal upon his thoughts.
Speaker 2: For do you see, rainbows do not visit the clear air.
Speaker 2: They only irradiate vapor. True science fact. And so through
Speaker 2: all the thick mists of the dim doubts in my mind,
Speaker 2: divine intuitions now and then shoot in kindling my fog
Speaker 2: with a heavenly ray.
Speaker 1: That's beautiful. Yeah, And really, I mean, this is what
Speaker 1: it's like to be in the company of whales. Like
Speaker 1: the idea that Heaven is glorifying them with a rainbow
Speaker 1: does not feel hyperbolic to me having been in their presence,
Speaker 1: Like being in the presence of a whale invites hyperbole
Speaker 1: because it's just such an overwhelming experience.
Speaker 2: Haven't had the experience myself, but I can't disagree. It
Speaker 2: seems quite true to most observers who write of it.
Speaker 2: But I want to come back to this misconception, the
Speaker 2: idea that the whale spout shoots a jet of water
Speaker 2: like from a fire hose. Do we have any idea
Speaker 2: like where does this misconception come from? How far back
Speaker 2: does it go? And like why were people saying this?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting to try and tease this apart getting
Speaker 1: into these older descriptions of whales and older understandings of
Speaker 1: whale behavior and biology. You know, there's a lot we're
Speaker 1: still unraveling about wales today. But historically there was a
Speaker 1: great deal that wasn't known about these creatures, and they
Speaker 1: were frequently the subject of myth, legend and folklore, and
Speaker 1: and even people who are trying to, you know, skeptically
Speaker 1: understand them were often having to depend on the word
Speaker 1: of sailors and second and third hand accounts of what
Speaker 1: they do. And then you throw whalers into the mix,
Speaker 1: and of course, you know that also skews things in
Speaker 1: different directions. But they were, you know, generally, they were
Speaker 1: often interpreted as fish, as monsters, as gods, as shape shifters,
Speaker 1: and more. Now concerning whale blow or whale spout in particular,
Speaker 1: there are a few main myths and misconceptions yea to discuss,
Speaker 1: you know, first hitting on this one about the about
Speaker 1: the spout being a jet of water. Again, this is
Speaker 1: something that not only do you find in old bestiaris
Speaker 1: and woodcuts, some of those old maps. You see these
Speaker 1: fabulous like beat twaals with two you know, almost like Martian,
Speaker 1: old school Martian style blowholes on the top of their
Speaker 1: head that are depicted just spouting big jets of water
Speaker 1: like their fire engines.
Speaker 2: They have almost horns made of water or like antinnae.
Speaker 1: Yes and then just poking around. If you have your
Speaker 1: smartphone with you and you pull up, pull up somebody
Speaker 1: in there, do you know a text? And if you
Speaker 1: go into throwing some whale emojis, chances are, I don't know,
Speaker 1: if your phone's like mine, you'll have two to choose from.
Speaker 1: One is a more thankfully scientifically accurate whale, but the
Speaker 1: other is what we've seen a million times and emojis
Speaker 1: and clip art. It is a cartoon whale spouting a
Speaker 1: fountain out of its single blowhole on the top of
Speaker 1: its head.
Speaker 2: The same way it is most off and drawn with
Speaker 2: the fountains splitting in a kind of fork two ways.
Speaker 1: Yeah, which, as we discussed in the previous episode, you know,
Speaker 1: the spout has different shapes and different intensities depending on
Speaker 1: the species of the whale. Some do kind of squirt
Speaker 1: off in two directions, but it's the way you see
Speaker 1: it in clip art and the simple plistic cartoon illustrations. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it tends to look just like a fountain. Now, in
Speaker 1: trying to in getting into this ended up, I kept
Speaker 1: pulling up older sources. But one of the more interesting
Speaker 1: older sources on this is an eighteen eighty four book
Speaker 1: by naturalist Henry Lee titled See Fables Explained, and it
Speaker 1: took on this misconception about whales spout more than a
Speaker 1: century ago.
Speaker 2: Now a brief note on Henry Lee. He was a
Speaker 2: nineteenth century English naturalist who specialized in marine organisms, and
Speaker 2: for a time he was the director of the Brighton
Speaker 2: Aquarium in England. But he is notable for writing measured
Speaker 2: skeptical investigations of cryptozoological legends, and in this latter capacity
Speaker 2: he has actually come up on the show before, I
Speaker 2: think on some episodes that we just recently did for
Speaker 2: Vaults on Saturdays. So Lee was the author of the
Speaker 2: eighteen eighty seven monogram called the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary,
Speaker 2: a curious fable of the cotton plant. We discussed this
Speaker 2: at length in those episodes on the vegetable lamb, which
Speaker 2: of course was a legendary organism with accounts going back
Speaker 2: to ancient times, usually described as a basically a mammal
Speaker 2: that grew from a plant, a furry, flesh and blood
Speaker 2: mammal that had meat and bones and blood that came
Speaker 2: out of a stalk that was attached to the ground
Speaker 2: through roots and grew somewhere in Central Asia. While there
Speaker 2: have been multiple skeptical attempts to make sense of these
Speaker 2: legends going back hundreds of years, Lee offered an, I think,
Speaker 2: in both of our views, an extremely persuasive argument that
Speaker 2: these accounts actually go back to observations and misunderstandings of
Speaker 2: the cotton plant. So, by the standards I would normally
Speaker 2: apply to a I don't know, a multidisciplinary skeptical treatise
Speaker 2: involving literary, historical, and biological knowledge from the eighteen eighties.
Speaker 2: I recall being extremely impressed with the last work of
Speaker 2: Lee's that we looked at.
Speaker 1: Oh. Absolutely yeah. And I feel like this book. What
Speaker 1: I read from it, which is basically the chapter on
Speaker 1: whale spout, I thought it. Thought it was a very
Speaker 1: level and in many ways ahead of its time. So
Speaker 1: in this chapter he cites an example of this whale
Speaker 1: spout misunderstanding in the work of the second century Greco
Speaker 1: Roman poet Opium, And this is the quote uncouth the
Speaker 1: site when they, in dreadful play discharge their nostrils and
Speaker 1: refund to see while noisy finfish let their fountains fly
Speaker 1: and spout the curling torrent to the sky. So beautiful,
Speaker 1: you know in translation obviously, But yeah, this idea of
Speaker 1: refunding the sea letting the fountain fly a curling torrent
Speaker 1: up to the sky, it's at least a landsman's idea
Speaker 1: of what whale spout consisted of.
Speaker 2: Based on what I've read, it seems like the most
Speaker 2: common understanding was that whales were sh jets of water
Speaker 2: out of their blowholes because they like swallowed a lot
Speaker 2: of water through their mouths while eating, and then they
Speaker 2: would have to squirt it back out, but couldn't do
Speaker 2: that through their mouths for some reason.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, which I think is one of those things
Speaker 1: that certainly by this point naturalists knew that this is
Speaker 1: not how an organism worked, and certainly not how to
Speaker 1: how a whale works. And so Lee Yeah, he basically
Speaker 1: lays out that this had been already been refuted time
Speaker 1: and time again by naturalist but that the image was
Speaker 1: just too entrenched in the popular imagination and popular imagery
Speaker 1: of whales to be fully dismissed. And also more people
Speaker 1: are casually taking these images in than they are actually
Speaker 1: listening to the naturalists, and we have to I guess
Speaker 1: we also have to bear in mind like today so
Speaker 1: many of us have access, whether we're actively watching them
Speaker 1: or not, to fabulous documentaries about the biology and behavior
Speaker 1: of whales, so many opportunities to see for yourself what
Speaker 1: the whales spoel was like. And this of course was
Speaker 1: not always the.
Speaker 2: Case, right, So back then there might have been more
Speaker 2: correct knowledge about whales and their mammalian biology in books,
Speaker 2: but that it really hits home more when you just
Speaker 2: like see some video of them moving and swimming and spouting.
Speaker 1: Right, right, So he rails against quote sensational pictures in
Speaker 1: which whales are presented with their heads above the surface
Speaker 1: and throwing up from their nostrils columns of water like
Speaker 1: the fountains in Trafalgar Square. Now he cites another erroneous
Speaker 1: description from a sixteenth century map by map master Olaus Magnus.
Speaker 1: This is somebody we've talked about on the show before
Speaker 1: and concerning old maps and sea monsters.
Speaker 2: Right. I think he came up extensively in my interview
Speaker 2: with chet van Duzer on the history of monsters on maps,
Speaker 2: but I think he's come up in other capacities as well.
Speaker 2: This is a recurring guest.
Speaker 1: Here, yes, Lee right the following, quoting Magnus quote four.
Speaker 1: To the danger of seamen, he will sometimes raise himself
Speaker 1: above the sail yards and cause such floods of water
Speaker 1: above his head which he had sucked in, that with
Speaker 1: a cloud of them, he will often sink the strongest
Speaker 1: ships or expose the mariners to extreme danger. This beast
Speaker 1: hath also a large round mouth like a lamprey, whereby
Speaker 1: he sucks in his meat or water, and by his
Speaker 1: weight casts upon the foe or our hinder deck. He
Speaker 1: sinks and drowns a ship hinder deck, hinder deck, hinder deck.
Speaker 1: I think, I don't know anyway, you get the idea like,
Speaker 1: here's this big monster and there and he fears some
Speaker 1: woodcut illustrations to this article, and you can you can
Speaker 1: easily find these as well, depicting the same sort of
Speaker 1: like you know, beaked monstrosity we just described, with these
Speaker 1: creatures like coming up to a ship and spitting out
Speaker 1: that you know, using their their strange blowholes to just
Speaker 1: flood a ship and make.
Speaker 2: It see brutal, not real though.
Speaker 1: Yeah no, and Lee continues to rail against this. He
Speaker 1: shares that after previously trying to set the record straight
Speaker 1: on this in a publication, he received letters stating that, Okay, sure,
Speaker 1: while lesser whales might not spout water like this, the
Speaker 1: great whales are doing it. They're totally doing it. You're wrong.
Speaker 1: So he goes on to discuss the basics of blowhole
Speaker 1: anatomy and function, driving home that there's no way this
Speaker 1: system could be the system that you find in a
Speaker 1: whale's head, great or small. There's no way that the
Speaker 1: system could be used to squirt jets of pure water.
Speaker 1: It's just not how their bodies work right.
Speaker 2: So, as we said before, in certain cases, there might
Speaker 2: be a lot of splashing from a whale's explosive exhalation,
Speaker 2: but it's exhaling gas, and that maybe some splash is
Speaker 2: getting caught up in that exhalation, but it is not
Speaker 2: squirting water. What's coming out is from its lungs.
Speaker 1: Right, And he lays all this out and discusses everything
Speaker 1: we've just mentioned before that yeah, it's not water coming out,
Speaker 1: but if the exhalation comes below the surface of the water,
Speaker 1: it's liable to carry up a lot of water and
Speaker 1: have this explosive watery appearance.
Speaker 2: Now, given all this, I did want to be fair.
Speaker 2: I want to come back and add that to the
Speaker 2: partial credit of Ishmael, the narrator of Moby Dick. He
Speaker 2: does come down on what we now know to be
Speaker 2: the correct side of the water jet versus mist or
Speaker 2: vapor debate. So he says it is missed, but he
Speaker 2: gives a fairly hilarious reason for thinking it is missed.
Speaker 2: His explanation is as follows. Quote I account him meaning
Speaker 2: the sperm whale no common shallow being, inasmuch as it
Speaker 2: is an undisputed fact that he has never found on
Speaker 2: soundings or near shores all other whales sometimes are. He
Speaker 2: is both ponderous and profound, and I'm convinced that from
Speaker 2: the heads of all ponderous profound beings such as Plato,
Speaker 2: per the Devil, Jupiter, Dante, and so on, there always
Speaker 2: goes up a certain semi visible steam. While in the
Speaker 2: act of thinking deep thoughts, while composing a little treatise
Speaker 2: on eternity, I had the curiosity to place a mirror
Speaker 2: before me an eir long saw reflected there a curious
Speaker 2: involved worming and undulation in the atmosphere over my head,
Speaker 2: the invariable moisture of my hair while plunged in deep
Speaker 2: thought after six cups of hot tea in my thin
Speaker 2: shingled attic of an August noon. This seems an additional
Speaker 2: argument for the above Supposition's so good, I get sweaty
Speaker 2: one time too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, these are some some wonderful mental gymnastics which again
Speaker 1: land him in the right spot, but some unnecessary twists
Speaker 1: and turns now. It's worth noting for the most part,
Speaker 1: this misunderstanding of whale anatomy is victimless, right. I Mean,
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, if worst case scenario you think that
Speaker 1: a whale shoots water out of its blowhole. I mean,
Speaker 1: what's it? Or if you encounter a whale you'll be
Speaker 1: set right on this. But it's worth noting that the
Speaker 1: myth of whale spouts and water can even prove actually
Speaker 1: dangerous to wales. This, according to Dan Jarvis of the
Speaker 1: British Divers Marine Life Rescue Organization, is quoted in a
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one Melissa Hobson article on Nationalgeographic Dot cot
Speaker 1: a UK. Apparently there have been cases where people who
Speaker 1: are not familiar with the anatomy of Wales, who still
Speaker 1: have this idea of the whale fountain in their mind.
Speaker 1: They have happened upon a stranded whale on the beach
Speaker 1: and thinking that this great fish needs water, start pouring
Speaker 1: water into its blowhole, which can drown the whale. Oh no, yeah,
Speaker 1: So you know there are cases where not knowing what's
Speaker 1: going on, even is a non biologist, it can lead
Speaker 1: to something like this. So don't go pouring water into blowholes.
Speaker 2: Certainly not but okay, I think we can mostly close
Speaker 2: the book on the idea of the water jet. It's
Speaker 2: not a water jet. But returning to c fables explained
Speaker 2: by Henry Lee. Lee also briefly addresses a strange claim
Speaker 2: in the same chapter of Mobi Dick that caught our
Speaker 2: attention and we wanted to investigate further and to refresh you.
Speaker 2: We mentioned this in the last episode, but this is
Speaker 2: the allegation made by Ishmael that the whale spout is poisonous,
Speaker 2: a claim that seemed prima fasse unlikely to both of us.
Speaker 2: But to read again from Mobi Dick, just so you'll
Speaker 2: know what he's saying. He says that for even when
Speaker 2: coming into slight contact with the outer vapory shreds of
Speaker 2: the jet, which will often happen, your skin will feverishly
Speaker 2: smart from the acridness of the thing so touching it.
Speaker 2: And I know one who coming into still closer contact
Speaker 2: with the spout, whether with some scientific object in view
Speaker 2: or otherwise, I cannot say, the skin peeled off from
Speaker 2: his cheek and arm. Wherefore, among whalemen the spout is
Speaker 2: deemed poisonous, they try to evade it. Another thing I
Speaker 2: have heard it said, and I do not much doubt it,
Speaker 2: that if the jet is fairly spouted into your eyes,
Speaker 2: it will blind you. The wisest thing the investigator can do, then,
Speaker 2: it seems to me is to let this deadly spout alone.
Speaker 2: So that's a number of strange claims. He says, Okay,
Speaker 2: I've got a friend who got some whale blow on
Speaker 2: him and that made his skin peel off. Whaleman generally
Speaker 2: say that the blow that comes out of the spout
Speaker 2: is poisonous and if you get it in your eyes,
Speaker 2: it will make you blind.
Speaker 1: So Lee doesn't spend a lot of time with this.
Speaker 1: He mentions it. He doesn't really have much to add,
Speaker 1: but he kind of dismisses it out of hand, and
Speaker 1: also throws in there that Herman Melville is quote not
Speaker 1: a naturalist, and he doesn't seem to have much to
Speaker 1: add beyond that, aside from mentioning an account from a
Speaker 1: steamship whaler. He writes, quote, he believes that the blast
Speaker 1: was strong enough to blow a man off the spiracle
Speaker 1: if he were seated on it. Now, I don't know. Okay,
Speaker 1: that also feels kind of like a tall tail, but
Speaker 1: maybe a more believable. It's not saying that it will
Speaker 1: blow your skin off and blind you, but he's just saying, well,
Speaker 1: it's pretty explosive if you were seated right on it.
Speaker 1: I bet it would blast you into the air. I
Speaker 1: think it definitely would make you move so on just
Speaker 1: strong enough to blow a man off the spiracle. I
Speaker 1: believe he would not remain on the spiracle if you
Speaker 1: were somehow balanced there for the spout.
Speaker 2: Right, So it might knock you off, but it would not,
Speaker 2: as often depicted in cartoons and illustrations, create a jet
Speaker 2: that then leaves you floating in the air above it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And the idea of it being used as
Speaker 1: an offensive blast against ships, yeah, that's pure fantasy. One
Speaker 1: thing I did find interestingly he doesn't go into this,
Speaker 1: but he mentions that this being an account from a
Speaker 1: steamship whaler, And I can't help but wonder about during
Speaker 1: the age of steam power, if there's not some level
Speaker 1: of technological comparison going on in one's mind where steam
Speaker 1: comes out at the top of a ship. Steam, of course,
Speaker 1: is very hot and can damage you and burn the
Speaker 1: skin off of your body, things like that, And so
Speaker 1: if there's some sort of like comparison that gets made
Speaker 1: between the ship and the whale, which of course is large,
Speaker 1: travels in the water and also emits these blasts that
Speaker 1: don't look unlike steam like maybe it's the kind of
Speaker 1: thing where there's just kind of like a sub conscious
Speaker 1: comparison being made.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. I never thought about that, but that does
Speaker 2: seem plausible. So I did my own digging around for
Speaker 2: answers on the question of the supposedly poisonous whale spout,
Speaker 2: and like you, Rob, I found no support whatsoever or
Speaker 2: for the claim that the blow from the blowhole is poisonous,
Speaker 2: meaning that it contains a chemical toxin or venom with
Speaker 2: directly injurious effects on nearby mammals through either topical contact
Speaker 2: or ingestion. I found nothing on that. In fact, I
Speaker 2: didn't even find that many references to this passage in
Speaker 2: Moby Dick, which I was surprised by. I thought I
Speaker 2: would come across more. I don't know scientific sources referencing it,
Speaker 2: even if only to contradict it or maybe try to
Speaker 2: get at the source of this belief. But it just
Speaker 2: doesn't seem like this this idea gets a lot of stick.
Speaker 2: One example of the kind of reference I found was
Speaker 2: in not even really a scientific book, just a sort
Speaker 2: of book on grey whales called Grey Whales Wandering Giants
Speaker 2: by Robert Bush from nineteen ninety eight, which mentions the
Speaker 2: claim in Moby Dick that the spout is poisonous, only
Speaker 2: to say that it's not poisonous at all, but that
Speaker 2: sometimes it does have a very powerful smell, and the
Speaker 2: author quotes John Steinbeck from a work called The Log
Speaker 2: from the Sea of Cortes. In Steinbeck wrote, a whale's
Speaker 2: breath is frightfully sickening. It smells of complete decay. The
Speaker 2: author here Bush says, I don't know, It's never really
Speaker 2: smelled that way to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was in a position to smell a lot
Speaker 1: of gray whale breath and I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: there is a breathiness to it, I guess at times,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I wouldn't say it stinks. Now. One thing
Speaker 1: to keep in mind, though, is like these are organisms.
Speaker 1: The blowhole is, you know, a breathing orifice. So I
Speaker 1: have read that you do have situations where you can
Speaker 1: have a sick whale, So that could impact what you're smelling.
Speaker 1: I suppose that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Bush says the same thing. Maybe when it
Speaker 2: maybe it's breath smells worse when it is diseased or
Speaker 2: wounded or something. So beyond this, I was just I
Speaker 2: was like Okay, I'm going to expand my circle of
Speaker 2: interest here. I was looking to find any evidence of
Speaker 2: any mammal or any animal for that matter, that is
Speaker 2: believed to have poisonous or venomous breath, and I really
Speaker 2: could not find anything that fits the description. Despite the
Speaker 2: popularity of creatures with toxic breath in Dungeons and Dragons
Speaker 2: in video games. It's a good area of effect type attack,
Speaker 2: but I couldn't find really any evidence of this in reality.
Speaker 2: Maybe there is such a thing and I just wasn't
Speaker 2: searching the right way. But the closest stuff I could
Speaker 2: find is what we're all more familiar with, like animals
Speaker 2: that might spit venom or something, but not having toxic breath.
Speaker 1: Yeah. About the only thing that really comes to my
Speaker 1: mind is vultures, say vomiting, which there are a few
Speaker 1: different interpretations of that behavior, but it's not quite a
Speaker 1: Dungeons and Dragons area of a fact attack.
Speaker 2: And still that would be vomit from the digestive system,
Speaker 2: not toxic breath.
Speaker 1: Right right, not toxic gas emitted from the mouth.
Speaker 2: So is this claim in MOBI to just completely made up?
Speaker 2: Maybe Melville just made it up to make you know,
Speaker 2: just for interesting fictional effect, or maybe it was something
Speaker 2: he heard he heard from people that was an actual
Speaker 2: belief among whalers, but they just made it up. Well maybe,
Speaker 2: but then again maybe not. While I think it's clear
Speaker 2: that the exhalation of wales is not poisonous or venomous,
Speaker 2: I think this could be a misunderstanding of something that
Speaker 2: does seem true, which is that I found evidence that
Speaker 2: sometimes after certain types of contact with marine mammals, including whales,
Speaker 2: people do report reactions. In fact, this is a great
Speaker 2: bit of listener male. We heard from a listener after
Speaker 2: part one of this series who has a bit of
Speaker 2: relevant personal experience. So Rob, I'm going to read Tabitha's
Speaker 2: email here, all right. Tabitha says, dear Robert and Joe,
Speaker 2: regarding the consequences of getting a face full of blowhole ejecta.
Speaker 2: I have a family experience. As a child, I went
Speaker 2: on a dolphin watch boat trip. When dolphins started swimming
Speaker 2: alongside the boat and playing in the bow waves, my
Speaker 2: sister and I were allowed to lie on the deck
Speaker 2: and stick our heads out under the railing to watch them.
Speaker 2: It was the nineties. One dolphin surfaced and exhaled directly
Speaker 2: into my sister's face from close range. Initially she was fine,
Speaker 2: if a bit slimy and embarrassed. Later that day, however,
Speaker 2: her eyes turned red, weepy, and swelled almost shut. I
Speaker 2: don't really remember the aftermath except for thinking it was hilarious,
Speaker 2: but as far as I recall, it got better in
Speaker 2: a day or so, suggesting an allergic reaction rather than
Speaker 2: bacterial infection. So maybe a certain number of people are
Speaker 2: just really allergic to cetaceans. Maybe a lot of people,
Speaker 2: but we don't have the opportunity to find out very often.
Speaker 2: I can imagine a whaling crew having one case of
Speaker 2: whalesnot face rash, and the story spreading until it reaches
Speaker 2: the flesh dissolving, eye melting tall tail stage. Love the
Speaker 2: show as always, Tabitha, well fascinating, and thank you so
Speaker 2: much for sharing this, Tabitha, So I totally agree that
Speaker 2: it is not hard to imagine some nineteenth century whalers
Speaker 2: could observe experiences like this and conclude, incorrectly from it
Speaker 2: that the whale spout is toxic, is venomous or poisonous,
Speaker 2: like the venom of a spitting cobra or something. But
Speaker 2: I was wondering more about the mechanism, what is actually
Speaker 2: going on here? Now, I honestly could not find much
Speaker 2: of anything documenting what we're directly classified as allergic reactions
Speaker 2: to cetacean blow. But I did find a very interesting
Speaker 2: source documenting similar reactions in the context of human zoonotic
Speaker 2: diseases from marine mammal vectors. Now, this is something I
Speaker 2: really had never thought about before we did this series.
Speaker 2: Of course, when you think about zoonotic diseases, you think
Speaker 2: about bats, You think about livestock animals, you know, maybe pigs, birds,
Speaker 2: and so forth. I had never thought of the idea
Speaker 2: that humans could catch diseases from whales, seals, dolphins, and
Speaker 2: so forth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean neither.
Speaker 2: But now allow me to introduce you to the paper
Speaker 2: health Risks for Marine Mammal Workers, published in the journal
Speaker 2: Diseases of Aquatic Organisms the year two thousand and eight
Speaker 2: by Tanya Hunt at All. This is a paper where
Speaker 2: the authors say, there have been, you know, isolated, documented
Speaker 2: cases of humans acquiring zoonotic diseases from marine mammals. There
Speaker 2: are certain diseases that are well known and even have
Speaker 2: interesting little names, such as seal finger. If you want
Speaker 2: to be grossed out. You can look up images of
Speaker 2: seal finger. But they wanted to design a survey to
Speaker 2: get a broader range of responses. So they wanted to
Speaker 2: survey professionals and volunteers who regularly work directly with marine
Speaker 2: mammals to see how common very types of injuries and
Speaker 2: work related illnesses were in people who have contact with
Speaker 2: these animals. So what did they find to read from
Speaker 2: their abstract? First of all, they characterized the people who
Speaker 2: responded to the survey. Most respondents eighty eight percent were
Speaker 2: researchers and rehabilitators. And then they say, quote, of all respondents,
Speaker 2: fifty percent reported suffering an injury caused by a marine
Speaker 2: mammal and twenty three percent reported having a skin rash
Speaker 2: or reaction. Marine mammal Work related illnesses commonly reported included
Speaker 2: seal finger, which is now known to be traceable to
Speaker 2: a bacterium called Mycoplasma conjunctivitis. That's very interesting because that
Speaker 2: conjunctividis is irritation and swelling of the eyes. That of
Speaker 2: course connects to Tabitha's story, but also connects to the
Speaker 2: idea that getting whale blow in your face could make
Speaker 2: you blind but to go on viral dermatitis, bacterial dermatitis,
Speaker 2: and non specific contact dermatitis. This is rash or irritation
Speaker 2: of the skin, although specific diagnoses could not be confirmed
Speaker 2: by a physician. Through the study, severe illnesses were reported
Speaker 2: and included tuberculosis, leptospirosis, brucellosis, and serious sequeli to seal finger.
Speaker 2: Risk factors associated with increased odds of injury and illness
Speaker 2: included prolonged and frequent exposure to marine mammals, direct contact
Speaker 2: with live marine mammals, and contact with tissue, blood and excretions.
Speaker 2: And I was looking at another paper tracking marine mammals
Speaker 2: zunoses in humans. This was by waltzik at All in
Speaker 2: Zunocees and Public Health from twenty twelve and it also
Speaker 2: tried to collect all of the literature on zoonotic infections
Speaker 2: from marine mammals and humans and it concluded that the
Speaker 2: most common type of zoonotic reaction to marine mammals was
Speaker 2: localized skin infections in humans, which again makes you think
Speaker 2: about the discussion about like peeling skin and skin reactions
Speaker 2: that Melville mentions. So those are human diseases that have
Speaker 2: been tentatively linked at least circumstantially to contact with marine mammals.
Speaker 2: But we need to introduce some caveats. Number one. This
Speaker 2: includes a wide range of different marine mammals, so not
Speaker 2: just whales, but all kinds of marine mammals, and a
Speaker 2: wide range of different types of contact, including touching of skin, bites,
Speaker 2: contact with blood and inner organs, etc. Not just exposure
Speaker 2: to say, mucus and droplets from the blowhole of whales.
Speaker 2: So what if we were to come at this question
Speaker 2: from the other direction and ask what is in whales?
Speaker 2: Not specifically when a whale breathes out, there's got to
Speaker 2: be plenty of bacteria and stuff in there. Has anybody
Speaker 2: ever documented what microbes are present in the blow of
Speaker 2: a whale and whether that list contains anything that could
Speaker 2: cause skin or eye infections or otherwise create the impression,
Speaker 2: even the false impression that the spout is poisonous or venomous. Yes,
Speaker 2: there have in fact been investigations microbiological investigations of whale blow.
Speaker 2: The first one I wanted to mention was a paper
Speaker 2: from twenty seventeen. This was published in m Systems two,
Speaker 2: which is an American Society for Microbiology journal. It's by
Speaker 2: amy April at all, and it's called extensive core microbiome
Speaker 2: in drone captured whale blow supports a framework for health monitoring.
Speaker 2: This study was interesting because it used a drone to
Speaker 2: fly above the water surface and collect blow from two
Speaker 2: populations of healthy humpback whales, one Pacific group off of
Speaker 2: Vancouver Island and an Atlantic group off of Cape Cod
Speaker 2: And I was thinking, wow, that's a good use for drones. Yeah,
Speaker 2: So they took these samples, but then they compared the
Speaker 2: microbes present in them to what was present in just
Speaker 2: samples of straight seawater from around because obviously some seawater
Speaker 2: gets in with the blow, so you're looking to see
Speaker 2: what's in the blow that's not just in seawater. And
Speaker 2: the author's right quote. The blow microbiomes were distinct from
Speaker 2: the seawater microbiomes and included twenty five phylogenetically diverse bacteria
Speaker 2: common to all sampled whales. This core assemblage comprised on
Speaker 2: average thirty six percent of the microbiome, making it one
Speaker 2: of the more consistent animal microbiomes studied to date. The
Speaker 2: closest phylogenetic relatives of twenty of these core microbes were
Speaker 2: previously detected in marine mammals, suggesting that this core microbiome
Speaker 2: assemblage is specialized for marine mammals and may indicate a healthy,
Speaker 2: non infected pulmonary system. So that's interesting. These two geographically
Speaker 2: distinct populations of healthy humpback whales from different oceans share
Speaker 2: a common baseline of non pathogenic bacterial species. Of course,
Speaker 2: the fact that a bacterium is not pathogenic in its
Speaker 2: normal whale host doesn't necessarily tell you how it will
Speaker 2: behave when sprayed onto the skin or into the eyes
Speaker 2: of a human being. But then, the other study I
Speaker 2: wanted to mention is one that was published in Nature
Speaker 2: Scientific Reports by Raverty at All in twenty seventeen, called
Speaker 2: Respiratory microbiome of endangered Southern resident killer Whales and Microbiota
Speaker 2: of surrounding sea surface micro layer in the Eastern North Pacific. So,
Speaker 2: to summarize from a news report on this article I
Speaker 2: was reading from the University of British Columbia. Stephen Raverty,
Speaker 2: he was the lead author on the study, is a
Speaker 2: professor or an adjunct professor at University of British Columbia's
Speaker 2: Institute for the Oceans and fisheries, and this study was
Speaker 2: looking at the microbiome of endangered southern resident killer whales
Speaker 2: in what's known as the Salish Sea. It's the sea
Speaker 2: around I think to the inside of Vancouver Island. It's
Speaker 2: the sea around that stretch throughout British Columbia and Washington State.
Speaker 2: And this study was focused on the health of orcas,
Speaker 2: not on humans, so this was not studying human diseases.
Speaker 2: But it did find that the breath of these killer whales,
Speaker 2: when sampled droplets from that blow, contained all kinds of
Speaker 2: bacteria and fungi that are known to cause disease in humans,
Speaker 2: so bacteria like salmonella, like Staphylococcus aureus, and then fungi
Speaker 2: like penicillium and foma. And it's not clear that these
Speaker 2: common bacteria that could also cause disease in humans would
Speaker 2: be present in the breath of all whales. It's also
Speaker 2: not clear that they have always been present, even in
Speaker 2: these killer whales, because there's a possibility that these are
Speaker 2: sort of recently introduced microbia loads that are a result
Speaker 2: of human activity. We don't know, but it's a possibility.
Speaker 2: Giving a quote to this news article, the lead author
Speaker 2: Raverty says, quote, we're not sure if these mic robes
Speaker 2: naturally occur in the marine environment or if they may
Speaker 2: be terrestrially sourced. These animals are long ranging as they
Speaker 2: migrate along the coast, and they are exposed to agricultural
Speaker 2: runoff and urban discharge which may introduce a variety of
Speaker 2: microbes into the water. So ultimately, in this case, we
Speaker 2: don't know for sure, Like we can't take a sample
Speaker 2: of what, you know, whalers might have been getting blown
Speaker 2: in their faces from sperm whales or whales in general
Speaker 2: in the nineteenth century. But here at least there are
Speaker 2: cases today of whales that are ejecting breath from their
Speaker 2: lungs that contains droplets of mucus with bacteria that we
Speaker 2: know do cause disease in humans. Whether that is sort
Speaker 2: of a recent loading onto these whales or whether that
Speaker 2: would have been present a long time ago, we can't
Speaker 2: say for sure. But if you combine this with the
Speaker 2: other observations that people, you know, people who work directly
Speaker 2: with marine mammals report a lot of sort of skin
Speaker 2: infections conjunctividis and things like that, it does not seem
Speaker 2: implausible to me that this story about the whale blow
Speaker 2: being poisonous could emerge from different types of infections people
Speaker 2: get after getting whale mucus or other types of whale
Speaker 2: body fluids on their skin or in their eyes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are a number of additional considerations to make
Speaker 1: based on this information, because, on one hand, just by
Speaker 1: the nature of tall tales and sailor lore, how many
Speaker 1: times would it need to happen really for the stories
Speaker 1: to generate, You know, just one incident of somebody really
Speaker 1: swelling up after being exposed to whale blow might be enough.
Speaker 1: At On top of that, if there are myths and
Speaker 1: legends pre existing that to tie into some of this,
Speaker 1: those could add to the energy of these tails and
Speaker 1: could even in their origin be partially inspired by such experiences.
Speaker 1: And then I think the other thing to keep in
Speaker 1: mind is that the whalers you're just talking about, all
Speaker 1: the different things that one might have reactions to have
Speaker 1: exposed to, including like blood and organs, Like the whaler
Speaker 1: was not just out there to to see the whale,
Speaker 1: not just out there to experience the whale. They were
Speaker 1: out there to kill and butcher the whales. So it
Speaker 1: seems entirely likely that yeah, if you're gonna have an
Speaker 1: allergic reaction to one aspect of the whales anatomy. There
Speaker 1: are going to be multiple additional opportunities to be infected
Speaker 1: by blood, viscera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: I absolutely agree with all that. So yeah, I can't
Speaker 2: say for sure, but my best guess is if this
Speaker 2: is not just a made up story, if there are
Speaker 2: if there were actually folk tales among whalers that the
Speaker 2: spout was poisonous, it probably came from people getting some
Speaker 2: kind of infection after being around whales.
Speaker 1: Now I have I have a few other things for
Speaker 1: us to take into this first one kind of ties
Speaker 1: into several different things we've discussed because it definitely concerns whaling,
Speaker 1: It concerns the idea of a liquid spout, and it
Speaker 1: also concerns exposure of the whaler to various parts of
Speaker 1: the whales anatomy. So this concerns the red spout. In
Speaker 1: the book Red Leviat and the Secret History of Soviet Whaling,
Speaker 1: author and previous guest on the show, Ryan Tucker Jones
Speaker 1: discusses the destruction wrought by the Soviet industrial whaling industry,
Speaker 1: and in this one particular case, the Soviet industrial whaling harpoons.
Speaker 1: So these were not like the harpoons of the classical
Speaker 1: age of whaling as depicted in Moby Dick. We're talking
Speaker 1: about things that are fired, and in this case grenade
Speaker 1: tipped so that they explode upon hitting the whale and
Speaker 1: impacting the whale. He points out that the ideal first hit,
Speaker 1: ideal for the whalers, of course, not the whale, would
Speaker 1: be for one of these to go off near the
Speaker 1: whale's vital organs. Wherever it hit, blood would pour into
Speaker 1: the cavity and the brain would eventually succumb. But if
Speaker 1: the lungs were punctured, quote, blood would soon fountain out
Speaker 1: the blowhole. This was termed by the Soviet whalers a
Speaker 1: red spout, and the whale would drown in its own fluids.
Speaker 1: And he goes into a great deal more detail about
Speaker 1: all of this, but suffice to say like two to
Speaker 1: six harpoons were often required to kill the whale. So
Speaker 1: worth keeping this in mind. I think and thinking about
Speaker 1: all of this, and also it brings to mind an
Speaker 1: account that I was reading regarding a mythic monstrous whale.
Speaker 1: So we have the word cetacean, you know, referring to
Speaker 1: our whales. This I've read is connected to the name
Speaker 1: of the of the sea monster in Greek mythology Ketos
Speaker 1: or ctoss, and this leave by some, at least in
Speaker 1: some tellings, to be based on or interpreted as a whale.
Speaker 1: In Menilius's Monster by K. M. Coleman from nineteen eighty three,
Speaker 1: the author points to whale like qualities of spouting in
Speaker 1: the writings of first century Roman poet Manilius. Ovid, however,
Speaker 1: doesn't write of spouting with these with this creature, but
Speaker 1: of vomiting bloody water. So the author of this paper, Coleman,
Speaker 1: contends that Manilius was possibly incorporating observational or even for
Speaker 1: the time natural insight into his treatment of the myth.
Speaker 1: But I also think this depiction that Ovid gives of
Speaker 1: the spouting of bloody water this also brings to mind.
Speaker 1: I mean this, I can't help but compare it to
Speaker 1: this idea of the red spout, and wonder if it
Speaker 1: might be connected to some you know, ancient world older
Speaker 1: accounts of harpooning a whale, piercing the lung and observing
Speaker 1: this reaction.
Speaker 2: Wow, but now I'm picturing this. So the key toss
Speaker 2: or the sea monster that is here being interpreted as
Speaker 2: a whale, I think was the monster in the Perseus
Speaker 2: and Andromeda story. So like when when Cassiopeia offers up
Speaker 2: Andromeda as a sacrifice to the sea monster, we should
Speaker 2: maybe picture at not like a big scaly man thing
Speaker 2: coming out of the water track see and Clash of
Speaker 2: the Titans, but instead a whale vomiting bloody water.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and you know this idea of the vomiting whale.
Speaker 1: He goes. There's some other accounts of this as well,
Speaker 1: because I was poking around looking for just any other
Speaker 1: interesting like whale spout myths that connected into what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here. And there are various myths about whales
Speaker 1: being you know, monsters or gods and so forth, but
Speaker 1: not all of them are necessarily insightful concerning the spout
Speaker 1: or the blowhole. But I happened to cross something in
Speaker 1: Irish traditions that I can't help but wonder if this
Speaker 1: is something that ended up helping in warm sailor's lore,
Speaker 1: especially as discussed in Moby Dick. I found this initially
Speaker 1: in an eighteen ninety nine publication Notes and Folklore from
Speaker 1: the Renez copy of The Dencentez by TJ. Westrop, published
Speaker 1: in the Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland,
Speaker 1: The Dencentez. This is the tales of the Tales of
Speaker 1: the Duns, the lore of Places. It's a class of
Speaker 1: texts from early Irish literature, and these were apparently added
Speaker 1: to by various writers up until the eleventh or twelfth centuries.
Speaker 1: So here's a quote from this particular author. Quote. A
Speaker 1: very dangerous monster, the rose Sualt is also described, which
Speaker 1: spouts at muhrisk in Mayo and a pestilence ensues. This
Speaker 1: is stated of the whale in other ancient works. When
Speaker 1: the whale spouts upwards, flying creatures die. When downward it
Speaker 1: kills the fish and win at the land, a plague ensues. WHOA,
Speaker 1: So this is the idea of a whale shooting birds
Speaker 1: out of the air with its poisonous spout, and occasionally,
Speaker 1: you know, coming close to the shore and being a
Speaker 1: bringer of plagues, vomiting up plague upon the shore and
Speaker 1: letting that plague or like roll across the countryside as
Speaker 1: a vapor, a bringer of miasthma.
Speaker 2: Okay I was confused about the timeline for a second.
Speaker 2: But okay, so this is an eighteen ninety nine publication,
Speaker 2: but it is discussing these earlier like medieval Irish texts.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yes, and for there's a little background. Marisk is
Speaker 1: in fact a village in County Mayo in Ireland, and
Speaker 1: also according to a different text in eighteen ninety two text,
Speaker 1: I was looking at this roast salt, and I apologize
Speaker 1: that I'm butchering. This was sometimes understood as a sea animal,
Speaker 1: and I think sometimes translated as a walrus. Not that
Speaker 1: we should necessarily think of it as a walrus, but
Speaker 1: you know, sometimes there's a shift in what these terms
Speaker 1: are referring to over time. So since we had a
Speaker 1: sea monster here, especially one of European origin, I turned,
Speaker 1: as I always do, to the books of Carol Rose.
Speaker 1: She has these wonderful pair of encyclopedias, one dealing with
Speaker 1: monsters and giants and other one dealing with fairies and leprechauns.
Speaker 1: And there's some crossover between the books, but they're both great.
Speaker 1: So I looked it up. And Rose has a little
Speaker 1: more insight on the re salt, which she says is
Speaker 1: an alternate name for the moorisk, a monster fish of
Speaker 1: Irish tradition. She writes that it was said to inhabit
Speaker 1: the region of crow og Patrick, and it was super poisonous.
Speaker 1: If it vomited in the water, all the sea life
Speaker 1: around it would die. The fumes from its mouth would
Speaker 1: cause dead birds to fall out of the sky, and
Speaker 1: it could breathe on a coastal region and bring disease.
Speaker 2: Okay, that sort of matches what we were reading a
Speaker 2: minute ago, right right, yeah, yeah, at the coast, it
Speaker 2: brings the pestilens. It kills the birds if it shoots up,
Speaker 2: and it kills the fish if it shoots down, right.
Speaker 1: And I also found another source referring to this. This
Speaker 1: is from P. W. Joyce in nineteen oh six is
Speaker 1: a smaller social history of Ancient Ireland, and this author
Speaker 1: added basically says the same thing, but added that it
Speaker 1: was quote able to vomit in three different ways three
Speaker 1: years in succession. He adds that the vomiting into the
Speaker 1: water also wrecked ships, and when it vomited towards the
Speaker 1: land in the third year, hit the whale caused quote
Speaker 1: a pestilential vapor to creep over the country that killed
Speaker 1: men and four footed animals.
Speaker 2: No not the four footed animals.
Speaker 1: The four footed animals are just at the forefront of
Speaker 1: strange death. I mean, this is how many times are
Speaker 1: we going to in this year last have we talked
Speaker 1: about strange reasons that four legged animals are dying? And
Speaker 1: in the British Isles.
Speaker 2: We never considered this as an explanation for the cattle
Speaker 2: mutilation panic. What if it was actually a risk?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, what if a whale vomited? So this is
Speaker 1: this is all interesting Again. I don't think that I
Speaker 1: think potentially one has to, you know, take into account
Speaker 1: these these myths and legends about poisonous vomit coming out
Speaker 1: of these whales or whale like creatures. These also first
Speaker 1: hand accounts of potentially getting some sort of an infection
Speaker 1: after contact with a whale spout or whale blood, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But I also can't help but wonder if there's some connection,
Speaker 1: particularly between this story and perhaps encounters with beached and
Speaker 1: dead whales, where there's of course decomposition going on, and
Speaker 1: therefore there's going to be a very strong, awful odor,
Speaker 1: the kind of odor that we would, you know, we
Speaker 1: would associate with with illness. Perhaps, so I wonder I
Speaker 1: wonder if there's any connective tissue there as well.
Speaker 2: Well, Rob, I think this has been a mighty fun
Speaker 2: and interesting exploration. Even though we didn't get a definitive
Speaker 2: answer on the poisonous whales thing, I think what we
Speaker 2: did find out has been enlightening. And as Melville would say,
Speaker 2: through all the thick mists and the dim doubts, you know,
Speaker 2: the divine intuitions now and then shoot, so our fog
Speaker 2: has been enkindled with the heavenly ray.
Speaker 1: Oh very nice. All right, we're gonna go ahead and
Speaker 1: close it out then, But yeah, we'd love to hear
Speaker 1: from everyone out there if you have additional insight, experience, etc.
Speaker 1: Just general thoughts and what we've talked about in this
Speaker 1: pair of episodes or our previous episodes on gray whales
Speaker 1: in particular. Right in we'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Just a reminder that's stuffed able. Your Mind is primarily
Speaker 1: a science podcast with core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays,
Speaker 1: but on Mondays we do listener mail. On Wednesdays we
Speaker 1: do a short form artifact or monster fact episode, and
Speaker 1: then on Fridays we set aside most serious concerns to
Speaker 1: just talk about a weird film on Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 2: Huge thanks to our audio producer JJ Posway. If you
Speaker 2: would like to get in touch with us with feedback
Speaker 2: on this episode or any other, to suggest a topic
Speaker 2: for the future, or just to say hello, you can
Speaker 2: email us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind
Speaker 2: dot com.
Speaker 3: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 3: more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 3: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.