As the article that you quote states the record was set in 2002. That means that the size of the dead zone for the past five years has been smaller than it was in 2002. Kinda hard to consider that "rapidly expanding", wouldn't you say.

And by the way they were predicting a record sized dead zone last year also. The record wasn't broken last year when over 93 million acres of corn were grown and now this year only 87 million acres are being grown. So if the size of the dead zone had a strict correlation to the amount of corn grown as most media accounts suggest, wouldn't this years dead zone be smaller than last years?

The article refers to the amount of chemicals used on the land. Also, just because data peaks at a certain year doesn't mean that it isn't moving in an upward trajectory. Things like rainfall or water table levels can affect what comes washing down the Mississippi River. I think it's easy to bash an article on the surface, but unless you are willing to take a look at the data behind it and not just the top-level argument you shouldn't apply such garage logic to an issue like this.

"The article refers to the amount of chemicals used on the land."

According to the USGS the problem is nitrogen and phosphorus. Corn and soybean production combined is responsible for 52% of all nitrogen released into the Mississippi river system and 25% of all phosphorus. So ethanol isn't solely responsible for the problem. In fact considering that corn grown for ethanol production is about 1/3 of all corn grown in the US and an even smaller part of all the corn and soybeans grown, it means that ethanol's contribution to the problem is pretty small. But you would never guess that by reading this posting or most of the articles written lately.

"Also, just because data peaks at a certain year doesn't mean that it isn't moving in an upward trajectory."

The record was set in 2002. So to be on an upward trajectory there would have to have been a drop sometime after 2002. But ethanol production has only increased since 2002, so if ethanol is responsible then there should have been no drop before this more recent upward trajectory you talk about.

"Things like rainfall or water table levels can affect what comes washing down the Mississippi River."

So you admit that other factors are involved.

"I think it's easy to bash an article on the surface, but unless you are willing to take a look at the data behind it and not just the top-level argument you shouldn't apply such garage logic to an issue like this."

I noticed that you really didn't have any counter to my "garbage logic". Didn't really see any data either. Does that mean that you haven't really looked into the situation and are just defending something that you have been told was correct?

I would like to hear some science commentary on how urban use of lawn fertilizers and other common garden chemicals contribute. Its too easy to blame farmers for all of this. I see my neighbors using lawn chemicals with such negligence and irresponsibility it boggles my mind. And unlike most agricultural settings, urban runoff goes directly into the storm drains, then the lakes and rivers with no buffer what-so-ever.