Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday February 15 2017, @07:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-circle-of-liiiiiiiife dept.

Environmental pollutants have gathered in the deepest parts of Earth's oceans:

Chemicals banned in the 1970s have been found in the deepest reaches of the Pacific Ocean, a new study shows. Scientists were surprised by the relatively high concentrations of pollutants like PCBs and PBDEs in deep sea ecosystems. Used widely during much of the 20th Century, these chemicals were later found to be toxic and to build up in the environment.

[...] The team led by Dr Alan Jamieson at the University of Newcastle sampled levels of pollutants in the fatty tissue of amphipods (a type of crustacean) from deep below the Pacific Ocean surface. The animals were retrieved using specially designed "lander" vehicles deployed from a boat over the Mariana and Kermadec trenches, which are over 10km deep and separated from each other by 7,000km.

[...] In their paper, the authors say it can be difficult to place the levels of contamination found below the Pacific into a wider context - in part because previous studies of contamination gathered measurements in different ways. But they add that in the Mariana trench, the highest levels of PCBs were 50 times greater than in crabs from paddy fields fed by the Liaohe River, one of the most polluted rivers in China. Dr Jamieson commented: "The amphipods we sampled contained levels of contamination similar to that found in Suruga Bay [in Japan], one of the most polluted industrial zones of the northwest Pacific."

Also at Washington Post, USA Today, and KUNC (NPR).

Bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants in the deepest ocean fauna (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0051) (DX)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 15 2017, @07:58AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @07:58AM (#467281) Journal

    After global warming was clearly debunked by our cold winter here, now we have evidence that pollution is also much worse in those parts never touched by any human before. I'm curious how the tree-huggers will try to blame that on us now.

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:09AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:09AM (#467284) Journal

      I'm curious how the tree-huggers will try to blame that on us now.

      Who exactly is us, precious?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:24AM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:24AM (#467289) Journal

        "Us" was meant as a parody of "'They' are taking 'our'' jobs" or "'Them' elites are destroying 'our' country", as the 'common folks' allegedly ignored by "the ruling class".

        More realistic, the 'Us' I feel part of would currently be those with some sense of irony and some karma to risk on some parodic comments.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 1, Redundant) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 15 2017, @09:58AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @09:58AM (#467310) Journal

          More realistic, the 'Us' I feel part of would currently be those with some sense of irony

          So you really are saying you have no idea how these chemical compounds found their way to the bottom of the oceans? I can see why you would be afraid that you might be blamed, then. Not ironic, just sad.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 15 2017, @10:12AM

            by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @10:12AM (#467314) Journal

            Since there are no known natural sources [nj.gov] of PCB, I'm certain humanity is to be blamed. Just as I'm certain that androgenic global warming is a real threat. Not sure if I'm personally to be blamed (probably, since as a member of an industrial society I very likely buy and discard too many electronic devices etc., but probably not more than the average person).

            With regards to my thread-start, I'm just curious

            - how many of the negative votes
            ---- spotted the irony and felt ridiculed
            ---- didn't spot the irony and thought I actually deny/question humans being responsible here
            ---- just didn't like the comment

            - how many of the positive votes (currently there are only two)
            ---- spotted the irony and agreed to make fun of climate-deniers etc.
            ---- didn't spot the irony and found it reasonable to question man-kinds responsibility

            --
            Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Wednesday February 15 2017, @10:31AM

              by BsAtHome (889) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @10:31AM (#467318)

              I did spot the ironic and sarcastic undertone of the post. However, it is written in such a way that it is more disturbing into the negative than a kick-in-the-ass "lets think about this, shall we" moment, to generate a positive feedback.

              If you want to use hyperbole, please go over the top. The limited span and depth of the post is easily mistaken for a troll or an ignorant or an agenda pusher.

              • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:29AM

                by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:29AM (#467334) Journal

                Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure, which level of hyperbole is most efficient, as a reader I usually prefer subtlety. And, as I wrote before, I don't mind too much losing a bit karma by those not getting it.

                --
                Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday February 15 2017, @06:15PM

                  by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @06:15PM (#467501)

                  You were clearly in Poe's Law territory right there. Those of us who haven't read your posts before, and don't know anything about PBDEs, could easily be fooled.
                  I typically add an extra "you can't really be that dumb" adjective or two to help people decide that I'm parodying, and still manage to get misunderstood.

                  • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:56PM

                    by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:56PM (#467595) Journal

                    I have to admit I didn't know Poe's law. Although I should probably have expected something like that. Do you know/remember shelleytherepublican.com? The site was hilarious, and still some people took it serious :-) (Unfortunately I can't find an archive of that website, and the less old address shelleytherepublican.blogspot.com is more or less dead.)

                    --
                    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2017, @02:58PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2017, @02:58PM (#467803)

                      There's an archive at the ... uhm Archive! https://web.archive.org/web/*/shelleytherepublican.blogspot.com [archive.org]

                      • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday February 16 2017, @03:55PM

                        by q.kontinuum (532) on Thursday February 16 2017, @03:55PM (#467834) Journal

                        Yes, from the blogspot page. I was mainly into the shelleytherepublican.com (without blogspot) and only found a hunt that it couldn't be archieved due to robot.txt. Thanks nevertheless

                        --
                        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @01:24PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @01:24PM (#467366)

              Just as I'm certain that androgenic global warming is a real threat.

              I see, women don't contribute to global warming, it's all the fault of the men! ;-)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:03AM (#467324)

      That's why we don't use the term "Global warming" any more, but the term "Climate change". The first assume that all places get warmer over time, the second doesn't. Example, while you claim a very cold winter, Iceland had its warmest winter in decades.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:38AM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:38AM (#467337) Journal

        To stay in character:

        Dat's dem weaslewording lefties right there. Saying something, and when proven wrong they say something different and claim they meant that all along!

        More serious:
        I never considered it a change of terms, for me both terms are used in parallel. I don't think it helps to abandon the term global warming; "climate change" sounds imo too harmless. Those who don't want to get it won't get it either way. Global warming already means that the global temperature raises, not the local weather, and it sounds imo more alarming than climate change.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2017, @03:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2017, @03:02PM (#467807)

        Global warming however is a fact. We're not talking about here or there or today or yesterday but about the global average temperature trendline.

        In short the planet is retaining more of solar radiation than before.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:16AM

    by BsAtHome (889) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:16AM (#467288)

    One has to wonder when a tipping point is reached and an ecosystem collapses.

    The ozone hole is very slowly recovering because an international agreement reduced the chemicals destroying the ozone layer. But, it has been a real question whether we were in time to prevent a collapse, especially with some nations and corporations resisting the agreements. And that is with chemicals that has relative short half-life. Here, we apparently got lucky.

    The pollution of the sea is a vastly more problematic one than the atmosphere. The rate of pollution is very high and we can see, for example, the plastics accumulating and indicators of the havoc it creates. Half-life of the chemicals and other pollutants dumped into the sea are vastly longer than what we've seen in the atmosphere. We do not even know what effect the vast combination of pollutants will cause. At some stage, a particular part of the biosphere collapses and all hell breaks loose. I'm just wondering whether we can get a grip on ourselves and stop treating our world as a garbage dump. At some stage, it will come down on us.

    So, again, the question I am asking myself is, when will a tipping point be reached? Or, are we already too late to act?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:00AM (#467322)

      An ecosystem (or any other biologic system) is best to be seen as a network between organisms and external physical/chemical factors (or related components at the biological scale). And network theory that here is better known from the IT world, also works in biological networks. A strong change in the network often causes a shake-up and if the change is not too strong the network will recover. This means also that smaller changes over time also can keep the network intact. The question here is "are the changes (global warming/pollution) not too big for a complete collapse?"

      In case of global warming, it's mostly an economic issue. Species will get extinct (sad for us humans, but nature will in principle not care), others will take over their role (niche) in the ecosystem. Big shake up in some areas, less in others. Big but here is where oceanic currents could change drastically, which would result in massive extinction, but still nature has recovered from those as well in the past.
      Sea pollution: due to the bioaccumulation this will impact many more organisms and I agree this might have a stronger impact. One thing that might help is if microorganisms start using the pollution as food source, there are reports that this might be happening already at a small scale.

      • (Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:43AM

        by BsAtHome (889) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:43AM (#467338)

        Agreed, on the grand scale of the earth, all of this is futility. The earth as a whole is agnostic and has recovered from a lot of damage before.

        The question that lies in the air is that we, humans, at least some of us, are capable of reasoning our place in the ecosystem. Therefore, it is suggested that it is unreasonable to be originator of our own demise. It is not merely a philosophical or rhetoric question.

        On the other hand, the logic is obvious and we should know better, but yet we still do not. That can suggest that we are not as evolved and reasonable as we think we are, and therefore will simply go the way of the Dodo in due time of our own creation.

        I am, as of yet, undecided whether I and we as humans fall into the class of reasonable or the class of ignorant. Probably a bit of both, but which one will then take the upper hand? Will that be before or after a tipping point is reached?

        • (Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday February 15 2017, @05:15PM

          by bart9h (767) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @05:15PM (#467461)

          whether I and we as humans fall into the class of reasonable or the class of ignorant

          Thtat's easy:

          The individual is reasonable.

          Humanity is ignorant.

          • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 15 2017, @06:09PM

            by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 15 2017, @06:09PM (#467499) Journal

            The individual is reasonable.
            Humanity is ignorant.

            I'm not sure. Most acquaintances I have I would consider reasonable, but going to a bar or some other occasions I have no problem to identify a couple of ignorant individuals...

            --
            Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum