Slashdot Mirror


Banned Chemicals From 1970's Persist In Deepest Reaches of the Pacific Ocean, Study Shows (bbc.com)

walterbyrd quotes a report from BBC: 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 results are published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution. 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 pollutants found in the amphipods included polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which were commonly used as electrical insulators and flame retardants. PCB production was banned by the U.S. in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a UN treaty signed in 2001. From the 1930s to when PCBs were banned in the 1970s, the total global production of these chemicals is estimated to be in the region of 1.3 million tons. Released into the environment through industrial accidents and discharges from landfills, these pollutants are resistant to being broken down naturally, and so persist in the environment. The authors of the study say that the deep ocean can become a "sink" or repository for pollutants. They argue that the chemicals accumulate through the food chain so that when they reach the deep ocean, concentrations are many times higher than in surface waters.

74 comments

  1. And also by rossdee · · Score: 2, Funny

    MH370

    1. Re:And also by quenda · · Score: 0
    2. Re:And also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perfect. It means that the chemicals migrate to the deepest holes, accumulate there and will be internalized by the earth in the next quake. So in future, to dispose of this stuff, we can simply pour it down any drain and it will eventually get to the Mariana trench.

    3. Re:And also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MH370

      Whatever you do, don't tell CNN...

  2. Fuck The World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Destroy the environment! Rape every ocean!

    1. Re:Fuck The World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Humanitarian

    2. Re:Fuck The World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genocide all humans.

    3. Re:Fuck The World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faggot you need to learn everything again. You are a fucking idiot.

  3. And this friends will mean only one thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wsr with Atlantis itself. Their great undersea empire will rise up and crush us beneath the booted heel of justice.

    Soon, we will be fed to dolphins in Tuna, not the other way around.

    Be warned. The tides are coming.

    1. Re:And this friends will mean only one thing. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      ...Be warned. The tides are coming.

      That's OK, Clemson is standing by...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re: And this friends will mean only one thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, what it means is that a team will be created at the UN from multiple countries including the worst polluters. This team will decide that the only way to resolve this issue is to create a global tax on something that everyone needs and first world countries will be required to give billions to third world countries. This money will not be tracked and will be used for everything except what the original purpose was.

      I know it sounds like I'm bashing the UN because I'm a hater but seriously that seems like what will happen and nothing will truly occur to resolve the issue. I wish I was wrong but I know I'm not.

      -GeekPoet

    3. Re: And this friends will mean only one thing. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      None of that will happen, you'll be able to happily pollute away until the cows come home. Enjoy.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re: And this friends will mean only one thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      None of that will happen, you'll be able to happily pollute away until the cows come home. Enjoy.

      Well, it wouldn't fail because the third-world despots that effectively run the UN didn't TRY to extort trillions of dollars from the EU and the US.

      Iran on the "Human Rights Commission"?!?! I'm surprised the mullahs found time away from stoning gays and honor-killing rape victims.

    5. Re: And this friends will mean only one thing. by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      Today is Tuesday, a day that ends in Y. On days that ends in Y, the UN is the Strongly Worded Letter Gang that Can't Shoot Straight.

      The other days are when the UN is the Evil Black Helicopter Socialist New World Order Agenda 21 George Soros Illuminati Trilateral Commission Bilderberg Group Conspiracy.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  4. Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Surprising that people think seafood is healthy.

    1. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the pizza, chips and beer you normally consume?

    2. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Surprising that people think seafood is healthy.

      The ocean is pretty big though.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The ocean is pretty big though.

      Bioconcentration is the reason why dilution is not the pollution solution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, what if this means homeopathic medicine does work!

      Oh god, the science!

    5. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

    6. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by Maritz · · Score: 4, Funny

      This might blow your mind, but the fish I and other normal people eat doesn't come from the fucking Mariana trench.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    7. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately they avoid giving any sense of how much accumulation there really is. We have such sensitive instruments these days we can practically detect a molecule in a mountain. The concentrations discovered are likely so low that they don't even register on any risk scale. Its an interesting phenomena to understand and learn from, but its not likely a problem, from an exposure standpoint, for aquatic life.

    8. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this sort of "pollution" matters mainly if you are into eating extremophiles that live at the bottom of the deep ocean. I doubt the extremophiles themselves care, by their very nature.

    9. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by fnj · · Score: 1

      Good point. However, wherever the fish you eat do come from, bioconcentration is most assuredly taking place. That is also true for plants and land (farm and wild) animals.

    10. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might blow your mind, but the fish I and other normal people eat doesn't come from the fucking Mariana trench.

      Man, James Cameron invites all of us but you to dinner at his place and you are still bitter about it, after all these years.

    11. Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      The study summary in the Nature.com link gives the analytical results, and yes the values very low, orders of magnitude lower than any human-health PCB standard in the US that I'm aware of (I'm an environmental consultant), so if we were eating seafood from the marianas trench (we do not) it's unlikely there would be any health risk to humans. However, it's very hard know what contaminant concentrations pose a risk to specific animal species and a lot more study would be needed. Don't hold your breath though, because full life-cycle ecological risk studies animals is hard enough to do at the surface, much less in Marianas Trench!

  5. So that's where they went! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    I have been looking all over for them.

  6. Good, let them store the toxics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good, when the concentration of toxins get high enough, catch the organisms, and throw them into landfills. I guess landfills at the bottom of the ocean will have to be built. It would also be a good place to store nuclear waste.

  7. Surprised, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you change the order of the statements, it's rather obvious.

    Used widely during much of the 20th Century, these chemicals were later found to be toxic and to build up in the environment.

    Scientists were surprised by the relatively high concentrations of pollutants like PCBs and PBDEs in deep sea ecosystems.

    In other words, scientists were surprised to find relatively high concentrations of pollutants built up in the environment, yet that is in fact what they said would happen...

    1. Re:Surprised, really? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The other thing that surprises me about any of this is that the US banned it. Hopefully Trump will see reason and lift that ban. You can't hurt the environment, even in principle.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:Surprised, really? by onepoint · · Score: 1

      What this does seems to say ever so slightly to me, is, we need to algae bloom the ocean over 30 to 50 years, in some sort of way that will provide a layer to reduce and or bury the problem.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
  8. And this just in... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    Toxic chemicals that build up in the environment found to build up in the environment!!!

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  9. Isn't that where we dumped them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just saying...

  10. I might be uneducated by wakeboarder · · Score: 1

    Someone please fill me in on what ng g1 dw is. I get the nanograms, I get the inverse grams. WHAT IS A dw. Thanks

    1. Re:I might be uneducated by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      From the second link in the summary, to the scientific paper: dw = "dry weight".

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:I might be uneducated by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      dw is dry weight (as opposed to lw, which is lipid weight), Apparently the two are highly correlated, but not strictly related.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  11. Whipslash - A suggestion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Slasshdot is supposed to be a tech site. Can you please Stop BeauHD from continuing to tranform the site into a tree hugging left wing haven with the incessant SJW and Environazi article fwapping?

  12. What could possibly go wrong? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Dump our waste that will remain for all eternity into the area on our planet that we understand the least, and in case we fuck up, we have no way to undo it.

    Is it me or does this sound like a really bad idea?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Dump our waste that will remain for all eternity into the area on our planet that we understand the least, and in case we fuck up, we have no way to undo it.

      You're actually not allowed to dump the waste into the ocean. And even China outlawed production of PCBs in the 1970s, although there's a question there — PCBs are cheaper to produce than any other kind of transformer oil, so is it actually still happening in secret? Inquiring minds.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Zibodiz · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted what the author suggested. I don't think they were suggesting that we 'should' dump waste in the oceans; rather that the food chain and other natural processes create a 'dead end' for the pollutants in the deep sea, which is where they're trapped and accumulate indefinitely.

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but there was a lot of it made and it lasts. I came across some stored at an old substation in the late 1980s and it's probably still there unless someone poured it down the drain (not unlikely).

  13. Hello, China! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    When the PCBs ceased production, the 750,000 transformers containing PCBs were subsequently discarded as useless in the years 1980 to 1990.

    Currently, most of them are being dumped and sealed in caves or in cellars. However, due to the long term storage, the rotting process and other damages, PCBs leakages occurred. The soil surrounding the dumping site has been found to have a higher content of PCBs.

    Although, we can't blame it all on lax Chinese cleanup processes. We can probably blame the rest on maritime decomissioning.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Hello, China! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Why focus on China - Chinese PCB total production compares as just 2% of US production, and 4% of European production and less than 1% of total PCB production overall, with many unlicensed factories producing in eastern Europe after WW2. As mass production generally started in the 1930s in the US and Europe, where did all that early stuff go...?

    2. Re:Hello, China! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why focus on China

      Because as per my link, they have taken a typically Chinese approach to old PCBs and just thrown them into holes in the ground and pretended they didn't exist.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Hello, China! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Yes, because US companies were so on the ball and utterly ethical in that area before the EPA came into being in the 1970s... or rather, who the fuck knows what happened to the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of PCBs manufacturered in the US between the 1930s and 1970s.

      It doesnt take much to list hundreds of sites where US companies took a "typically Chinese approach" to much worse chemicals than PCBs.

  14. Why are we talking about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    instead of the Oroville dam? This might hurt some fish, but a catastrophic dam failure would put my data center under more than a 100' of water.

    1. Re:Why are we talking about this... by mmell · · Score: 0
      Yeah, but your datacenter doesn't produce over 50% (possibly as much as 85%) of the planet's O2 supply. Spaceship Earth needs her life-support systems operational if we're to continue living here.

      Never mind saving bees, snowy owls or snail darters. We're talking about breathable air here. You wanna keep burning fossile fuels (actually, I kinda do)? You're gonna want something that'll at least turn CO2 back into O2, and a few national forests full of trees ain't gonna cut it!

    2. Re:Why are we talking about this... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You wanna keep burning fossile fuels (actually, I kinda do)? You're gonna want something that'll at least turn CO2 back into O2, and a few national forests full of trees ain't gonna cut it!

      If you want to keep burning fossil fuels you're going to have to be able to turn CO2 back into oil.

      Oil is too valuable to burn, and we have the technology to stop doing it. Let's make use of it before it's too late, if it isn't already. We may well be beyond the tipping point already. Atmospheric CO2 levels in fact suggest that this is the case.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Why are we talking about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil is too valuable to burn

      Yes. Let's turn it into highly stable organic chemical compounds that concentrate their way up the food chain and ... oh wait.

    4. Re:Why are we talking about this... by mmell · · Score: 1

      Maybe - but (like so many of us) - I'm addicted. When there's an affordable battery fueled 3/4 ton pickup truck on the market, let me know. Until then, I'll keep sucking energy out of the slow carbon cycle and pumping the wastes into the fast carbon cycle.

    5. Re:Why are we talking about this... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Must be weird to have such carefully curated ignorance.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  15. Thanks, Jack Welch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for dumping all those PCBs when he was running General Electric's plastics division. BTW Welch later invented offshore outsourcing as CEO of GE. Look it up.

    He's now busy promoting Trump, as I guess he's decided they are kindred spirits. They probably are.

    1. Re:Thanks, Jack Welch! by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You've got a set of rulers who are highly skeptical of environmental damage of any kind, ever. Enjoy that.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:Thanks, Jack Welch! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're skeptical because too many people on all sides are politicizing the findings. Maybe if we had a government agency that was just interested in the data. And providing solid evidence.

      Too bad we don't have that. The EPA is as politicized as it gets.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  16. No. by mmell · · Score: 1

    (N/T)

  17. grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apostrophe's

  18. Mediapopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Relevant.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3JLKw0q4kY

  19. Now if only they had been band worldwide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because they where only band in the 70's in the US

    1. Re:Now if only they had been band worldwide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had probably been banned long before that in other countries.

  20. ha ha, you're funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PCB production was banned by the U.S. in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a UN treaty signed in 2001.

    Yeah, sure they are. Why PCB and BPA are still found in the plastic lining of canned foods and soups if they're banned products?

    1. Re:ha ha, you're funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contamination.

    2. Re:ha ha, you're funny by _merlin · · Score: 1

      BPA (Bisphenol A) is not a PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl), in fact it isn't chlorinated at all. It isn't completely banned like PCBs. Also, PCBs were never knowingly used in food packaging.

  21. Why the surprise? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    Many PCBs are stable in cold and dark conditions and need to be broken down by sunlight or the right kind of microorganisms. Without sunlight to break the chemicals down they are bound to persist for many decades and possibly centuries. In soil there are microorganisms that can break down PCBs, but they don't exist in the deep ocean (that I'm aware of).

    I suspect the concentrations to only increase over time, as rivers and lakes eventually get stable material from the bottom dredged from floods, construction or even drought. Resulting in more contaminates flooring into the ocean.

    Look, chemistry is a very powerful thing in nature. And we carry a huge burden of responsibility for the planet when we produce different chemical compounds on an industrial scale. There's nothing wrong with science and technology that can't be fixed with a little cautious restraint in how it is applied.

    "In all of your deliberations in the Confederate Council, in your efforts at law making, in all your official acts, self interest shall be cast into oblivion. Cast not over your shoulder behind you the warnings of the nephews and nieces should they chide you for any error or wrong you may do, but return to the way of the Great Law which is just and right. Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in view not only the present but also the coming generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground -- the unborn of the future Nation." -- The Constitution of the Iroquois Nation (The Great Binding Law)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a large potential food source accumulates, something will likely evolve to eat it.

    2. Re:Why the surprise? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Sure, but evolution is slow in the deep ocean. Do you want to wait 500 years? what if its 50,000?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find a hardy existing species, CRISPR in some genes, and viola!

  22. So, nothing new then? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    These are then consumed by amphipods and other deep sea creatures.

    So "fish" that eat "fish' have bad stuff in them, what's new? I regulate my tuna consumption because of the mercury buildup, and I love tuna. I would bet their mercury levels were high as well, but then that would not make news I suppose.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  23. Concentration units by DrYak · · Score: 1

    ng * g ^-1 :

    nanograms [of the polluant, found] per gram [of the medium].

    10 ng * g ^-1 :
    if you take 1 gram of the soil of the bottom of the pacific ocean, you'll find that it contains 10 ng of the plastic polluant.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Concentration units by fnj · · Score: 1

      Or, expressed more rationally and clearly, 1 ng * g^-1 = 1 ppbm (part per billion by mass).

  24. No no no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fake news!

    The origin of these chemicals is obviously not human /s

  25. Hey! It Was The Seventies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all took chemicals that were banned, man!

  26. We learned this back in grade school science class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inorganic materials never break down, they stay in the environment, and in the organisms, forever. No surprise. I'm glad I grew up during a time when science education was considered important, and also fact-based and unpolluted by lesson plans from industries wanting to influence us. Except for Reddy Kilowatt. He was cool.