Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pristine Lakes Are Filled With Toxins (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

Much of the focus on plastic pollution centres on our oceans. Emerging evidence shows it's also a problem in freshwater, which may even be the source. From a report: "Freshwater systems are increasingly studied but still at a much smaller scale than oceans," says Filella. This may simple be due to the fact that initial studies focused on the ocean -- and so research proposals and grants followed suit. It didn't take long for the Geneva team to find what they were looking for. Filella and colleagues collected over 3,000 samples. They went on to analyse 670 of these, revealing some worrying results. Many of these samples contained hazardous and toxic elements including cadmium, mercury and lead -- in some cases in "very high concentrations", as outlined in a 2018 paper in the journal Frontiers of Environmental Science.

A large proportion of these toxic elements are now banned or restricted. This "reflected the age and residence time of the plastic stock in the lake," says Filella: the plastic waste has been building up over several decades. And as we know, plastic can take hundreds of years to degrade. [...] Lake Geneva is not an outlier. Other lakes show similar levels of pollution. Italy's Lake Garda, for example, also has high levels of plastic waste. A sample from the northern part of the lake contained 1,000 large plastic particles and 450 smaller particles (microplastics) per square metre. [...] It is now becoming clearer that much of the plastic that ends up in the ocean starts off in freshwater bodies in the first place -- estimates suggest it could be as much as 70-80%.

100 comments

  1. It's the cost of doing business by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Pollution is the cost of doing business. So maybe business should pay to clean it up.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Businesses pay nothing, their customers pay everything. Make them account for the pollution that they introduce into their costs and collect it to mitigate the adverse affects of that pollution.

    2. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pollution is also the cost of supplying first world living conditions. Businesses make what they make because people are willing to buy it, because they have decided it improves their life. Obviously you partake, since you're using a computing device connected to the internet. What have you done to clean up the part of the mess that you made by living in first world conditions?

    3. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're advocating for regulations and taxes, just a heads up there Republican party supporter.

    4. Re:It's the cost of doing business by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What have you done to clean up the part of the mess that you made by living in first world conditions?

      I've written my representatives frequently to ask that we not shit where we eat. As is my right and responsibility in a democratic republic.

      Pollution is also the cost of supplying first world living conditions.

      I'm not sure if leaded gasoline was really all that necessary to have a high standard of living. I don't think overfishing is the necessary consequence to feed our populace. And I don't think fertilizer run-off into our freshwater ecosystem is the only way to operate a farm. I think frequent chemical spills is a symptom of mismanagement, poor oversight, incompetence, and criminal negligence.

      Obviously you partake, since you're using a computing device connected to the internet

      Perhaps the purchase price of my computer did not include all of the necessary the costs. Paying to clean up our environment through tax dollars is a bit like padding the income of every business. As a consumer, in the end I will have to pay.

      It is way cheaper for a business to avoid spills than for it to accumulate over decades. We're at a point that we can't force businesses to clean up some of the biggest sites as it would bankrupt them before they could finish the job. I propose that we not let things get to the point where we need the government to step in and clean it up.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:It's the cost of doing business by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Could you explain how you think I am proposing a tax? But that's clearly what I'm trying to avoid. Throwing money in the general fund and letting some bureaucrat manage it tends to be very inefficient (although better than doing nothing).

      PS- I left the GOP in 2016. I tend to bounce between LP and independent and GOP. I'm supporting mostly independents in my local elections this time around.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re: It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying third world slaves to come over and clean it up?

    7. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the pollution is directly attributable to the business and it's quantifiable then yes I would agree. The problem is that these things are found in nature and you'd have to have a baseline established before the industrial revolution to definitively show the real impact and how much has been added. You'd also have to demonstrate the real harm. There's so much politics and money that the science isn't even trustworthy. The businesses who have a vested interest in showing no harm fund the studies that show it's no problem and the government who has a vested interest in gaining funding support the studies that show it's absolutely a dire concern. The truth is that you can't trust any of them.

    8. Re: It's the cost of doing business by reanjr · · Score: 1

      If you're looking for a pre-industrial baseline for plastics, no research is necessary. The baseline is zero.

    9. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are not accountable though, as coded in their very existential definition.
      They do profit from polluting, until they succumb like all other life on earth, but who cares what happens in 1 year, right?

    10. Re:It's the cost of doing business by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      I see, so you expect others to fix the problems you make, rather than fix them through your own actions

      Correct. I'll do my job. And other people must do theirs. If this were an anarchy then I would be expected to do everything myself. Grow my own food. Refine my own crude oil.

      If some aspect of my behavior must be changed to avoid making further problems, I am fine doing that. But I am not going to convert to asceticism on some to gain a moral high-ground when in practice it will be less effective than acknowledging.

      you apparently didn't decide to take into consideration the effects of your purchases on the environment.

      Maybe I did, and my actions are not significant enough to matter. I still needed gasoline to get my ass to work. I'm not allowed to own a horse and buggy, it's against city regulations. I guess cities decided shoveling literal tons of shit off the roads was more onerous than the smog.

      But what the heck, lets tax the profitable businesses so they have less money to be good stewards with.

      Well you assume that every dollar of revenue belongs to a business. Maybe they should have to pay the public for using common resources like lakes, streams, oil, gas, etc. Paying for common services like roads and municipal water is already normal for a business.

      Is paying for something the same as a tax? Sometimes it is, but I feel like tax is a dirty word applied to any payment that is unpleasant.

      P.S. calling your representative's office is more effective than writing to them. But I've found writing to flow a lot easier.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    11. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're advocating for regulations and taxes

      I'd say he's advocating for the end of subsidies.

    12. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. I'll do my job. And other people must do theirs. If this were an anarchy then I would be expected to do everything myself. Grow my own food. Refine my own crude oil.

      If some aspect of my behavior must be changed to avoid making further problems, I am fine doing that. But I am not going to convert to asceticism on some to gain a moral high-ground when in practice it will be less effective than acknowledging.

      So it's OK for you to engage in activities that cause pollution, but your representatives should clamp down on other people who are going about their chosen activities?

      Maybe I did, and my actions are not significant enough to matter. I still needed gasoline to get my ass to work. I'm not allowed to own a horse and buggy, it's against city regulations. I guess cities decided shoveling literal tons of shit off the roads was more onerous than the smog.

      You need only gasoline for your car (or heavens forbid, a truck) because you chose where you live, and where you work in a way that requires you to drive and consume gasoline.

      Well you assume that every dollar of revenue belongs to a business. Maybe they should have to pay the public for using common resources like lakes, streams, oil, gas, etc. Paying for common services like roads and municipal water is already normal for a business.

      Is paying for something the same as a tax? Sometimes it is, but I feel like tax is a dirty word applied to any payment that is unpleasant.

      P.S. calling your representative's office is more effective than writing to them. But I've found writing to flow a lot easier.

      What is the point of your proposed tax? What will be the actual effects of it? "The Public" also uses common resources like lakes, streams, oil, gas, etc. You yourself use oil and gas to get to work (and so do I). Should you now pay extra? When you talk to your representatives, do you ask them to take more money from you? And if they do take your money, and the money of others with the same consumption patterns as you, how does that reduce your pollution? Are you going to stop driving to work if they apply a tax to you for driving? If so, why do you need the tax to make the change?

      Taking money from a business punitively leaves less money to be deployed to fight pollution. Would your proposed tax cause less pollution than leaving the money with the business? You admit that it is more effective to not emit, than it is to clean up after emission. How does the tax make process improvements where pollution start, to reduce emission?

      This also isn't a holier than thou argument. I consume resources to live a first world life. I've just seen lots of useless feel good regulations and taxes applied by government that has done less to clean up pollution than industry investment has.

    13. Re:It's the cost of doing business by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      So it's OK for you to engage in activities that cause pollution, but your representatives should clamp down on other people who are going about their chosen activities?

      Am I doing things that cause pollution? Certainly I exhale CO2 and I create water that must be treated and recycled back into the environment. But what I do is not equivalent to dumping polychlorinated biphenyl into the drain because it's cheaper than having it disposed of safely. If there are improvements I can make, I am certainly willing to try.

      I have representatives to do the boring dirty work of organizing a great number of opinions and debatable priorities within the government. I am unable to force my will into others, nor should I.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    14. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Humbubba · · Score: 4, Insightful
      OrangeTide said

      Pollution is the cost of doing business...

      It's not business that's the problem. The problems are deregulation, negligence, inadequate safety standards, cost cutting, mistakes, ignorance, carelessness, indifference and disregard.

      ... So maybe business should pay to clean it up

      It's a start. If the executives at fault lose their own money and go to jail, that would make a world of difference.

    15. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you cause more pollution than just exhaled CO2, and personal waste water.

      You drive, so you cause gasoline to be produced and burned. You also caused at least one car to be produced, otherwise you wouldn't have a car. Even if it was a used car, you increased car demand by at least 1. Thus at some point, you will have caused the production of ~3000 lbs of waste, and the associated wastes involved in producing and scrapping out the car at end of life.

      You probably live in a house (or apartment building, or something). You have increased house demand/apartment demand/condo demand by at least 1, thus caused 10's of tonnes of building material to be harvested, mined, refined, transported, constructed, etc.

      The main headline is about plastic pollution, and your first post lays the responsibility on businesses, and that they should pay. But you've likely caused many pounds of plastic to be produced. How is it all the responsibility of "business". Do you not benefit from plastic in your life? Is it not also the responsibility of the users of plastic? It is often the user that is last in contact with plastic before disposal. I suspect you aren't the one who throws out plastic fast food wrapper on the side of the road I live on, but it is also isn't the business who's name is on the bag that put it there either.

      So it's not an "all business" problem, but lots of folks like to avoid admitting their contribution, while trying to foist the responsibility onto someone else.

    16. Re:It's the cost of doing business by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Why is everybody blaming businesses? It isn't businesses that fill beaches and roadsides with water bottles and beer cans.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    17. Re:It's the cost of doing business by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Earlier in the thread I already rejected asceticism as a debatable point. Unless I can be convinced that my premise is flawed I won't discuss it further.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    18. Re:It's the cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point isn't acesticism.

      My point is that is far from only businesses that cause pollution. Therefore your opening quip that "Pollution is the cost of doing business. So maybe business should pay to clean it up." is simplistic. Pollution is caused by all people who use resources. To think that only other people are responsible, (in this case "business), and therefore only other people should be made to clean it up is immature.

      First world living kicks ass. We live in what is probably the greatest time ever. Certainly the greatest time we have been able to find evidence of in history. We are not sustenance farming. We are not seeing half our young die while they are still young. That requires resources from nature. I use resources from nature.

      What I am saying is: it is immature to foist all responsibility for pollution on someone else, while shirking ones own responsibility.

    19. Re:It's the cost of doing business by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      And my point is that my house is already in order.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  2. Exactly by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While people are going on about "Climate Change" the REAL IMMEDIATE DANGER is local pollution! Where do you think your water comes from? You are worried about lower Manhattan getting flooded in 2050 while you drink your toxic water! Complete insanity.

    1. Re:Exactly by foxalopex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because many of these problems go hand in hand. A reduction of use of fossil fuels in our cars for example would reduce the pollution from them. Many of our plastics use cheap and freely available fossil fuels. If we cut back on fossil fuels, then cheap oil won't be available and folks will stop making as much plastic and fall back to using more naturally sourced organic materials (cellulose or fiber makes a good building material for example).

    2. Re:Exactly by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "If we cut back on fossil fuels, then cheap oil won't be available"

      What? I give up on Slashdot.

    3. Re:Exactly by hipp5 · · Score: 2

      While people are going on about "Climate Change" the REAL IMMEDIATE DANGER is local pollution! Where do you think your water comes from? You are worried about lower Manhattan getting flooded in 2050 while you drink your toxic water! Complete insanity.

      Well, we kind of need to be working on both of those things at the same time, because the fixes for things like climate change will take decades, if not centuries. If we wait until we solve the toxic water problem before we tackle climate change, 2050 will be here already. Luckily, nations are capable of doing more than one thing at once, and many of the the solutions to one environmental problem help fix other environmental problems.

    4. Re:Exactly by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      How about this: We focus on all the above instead of just one thing, mmkay? We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, I think we can find enough people to work on fixing everything simultaneously. Unless nobody wants a planet they can live in a few hundred years, that is.

    5. Re:Exactly by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Actually, the water you drink isn't toxic because it's been treated and filtered and whatnot.
      Anyway, I've been to Lago di Garda back in 2009, it was beautiful, and I genuinely believed its water to be very clean (it was clear and without a shred of garbage in sight).

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    6. Re:Exactly by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      We can be worried about more than one environmental issue. Heck it is particularly easy since for the most part the political candidates concerned about any given major environmental issue are generally concerned about others as well, and because there's pretty heavy overlap between issues. For example, burning coal for power plants involves coal mining which is a serious source of pollution in fresh water systems.

    7. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Focus is exactly the problem. As a society we can't focus on more than one problem at a time. Even at that we can't seem to focus on one thing longer than a few days.

      Climate change is incredibly hard and complicated. I'm not even sure we CAN do anything about it without potentially making things much worse.

      On the other hand pollution IS within our control. Now, today, for calculable dollar amounts. Yet we do practically nothing about it because, OMG! CLIMATE CHANGE!

      Sure, we could focus on everything at one time. We could also fail to do anything at all.

    8. Re:Exactly by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You're not listening. How about we do something about ALL POLLUTION? Exhaust from internal combustion engines and fossil fuel burning power plants get into our water too, or didn't you notice? CO2 gets into the ocean and acidifies it, which is destroying reefs and ocean life, upsetting the balance of EVERYTHING, and also by the way making food from the sea unhealthy to eat. You want to focus on SMALL things when the BIG PICTURE affects everything simultaneously. How about we tackle ALL OF IT at the same time by focusing on the BIGGEST PROBLEMS first? Stop burning fossil fuels entirely. Bring back nuclear power, we can do it SAFELY now. More focus on creating less waste and more reusability. Stop putting quarterly profits ahead of the impact of things generations from now, when they won't be able to do ANYTHING about it.

    9. Re: Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's get Scott Pruit on it, he'll fix it!

    10. Re:Exactly by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      "Oh no, everyone's cut back on fossil fuels now that alternative and renewable energy sources are available!"
      "But what do we do now with our oil surplus and glut of production capacity?"
      "People still need fossil fuels for some of the vehicles they use."
      "But not enough! Prices will drop if people don't consume it!"

      "I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Plastics."

    11. Re:Exactly by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Actually, a surprising (and outright concerning) amount of water pollution comes from cost-cutting with waste water treatment plants--ranging from just skipping steps in treating sewage to assuming that the roads are always always always clean so you can just have the storm drains dump straight into the nearest bodies of water without aaaaany bad consequences.

  3. Great, another emotion based article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can we get rid of MsMash please? All they post is emotionally based stories, none of this MEANS anything.

    I cannot utilize the knowledge that water is polluted to create anything at all, there has been no innovation here, nothing was created or constructed. No one programmed anything, there are no chips, electricity or engineering to ANY ARTICLE FROM MSMASH EVER.

    Whoever they are, their just a muck raker "zomfg, did you hear about the water, LOLZ, its like totally like polluted *japanese giggle*" All they want to do is stir our emotions and not our minds.

    BAN MSMASH and get someone with a hint of intelligence in that seat doing proper research into news for nerds.

  4. Cd, Hg, Pb by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    And yet it's all about plastics not degrading? I wonder if MsMash understands that the only way you get heavy metals into plastic is if you're using recycled plastics that were mixed in with heavy metals to begin with. Virgin plastic doesn't use Cd, Hg, or Pb for catalyzing or production of plastic. It's the push for recycled materials that creates the potential hazard.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Virgin plastic doesn't use Cd, Hg, or Pb for catalyzing or production of plastic.,

      Yes it does. Hg is used as a catalyst in chlorine production, and ends up in PVC. Pb is used as a stabilizer, and Cd is used to create yellow and red pigments.

    2. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sometimes wonder how many of these "scientists" have ANY understanding of what the earth is made of. Every one of these metals ARE IN THE GROUND ALREADY! They leach out into the ground water and will build up naturally in lakes.

      Although, looking at the article they're measuring the metal content of the plastics they picked up along the beach. As the parent said, none of those metals are present in the plastic from manufacturing, they must have picked them up from the environment.

    3. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This point was bugging me too. I know first hand that I've seen lead warnings on older plastic mini-blinds and electrical wire insulation on Christmas lights, so that's a fact, but Cd & Hg? Of course, these metals and many more are found naturally in the environment to begin with. I wonder how much is attributable to pollution. One article I found from 2014 said that plastic particles from pollution absorb these metals and others from the environment, making the particles more toxic to any creature that would ingest them. They didn't make the implied counter point that the plastics are removing heavy metals from the environment, which suggests the possibility that plastic particles might be useful for detoxifying lakes if they could be protected from ingestion or scattering beyond the immediate body of water.

    4. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      RoHS sets limits on what you can have - and it's infinitesimally small levels. RoHS - created and driven by the EC - says you cannot have any residual Hg, Pb, or Cd in your products.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by hipp5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was confused by the summary too, so I looked at the study. These heavy metals used to be used in plastics as stabilizers and colour pigments, but are now typically banned. The study used this fact to demonstrate that the plastics they were finding predate regulations (i.e. are old) and have therefore been building up in these lakes for decades.

    6. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wonder how many of these "scientists" have ANY understanding of what the earth is made of. Every one of these metals ARE IN THE GROUND ALREADY! They leach out into the ground water and will build up naturally in lakes.

      Although, looking at the article they're measuring the metal content of the plastics they picked up along the beach. As the parent said, none of those metals are present in the plastic from manufacturing, they must have picked them up from the environment.

      Lead is rarely found in it's pure form in nature, and is not found uniformly everywhere. If lead is found in water far from any source lead, then it most likely got there by pollution.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      RoHS was only introduced in 2006. It also only applies to electrical equipment.

    8. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't looking for it in pure form. They used an XRF gun and looked for lead's signature.

    9. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      and have therefore been building up in these lakes for decades.

      If they pre-date regulations, then they have not been building up for decades. They accumulated decades ago and are not building up through any human activity now.

      In other words, since there is already regulation prohibiting them, this is not a current problem that we can enact more legislation to deal with. This is like someone coming across a thalidomide baby that is grown up, hearing about what happened, and yelling that we need to enact legislation to ban thalidomide. Or hearing about someone killing someone else and demanding that there be more laws prohibiting murder.

      Is it news that when people are allowed to use lakes for recreation that they drop junk in the water? Has nobody gone to Shasta during spring break? The solution, of course, is to ban all recreational use of all waterways. Blaming the big evil corporations for people who toss the plastic can rings or other plastic garbage in the water is just nuts.

    10. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up bioaccumulation why this problem is exponential, even if banned decades ago.

      And then get the hell off our lawn shill!!

    11. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The use of cadmium in pigments has been banned by several countries for a few years. Concentrations in fresh water should decrease over time.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There's only a certain amount of the bad metals in plastic in fresh waters. Some of the plastic has yet to degrade; as it does more will be released into the water. Meanwhile, metals already in the water will either be ingested, precipitate out, or be carried to the oceans. Bio-accumulation refers only to the ingested portion, which will over time reach a peak and then decline. The idea that it is exponential long-term is just silly.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by cirby · · Score: 1

      ...and a couple of their samples were so ridiculously high that it's pretty obvious that they really, REALLY screwed up their tests.

      Unless someone is putting out plastic with more than two percent lead by mass. Or with almost eight percent chromium by mass - and nobody in the EU never noticed.

      There's something really, really wrong with this study.

    14. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was confused by the summary too, so I looked at the study. These heavy metals used to be used in plastics as stabilizers and colour pigments, but are now typically banned. The study used this fact to demonstrate that the plastics they were finding predate regulations (i.e. are old) and have therefore been building up in these lakes for decades.

      Anyone in Maine can tell you the state has recommended annual limits for consumption of different kinds of freshwater fish, from various industries polluting rivers and streams going back waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than a decade ago.

      Plastic bottle toxins? Hehe, ok, some rivers haven't been "pristine" for over two hundred years, or since the industrial age.

    15. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      No, you missed the point (maybe deliberately, judging by that username?). The study isn't about heavy metals in plastics. It's about plastics in waterways. They just used heavy metal analysis as a dating method to show how old some of the plastics are. I.e. the plastics in the waterways have been accumulating for ages.

    16. Re:Cd, Hg, Pb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and a couple of their samples were so ridiculously high that it's pretty obvious that they really, REALLY screwed up their tests.

      Unless someone is putting out plastic with more than two percent lead by mass. Or with almost eight percent chromium by mass - and nobody in the EU never noticed.

      There's something really, really wrong with this study.

      lead sinkers anyone???

  5. Page Ad - Envision Plastics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Envision Plastics has a well placed ad as I read this. Hilarious!

  6. Toxin? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    A toxin is a poisonous substance created by organic mechanisms. What do micro-plastics and heavy metals have to do with toxins?

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Toxin? by Holi · · Score: 1

      I get you are trying to be pedantic, but you failed to understand that plastics are organic compounds.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  7. Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pristine Lakes Are Filled With Toxins

    ... then they're not "pristine" -- which means, "in its original condition; unspoiled" or "clean and fresh as if new; spotless".

    How about, "Lakes Thought To Be Pristine Are Filled With Toxins".

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really. Lake Geneva - in the middle of Switzerland. Which has been industrialized since industry was industry. Take a quick look at the area with your GIS of choice - it's hardly 'pristine'.

      TL;DR - we have some issues with pollution.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Heavy metals also leach out of mountains or other geological features naturally, so they may be actually pristinely polluted.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Without looking, I think 'pristine' used in this context is a legal definition, not a dictionary definition.

    4. Re:Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      True point, but as it turns out orthogonal to the study -- the summary is pretty misleading even for around here. The study was about the presence of plastics in the lakes, and that some of the plastics contain high levels of heavy metals. They didn't find heavy metals in the water itself, and specifically punt on whether it's even possible for the heavy metals to leach from the plastics:

      The migratability of hazardous elements from the polymeric matrix is likely to determine their environmental impacts and is recommended as a future area of research.

    5. Re:Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I hardly read the summary any more you have done quite a bit more than me :)

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you would find heavy metal at the Lake Geneva shoreline. That's where Deep Purple was making records with a "mobile" when the gambling house burned down.

    7. Re:Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They literally had smoke on the water as well as fire in the sky.

    8. Re:Dear Editors, Sorry to be pedantic, but ... by quenda · · Score: 1

      On further investigation, the lakes are filled with DHMO.
      This known toxin has lead to thousands of deaths, including small children who have accidentally entered the lakes.

  8. Either or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's nothing that says that manufacturers can't make their stuff and do it clean as possible. It's a false dichotomy created by the business community that want to keep their bottom lines fat by passing the costs on the commons.

    This is a prime example where government regulations do good.

    And so what if things become more expensive. We don't need so much crap in our lives anyway and the health benefits and health savings costs to our society far outweigh any costs.

  9. All of our precious bodily fluids! by sinij · · Score: 1

    Jack D. Ripper was right! They are trying to impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!

    1. Re: All of our precious bodily fluids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I first learned about this after being with a woman.

  10. Anyone Remember Prophecy? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    I read this article and was thinking of a movie I saw when I was 10 or so about industrial pollutants in North East US causing some bear to become a mutant monster. I can see that still happening with all they're doing now.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079758/

    --
    The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
    1. Re:Anyone Remember Prophecy? by will_die · · Score: 1

      That good old era of attacking animal films. After Jaws my favorite has to be Orca.

    2. Re: Anyone Remember Prophecy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manbearpig? Careful, Al Gore was super cereal last time.

  11. Not even thought to be pristine by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the lakes specifically mentioned, Lake Geneva, is not only not pristine but there is no way that anyone could ever think it would be! It's a large lake with several large towns on the shore. Geneva in particular used to use the water in a factory (the original cause of the famous Jet d'eau) and it has ferries which criss-cross between the shore towns. This is not even close to being "pristine".

  12. Of course... by cirby · · Score: 2

    ...a fair number of "pristine" lakes and waterways contain surprising amounts of heavy metals and other nasty things because they pick them up from natural sources. They casually mention it, but it's a bigger problem than you'd think - usually parts per billion, but that's enough to trigger EPA attention by itself, for example.

    The other thing to watch out for is the complete lack of useful numbers in the article. The paper itself has them, and they are certainly high. In fact, they're so high it makes you wonder if they screwed up their tests. They claim 23,700 ppm of lead in some plastic samples. Almost 24 parts per thousand? More than TWO PERCENT lead in plastic as part of the manufacturing process? Or a sample with almost EIGHT PERCENT chromium? In plastic? Are they sure they weren't pointing the detector at their car instead?

    Sorry, not buying it. Someone either screwed up the analysis, wrote "parts per million" instead of "parts per billion," or something even dumber.

    1. Re:Of course... by aicrules · · Score: 2

      The maximums are so far off from the medians that I don't see how they wouldn't throw those out as outliers. But it's enviro-science (defined as real science taken out of context), whose goal is almost always to scare people into action, so this is par for the course.

    2. Re:Of course... by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1
      Not to mention...

      ...1,000 large plastic particles and 450 smaller particles (microplastics) per square metre.

      Square metre?

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
  13. Why not both? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Also 2050 is way to conservative. We're worried about lower crop yields and severe weather leading to food shortages and wars. It doesn't take a massive change to screw everything up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  14. pristine? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Lake Geneva is not an outlier. Other lakes show similar levels of pollution. Italy's Lake Garda

    Calling Lake Geneva or Lake Garda "pristine" is ridiculous. There are major cities located on those lakes, and they have been used for waste dumping, agricultural runoff, and mining wastes since Roman times.

    1. Re:pristine? by suman28 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is EXACTLY what you should focus on in this story

    2. Re:pristine? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No, what you should focus on is that the BBC and other media publish fake news, spread FUD, and lie to you. This is just one particularly egregious example out of many.

  15. Organic Vs. Toxin by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    True, plastics are organic compounds. However, what defines a toxin is that it is a result of an organic *process* meaning it was produced in a living organism.

    Also, I'm not being pedantic - these are scientific terms that have specific meanings. Exchanging the terms poison and toxin is just as dumb as calling toxic substances "chemicals."

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  16. It gets worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Did you know fish constantly defecate in those same lakes? They even fuck in it!

    1. Re:It gets worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite the oxymoron: "Frontiers of Environmental Science!"

    2. Re:It gets worse. by Memnos · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, fish don't tend to shit much cadmium., so it might not be fair to make the fish pay for its cleanup.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
  17. Simple Fix by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Ban plastic food containers. I grew up with everything in a bottle. Milk bottles, coke bottles, ketchup, mayo, everything was in a glass container. We took the coke bottles back to the store for the deposit and the kids used that to buy candy and more cokes. Plastic is cheaper but not if it's going to poison us.

    1. Re:Simple Fix by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      This is common in Europe for things like drinks. You can also get milk in glass bottles, but normally you only get it in metal lined paper. Come to think of it, I think I have never seen plastic milk bottles here.
      Banning plastic would not be that big of a deal here I think. Most people that I know get their meat from the butcher counter and that is wrapped in waxed paper.
      Ice cream would be an issue.
      At one point, I guess we will need to bite the bullet though.

    2. Re:Simple Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have very fond memories of how an 8-pack of glass Coke bottles, walked up to the convenience store, would buy me another bottle of Coke with a quarter left over for a video game. I'd place the return of video games to convenience stores as slightly more likely than soda companies returning to glass.

    3. Re:Simple Fix by cirby · · Score: 1

      ...and the amount of energy and other resources used to ship (heavier, so more-costly to make and distribute), return, and clean/disinfect was much, much higher than just selling it in lightweight plastic in the first place.

    4. Re:Simple Fix by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the advantages of glass bottles. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/write_light/11965346/677967/677967_original.jpg

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Simple Fix by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Sure, plastic is cheaper in the short run. But the environment is getting saturated with it. What will another hundred years of this bring us?

  18. Who did what [Re:Of course...] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Is there a way to tell if toxins such as heavy metals come from man-made pollution, man-made environmental alteration (such as diverting streams), versus purely natural?

    It's tricky to regulate and clean if we don't know what's causing it.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  19. Did they look before? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    I am not disputing that the water has pollutants in it. I am just wonder if the same samples were taken years back. Can we rule out the possibility that those lakes have always had such chemicals in them?

  20. Speaking of pristine and toxins ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    I just saw this on the Google news feed: Russia just launched a floating nuclear power plant, headed to the Arctic. I can't help but comment on this headline: Russia's 'Nuclear Titanic' Heads West, Raising Fears of 'Chernobyl on Ice' to say the "Chernobyl on Ice" sounds like the worst Ice Capades theme ever.

    (Apologies to those that take the potential destruction of the environment and Earth seriously.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  21. All these European countries... by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    All these European countries with pollution in their lakes, you might think they had a World-wide war with Bombs, and gas, and things detonated or masses of un-used ordinance buried everywhere.

    "OMG There's POLLUTION EVERYWHERE"

    Well, yea, wars do that. They destroy everything they touch for hundreds of years onward.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  22. Boundary waters canoe area by burtosis · · Score: 2

    In northern Minnesota there is a large national park with pristine wilderness, scenic 500 foot bluffs, and crystal clear lakes popular for fishing and many have over 15 feet of water clarity. It's a popular camping spot, but they only let in a few people per day and make you watch a video of how to leave no trace since it's so untouched. The video says "it's a pristine wilderness, so let's keep it that way."

    You can't eat the fish.

    Mercury contamination from coal power as far away as china has polluted the lakes to the point many of them aren't safe to eat the fish, or it's a small portion per month.

    1. Re:Boundary waters canoe area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just from Coal plants dumping mercury into the eco systems. Those CFL's and other Flourescent lights contain mercury, they go into the land fills and the ground water carries the mercury where?

  23. Third world mud people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Third world muddy monkey people have no respect for the environment. They are the source for this pollution.

  24. Pristine Edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmmmm. Pretty.

  25. Please, someone help me think... by n7ytd · · Score: 1

    What is the opinion that I should form based on my 30 seconds worth of media spoonfeeding today?

    A) Pollution is bad, so we should throw money at researchers looking into it, as proven by this unbiased paper in the journal Frontiers of Environmental Science
    B) Pollution used to be worse, so efforts in the last 25-50 years to reduce heavy metal use in plastics manufacturing are paying off. We should fund future research to ensure this trend continues,

    -or-

    C) Lake Geneva, surrounded by active civilization but "pristine" because there are mountains around it, has pollutants in it which will either tend to stay there and/or flow with the water to other places. We should probably fund some more research to know exactly how that works.