Slashdot Mirror
Drug Pollution In Rivers Reaching Damaging Levels For Animals and Ecosystems, Scientists Warn (independent.co.uk)
pgmrdlm shares a report from The Independent: Medicines including antibiotics and epilepsy drugs are increasingly being found in the world's rivers at concentrations that can damage ecosystems, a study has shown. Dutch researchers developed a model for estimating concentrations of drugs in the world's fresh water systems to predict where they could cause the most harm to the food web. The study, published in Environmental Research Letters, focuses on two particular drugs: antibiotic ciprofloxacin and anti-epileptic drug carbamazepine. Between 1995 and 2015 it found that rising concentrations of the drugs and the increasing number of water tables affected meant the risks to aquatic ecosystems are 10 to 20 times higher than two decades earlier.
Carbamazepine has been linked to disrupting the development of fish eggs and shellfish digestive processes, and the study found potential risks were most pronounced in arid areas with a few major streams. The risks were much more widespread for ciprofloxacin, with 223 of 449 ecosystems tested showing a significant risk increase. More worrying still, when [the researchers] compared their predictions to samples from four river systems they found their model was underestimating the risk. Pharmaceutical residues can enter these fresh water systems through waste water from poorly maintained sewer systems, or from run-off over fields for drugs used in livestock.
Carbamazepine has been linked to disrupting the development of fish eggs and shellfish digestive processes, and the study found potential risks were most pronounced in arid areas with a few major streams. The risks were much more widespread for ciprofloxacin, with 223 of 449 ecosystems tested showing a significant risk increase. More worrying still, when [the researchers] compared their predictions to samples from four river systems they found their model was underestimating the risk. Pharmaceutical residues can enter these fresh water systems through waste water from poorly maintained sewer systems, or from run-off over fields for drugs used in livestock.
is it turning the freakin frogs gay?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Do not be surprise we see antibiotic resistance. First we gave antibiotic to cattle just in case, and then we pour some into rivers. Many microbes will get exposed to it, and some will adapt.
... the cops. Every time they start pounding on my front door, I've got to flush my stash.
Have gnu, will travel.
A while back we went to go look at a work-for-rent cabin outside of Willits, on a supposedly permacultural demonstration farm. Turned out the owner had workshops there, and she had attendees shit in buckets in an outhouse, then literally buried the shit in a hole next to the river that some neighbor dug for her with his backhoe. This person recently gave the keynote speech at a local farm conference. So as it turns out, both municipal waste management systems and hippies in the woods are shitting up our water systems. You might say it's end-to-end.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Odd medication to complain about. Crbamazepine (Tegretol) was a highly used seizure/epilepsy medication 25 years ago, and to lesser extent, used for migraines or bipolar disorder. Now it is rarely used for any of these.
I'm puzzled why there is particular concern over a medicine that is rarely used any more.
-- Josh
Die in a fire, lying GOP faggots. Nobody will miss the lies or opines presented as fact. You simply do not matter or even factor into a scientific debate on the merits, and given your lies on the topic are generally ignored now.
--
Vote for my party. The party of openness, compassion and peace. Where all are respected.
Yeah. I think we know how Trump go elected.
when rivers feeding the Great Lakes used to catch fire?
I mean drugs in the water are bad, but at least the fish get a nice buzz. /s
For the interested:
https://www.environmentalcounc...
Hippies first appeared in the 1960s. Rivers first caught on fire in the 1960s. How much stronger of a link do you need?
#DeleteChrome
Sadly, in today's world it is "educate instead of shaming, and you'll be swiftly ignored". With people like Betsy DeVille setting the standards for public education in the developed world (oh, yes, the US does, unfortunately, still have a lot of influence) education means nothing.
Today advertising rules, and modern society is a fucking popularity contest. The only result that matters is the polls, and these cater to the average.
And the average is abysmally stupid.
You have no idea what you're blathering about. They're two distinct problems
They are not at all, because we have only so much money, and time to devote to policing either real pollution, or CO2.
Would you rather waste time reducing a gas that plants use to grow, or to eliminate actually unnatural contaminants from our ecosystem?
I choose to work for, rather than against, life.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
LOL, I am not making an argument, but a statement of fact. It is sort of funny that you use those big words and have no clue what they mean.
This is the kind of thing that is much easier to get public support for than the hockey sticks and whatnots.
I'd like to elaborate about this point. The eventual benefits of a CO2 reduction, for example, are very difficult to acknowledge, because they could take years to materialize, if at all. Instead, the benefits of cleaner water and cleaner air can be easily and quickly evaluated. That's why there wouldn't be as much controversy for pollution as there is for climate change policies.
Also, most people will not be personally affected by measures to reduce drug pollution.
While other drugs may be an issue, the elephant in the room is agriculture. For vegetable, big ag uses all sort of pesticides and fertilizers that wind up polluting the water. For animals, they use antibiotics.
The antibiotics are not even meant to preserve animal health, although that's a nice side effect. Weirdly, animals on antibiotics gain weight more quickly, which is (afaik) the real motivation. But these antibiotics wind up in the waste, and from there in the runoff and in the rivers.
What we need is simple: an absolute prohibition on medicating animals that are not sick. Period.
p.s. It's a bit off-topic here, but: the prices for the antibiotics have to be cheap, for this to work economically. The exact same antibiotics for people are generally massively higher. An interesting comment on big pharma.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
If you can't convince the GOP global warming is real, corporations are not people and trickle down economics is a complete failure - this is just back ground babble.
The antibiotics are biotic in origin, they're as natural as the CO2. Climate change is worse for the overall health of a fragmented ecosystem. A large contiguous habitat might have more buffer, so I suppose in that instance pollution could be worse. You're still just trying to decide if it is better to die of hemlock or botulism, splitting hairs that don't matter.
Climate change is worse for the overall health of a fragmented ecosystem.
That is incorrect, because fundamentally more energy in a system means more opportunity.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is not correct, stable gradients are far more important than raw energy difference.
Would you rather waste time reducing a gas that plants use to grow, or to eliminate actually unnatural contaminants from our ecosystem?
What is or isn't "natural" (a poorly defined term at best) is as irrelevant here as the fact that cyanide or ricin occurs naturally when it's in someone's body, killing them. What's relevant is the concentration, and whether it causes ill effects.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's statistical processes that make something natural. Eg. butter has been consumed by humans for thousands of years, and previously never by any humans ever. Margarine had been consumed for about 50. So food-wise no butter is the most natural, butter is fairly natural, margarine is the least natural. It's those "very little natural" substances and processes that we for simplicity call unnatural.
How natural something is isn't always correlated to how good it is for you of course, but in the absence of other information and combined with common sense that metric serves as a useful guide.