Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Chemical Pollution Has Passed Safe Limit For Humanity, Say Scientists (theguardian.com) 98

Posted by BeauHD from the planetary-boundary dept.
The cocktail of chemical pollution that pervades the planet now threatens the stability of global ecosystems upon which humanity depends, scientists have said. The Guardian reports: Plastics are of particularly high concern, they said, along with 350,000 synthetic chemicals including pesticides, industrial compounds and antibiotics. Plastic pollution is now found from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans, and some toxic chemicals, such as PCBs, are long-lasting and widespread. The study concludes that chemical pollution has crossed a "planetary boundary", the point at which human-made changes to the Earth push it outside the stable environment of the last 10,000 years.

Determining whether chemical pollution has crossed a planetary boundary is complex because there is no pre-human baseline, unlike with the climate crisis and the pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are also a huge number of chemical compounds registered for use -- about 350,000 -- and only a tiny fraction of these have been assessed for safety. So the research used a combination of measurements to assess the situation. These included the rate of production of chemicals, which is rising rapidly, and their release into the environment, which is happening much faster than the ability of authorities to track or investigate the impacts. The well-known negative effects of some chemicals, from the extraction of fossil fuels to produce them to their leaking into the environment, were also part of the assessment. The scientists acknowledged the data was limited in many areas, but said the weight of evidence pointed to a breach of the planetary boundary. [...] The researchers said stronger regulation was needed and in the future a fixed cap on chemical production and release, in the same way carbon targets aim to end greenhouse gas emissions. Their study was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. "The rise of the chemical burden in the environment is diffuse and insidious," said Prof Sir Ian Boyd at the University of St Andrews. "Even if the toxic effects of individual chemicals can be hard to detect, this does not mean that the aggregate effect is likely to be insignificant."

"Regulation is not designed to detect or understand these effects. We are relatively blind to what is going on as a result. In this situation, where we have a low level of scientific certainty about effects, there is a need for a much more precautionary approach to new chemicals and to the amount being emitted to the environment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chemical Pollution Has Passed Safe Limit For Humanity, Say Scientists More

Chemical Pollution Has Passed Safe Limit For Humanity, Say Scientists

Comments Filter:

  • Just now? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @10:14PM (#62186511) Journal

    I believe it is likely on the order of tomorrow's inane political commentary that humans will have to evolve to survive their own pollution, rather than be protected from it by decisive, coherent response to its threat... much like all other threats to humankind, unfortunately.

    • Re:Just now? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @11:12PM (#62186641) Journal

      In many cases we have made a decisive, coherent response to the threat of pollution. For example, rivers in the US used to be so polluted that they caught on fire. Air quality in California has improved massively [epa.gov]. CFC damage to the ozone layer is another example of a decisive, coherent response to the threat of pollution.

      Americans can get together and make a difference when the threat of pollution is serious. The reason it doesn't happen so much with AGW is because there isn't a clear threat, and there isn't a clear solution.

      The article here is a good example. It's built on fuzzy (almost absent) data, has a lot of speculation, poor logic, but sounds scary. However, no matter how much you read the paper, you're not entirely sure what you should be scared of.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What you should be scared of is the risk.

        We know there are dangers here, but we don't know nearly enough about them. And even a low probability of poor outcomes is concerning, when the stakes are so high. We're literally betting our future on winging it and hoping we'll figure it out before it's too late. TFA is an effort to boost the "figuring it out" part.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MacMann ( 7518492 )

        Americans can get together and make a difference when the threat of pollution is serious. The reason it doesn't happen so much with AGW is because there isn't a clear threat, and there isn't a clear solution.

        Bullshit. There is a clear solution to CAGW. We need to use energy sources already available to us that are safe, low in CO2 emissions, and low in cost. Those sources are hydro, geothermal, onshore wind, and nuclear fission. People have studied the issue endlessly and every time there is a study looking into our options for solutions they keep coming up with the same solutions.

        We will see people like those created by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucchi, et al which will make the claim we can supply all the ene

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by phantomfive ( 622387 )

          We need to use energy sources already available to us that are safe, low in CO2 emissions, and low in cost.

          There's nothing like that available today.

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by MacMann ( 7518492 )

            We need to use energy sources already available to us that are safe, low in CO2 emissions, and low in cost.

            There's nothing like that available today.

            Then the claims of wind and solar power being cheaper than coal and natural gas are not true? Are you claiming that wind and solar power kill more people than coal or natural gas? Here's the big question, do wind and solar power then produce more CO2 than all other energy sources?

            I produced sources to back up my claims and you made a counter claim without any evidence. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

            As my earlier post was quite lengthy I recognize it is easy to miss my s

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by MrKaos ( 858439 )

              Here's the big question, do wind and solar power then produce more CO2 than all other energy sources?

              They produce *less* CO2 and they produce no radionuclide effluents. So their cost is irrelevant. What they offer is a means of energy *production* without the energy expenditure of mining.

              Coal, Oil and Nuclear all require *mining* activities to secure their fuels. The reality of these legacy technologies is that they are all forms of stored solar power *extraction* that have built limitations that prevent us from continuing to use them.

              Solar, Wind, Solar Thermal, Wave and Geothermal are all technolog

              • Re:Just now? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @06:09AM (#62187205)

                They produce *less* CO2 and they produce no radionuclide effluents.

                No, they do not produce less CO2 than nuclear fission. I have sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                So their cost is irrelevant.

                What? Of course the costs are relevant.

                What they offer is a means of energy *production* without the energy expenditure of mining.

                Bullshit. Wind and solar power require more mining of material per unit of energy produced than nuclear fission. The US DOE did a study on this, you can see the chart on this here: https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]

                Coal, Oil and Nuclear all require *mining* activities to secure their fuels.

                That's not relevant if the materials needed to build the devices to collect and convert wind and solar power into useful work totals more than that of the material and fuel mined for nuclear power.

                The reality of these legacy technologies is that they are all forms of stored solar power *extraction* that have built limitations that prevent us from continuing to use them.

                Prove it. Cite sources.

                Solar, Wind, Solar Thermal, Wave and Geothermal are all technological solutions that are an underdeveloped economic input to much of the world economy. Even if they cost more such a technological change to the worlds energy systems would also bring a huge economic boom.

                That's quite some claim. You must have sources to back this up, right?

                I have nothing against wind or geothermal as sources of energy, they proved themselves to be low in cost, quite safe, and low in CO2 emissions. As good as they are they will not be sufficient to provide the energy we need. We will need nuclear fission and hydro too. The morons that think we can shutter every nuclear power plant and demolish every hydro dam are going to get people killed. This fantasy that we can ignore nuclear and hydro has lead to the creation of the term "energy poverty". If developing renewable energy was going to produce an economic boom then we'd have seen evidence of it by know. Continuing on the path of developing renewable energy as it keeps forcing energy costs higher is the definition of insanity. There will be a breaking point where reality can no longer be denied. I heard on talk radio recently that polling shows 60% of Americans support building nuclear power showing we already reached that breaking point in the USA. I'll provide a link to a source as soon as you provide links to sources to support your bullshit. I'm especially looking forward to evidence that the costs of renewable energy is not relevant.

                • No, they do not produce less CO2 than nuclear fission. I have sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org]

                  Except LCA of renewable power dating before 2014 (quite possibly many years before 2014) is useless a decade later due to rapid technological progress.

                  Wind and solar power require more mining of material per unit of energy produced than nuclear fission. The US DOE did a study on this, you can see the chart on this here:

                  THOSE numbers in particular are actually TWO DECADES OLD and some of them are trivially demonstrated to be wrong, for example the claim of 80 kg of steel supports for a 20kg solar panel -- no idiot uses THAT much steel for solar arrays. So don't be disappointed if people ignore your hilarious numbers.

                  That's not relevant if the materials needed to build the devices to collect and convert wind and solar power into useful work totals more than that of the material and fuel mined for nuclear power.

                  If we're talking about *total* amounts, your typical ~500pp

                  • Except LCA of renewable power dating before 2014 (quite possibly many years before 2014) is useless a decade later due to rapid technological progress.

                    It's a good thing then that my link included data from 2020. Scroll down and you will see it. Tell everyone how useless this 2014 data is when compared to that from 2020.

                    Here's an idea, provide links to data instead of just making unsubstantiated claims the sources I give are wrong. Why should anyone believe you? A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Will anyone at least *TRY* to make an argument? I'll get morons that claim "it's obvious" and that I should "google it" Where

            • You can't say how much fission costs until you have a solution for nuclear waste.

            • I'm still waiting for evidence that wind, hydro, and nuclear fission cannot lower energy costs

              We're peculiarly bad at nuclear fission for some reason. The statistically unsound fear we express over it has caused all sorts of peculiarities.

          • The Sun, Wind and wave power are not safe, low in CO2 emissions, and low in cost?

            • If you want to make sun and wind reliable, it is not low in cost.

              • The Sun is pretty much the most reliable source of energy in our solar system. Has been working for billions of years and emits radiative power with incredible stability over time.

                • Are you being obtuse on purpose? Why would you even say that? What is wrong with your head? Do you think it's relevant?

                  • It's relevant if someone claims that "making sun reliable is expensive". No, it's not. It's already as reliable as it gets.

                    • ok, then let me explain it to you very carefully. "The sun is reliable" is not the same as "solar is reliable." If you think that, then you are very wrong.

                    • I understand the difference. The Sun is reliable because of how stars work, and solar is reliable because it has no moving parts that require maintenance. Nevertheless *the comment I was responding to* was insinuating that the Sun (NOT solar) is perhaps unreliable. It's not.

                    • LOL you didn't understand that by "sun" the meaning in that comment was "solar power." You lack understanding.

                    • But you just said that "the Sun" is NOT "solar". So which is it? Make up your mind!

                    • So which is it?

                      You lack understanding.

                    • Well, one of us certainly does.

        • Bullshit. There is a clear solution to CAGW. We need to use energy sources

          Nuclear power doesn't solve the problem of industrial effluents.

          However it's a cause of radio-isotope effluents. Nuclear is the number one contributor of radioactive CFCs, in the form of CFC114, a radioactive greenhouse gas, that comes from enrichment of Uranium for fuel. Plus so many more like mine tailings, radio active sulfuric acid, radon gas. Then there is DU, lots and lots of depleted uranium.

          The entire nuclear industry still hasn't come up with a viable way to handle the effluents, like spent

          • Nuclear power doesn't solve the problem of industrial effluents.

            Every energy source will produce some industrial effluents, including renewable energy sources.

            We can only choose the least bad option. As it is now we have three options, and only these three:
            1. Keep burning fossil fuels, which will result in more global warming and pollution.
            2. See energy costs rise, because if renewable energy costs less than fossil fuels then nobody would ever buy another power plant or vehicle that burns fossil fuels.
            3. Build nuclear power plants. This is not a claim we could or shou

            • "Every energy source will produce some industrial effluents, including renewable energy sources." the energy sources that are the sun, wind and wave power produce these?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MrKaos ( 858439 )

              Nothing in your post answers the points I raised. It's just a bunch of inane waffle and tangents.

              If you're such an expert on nuclear power you'd be be able to answer, directly, how the nuclear industry solved those problems.

              You can't.

              • I did answer your questions, it appears you simply chose to ignore them. I noticed you answered none of my questions. You simply waffle and go on the tangent of claiming I didn't answer your questions. If you were such an expert then you'd be able to answer my questions. Since you didn't answer my questions then I conclude that you can't.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        The reason it doesn't happen so much with AGW is because there isn't a clear threat, and there isn't a clear solution.

        That is the ongoing problem with AGW as an argument. It ignores that there are a broad spectrum of environmental issues and CO2 is only one of them.

        By narrowing the issues into a single issue, CO2, it's much easier to ignore all other industrial effluent problems that are major causes of environmental degradation.

        Worse still by arguing away CO2 effluents as some sort of "conspiracy" all of these other industrial effluent issues haven't been discussed and can therefore be ignored, allowing industry to

        • A good case can be made for phasing out unnecessary fossil fuel consumption regardless of AGW, and without requiring coercive government mandates:

          * Particulate and VOC pollution. May kill millions of people per year worldwide, particularly but not exclusively in developing nations. Also causes permanent lung and other health issues. Fossil fuels would be more expensive to burn if those externalities were factored in, making other fuel sources more competitive and more importantly saving co

    • I believe it is likely on the order of tomorrow's inane political commentary that humans will have to evolve to survive their own pollution,

      Let's just be clear what you are proposing (or suggesting is likely?). Evolution involves one gene which is better (or groups of genes, but the effect is similar, so let's simplify) being selected whilst all other genes die out. In other words, for reasonable evolution may more creatures have to die than manage to breed. So your proposal is that we ramp up pollution until most people are dying young, say before the age of 12.

      Wouldn't it actually just be more pleasant and more efficient and less costly to

  • If I have learned anything about American culture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @10:14PM (#62186513) Homepage Journal

    It is that there are a large number of Americans who believe the best answer to a problem is not to find a solution to the problem, but to make it someone else's problem.

    It's not that we can't think, but rather that collectively, our culture isn't asking the right questions, and if our history is any example, we have never been asking the right questions. Questions of public policy in the media are always questions of individual liberties, not of how our policies affect others. When a President of the United States opines that voting is a matter of revenge, you know we lack a collective vision for our future.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by endus ( 698588 )

      The problem isn't a focus on individual liberties, it's corruption.

      Aside from the obvious reasons that corruption is the problem, "individual liberty" is just a slogan used by the republican party to protect corporatism. If you *actually* look at it from an individual liberties perspective, you find that things like pollution absolutely impact people's rights to life, liberty, and property in ways which have been proven over and over again.

      There is no right to pollute in ways which impact other people's ri

  • Better living through chemistry.

  • Fire alarm, no smoke (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Geodesy99 ( 1002847 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @10:38PM (#62186571)

    "The trend in total chemical production as a control variable may, at first glance, seem to have low relevance because links between chemical production and effect variables are not obvious and can be tenuous and difficult to assess: knowledge is lacking of the potential for adverse effects caused by the high number of chemicals, with limited data on chemical mixtures as found in the environment, produced intentionally and unintentionally."

    from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... [acs.org]

    Classic create a problem, generate hysteria, then collect research grant money to work on it.

    • If it was breaking down, maybe it would be worrying about not much, but seeing things accumulate and ignoring the potential risk is pretty silly. E.g. heavy metals in your body aren't really a problem until they build up faster than they get flushed out. Your stance is that of the frog being boiled noting that the pot is only heating very slowly and the alarmists that hopped out are being ridiculous.

  • Not the solution (Score:3)

    by Nkwe ( 604125 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @10:39PM (#62186575)
    So the solution to pollution wasn't dilution?

  • Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

    The rise of the chemical burden in the environment is diffuse and insidious," said Prof Sir Ian Boyd at the University of St Andrews. "Even if the toxic effects of individual chemicals can be hard to detect, this does not mean that the aggregate effect is likely to be insignificant."

    Er, maybe not, but it does mean you need to show your work.

    I mean, you're saying that because we can't detect how awful it is, that means it's awful. Huh?

    In this situation, where we have a low level of scientific certainty about effects

    "We got nuthin', but be very afraid anyway!"

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They are saying that in the past we have found that similar pollution has caused problems, and based on what we learned and what we understand of human biology, this is also unlikely to be insignificant.

      Obviously more work should be done to figure out just how bad it is, but we should also err on the side of caution and not wait for it to really screw things up before acting. We made that mistake countless times before and never seem to learn.

  • From the paper (Score:3)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @11:05PM (#62186633) Journal

    This quote from the paper explains their reasoning:

    We submit that the safe operating space of the planetary boundary of novel entities is exceeded since annual production and releases are increasing at a pace that outstrips the global capacity for assessment and monitoring.

    Sounds rigorous.

  • It was my realization Big Oil owned the regulatory system and simply regulated their practice of leaking. Alaska pipeline ditto. EPA, DEA, its all regulated.

    Hollywood couldn’t even budge the needle on the leaky practice with Chromium in water.

    The biggest win in the USA has banning automotive chroming parts. Chrome not Chromium is a horrible contamination effluent stream.

  • Between demographic collapse in the developed world (and more controversially the resulting dysgenic effects), accumulating persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals and plastic and other nanoparticles, the increasing availability of biological WMD knowhow, resource exhaustion without any good recycling technologies on the horizon etc etc. We're so fucking fucked that just concentrating on climate change is missing the forest for the trees.

    The disease is peak fucking everything, peak livable climate and a

    • Bacteria in an agar plate grow very happily at log speeds up until the sugars start to run out. Then when they start to starve they make antibiotics to kill each other. A graceful demographic collapse could allow us to settle in at a comfortable carrying capacity/standard of living for humans and the rest of the biosphere. The modern US is much cleaner than in the middle of the heavy industry days, after all. I'm not sure if any societies are structured in a way to pull this off, though, the myopia of h

      • Demographic regression among the less developed cultures (and more controversially races) is way too far off. The demographic collapse of the developed part will cause problems, the demographic overshoot from the less developed parts will cause more problems ... by their power combined we're fucked.

  • But everyone is focused on climate change, people point out the toxicity of lithium mining, they say "but climate change".

    They've overly demonized CO2 to the exclusion of all the other problems, including chemical pollution.

    Clean burning of fossil fuels (ie natural gas) is sometimes less of a concern than massive pollution of the water supply to support "green" technology.

  • Over the the last 50 or so year, the US and the EU have done a lot to clean up the skies and the waters. Not to say we can't do more, but I am tired of us getting beat up all the time over environment, but hardly ever any mentions about other countries that are bigger polluters, like China and India. I pick those two because in recent years they both have had major cities shut down because the air was so polluted. I've been to Asia (deliberately vague as to where) and I have seen first hand how polluted p

  • This will never be addressed until we regain (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PJ6 ( 1151747 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @11:01AM (#62187703)
    the ability to pass legislation the wealthy don't like.

    Stop talking about this like it's an environmental problem. It's government failure.

    In particular, it's a failure of democracy to meaningfully function, because nobody's asking to reign in the power of private wealth.

    Doing that isn't the most important issue, but it's the first issue.
  • I remember someone a few years ago ranting about what chemicals were doing to the frogs. He got de-platformed....

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close