Microplastics Found In Freshly Fallen Antarctic Snow For First Time (theguardian.com) 30
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Microplastics have been found in freshly fallen snow in Antarctica for the first time, which could accelerate snow and ice melting and pose a threat to the health of the continent's unique ecosystems. The tiny plastics -- smaller than a grain of rice -- have previously been found in Antarctic sea ice and surface water but this is the first time it has been reported in fresh snowfall, the researchers say. The research, conducted by University of Canterbury PhD student, Alex Aves, and supervised by Dr Laura Revell has been published in the scientific journal The Cryosphere.
Aves collected snow samples from the Ross Ice Shelf in late 2019 to determine whether microplastics had been transferred from the atmosphere into the snow. Up until then, there had been few studies on this in Antarctica. "We were optimistic that she wouldn't find any microplastics in such a pristine and remote location," Revell said. She instructed Aves to also collect samples from Scott Base and the McMurdo Station roadways -- where microplastics had previously been detected -- so "she'd have at least some microplastics to study," Revell said. But that was an unnecessary precaution -- plastic particles were found in every one of the 19 samples from the Ross Ice Shelf. "It's incredibly sad but finding microplastics in fresh Antarctic snow highlights the extent of plastic pollution into even the most remote regions of the world," Aves said.
Aves found an average of 29 microplastic particles per liter of melted snow, which is higher than marine concentrations reported previously from the surrounding Ross Sea and in Antarctic sea ice. Samples taken from immediately next to the scientific bases on Ross Island, Scott Base and McMurdo Station threw up larger concentrations -- nearly three times that of remote areas. There were 13 different types of plastic found, with the most common being PET -- the plastic commonly used to make soft drink bottles and clothing. Atmospheric modelling suggested they may have travelled thousands of kilometers through the air, however it is equally likely the presence of humans in Antarctica has established a microplastic 'footprint', Revell said.
Aves collected snow samples from the Ross Ice Shelf in late 2019 to determine whether microplastics had been transferred from the atmosphere into the snow. Up until then, there had been few studies on this in Antarctica. "We were optimistic that she wouldn't find any microplastics in such a pristine and remote location," Revell said. She instructed Aves to also collect samples from Scott Base and the McMurdo Station roadways -- where microplastics had previously been detected -- so "she'd have at least some microplastics to study," Revell said. But that was an unnecessary precaution -- plastic particles were found in every one of the 19 samples from the Ross Ice Shelf. "It's incredibly sad but finding microplastics in fresh Antarctic snow highlights the extent of plastic pollution into even the most remote regions of the world," Aves said.
Aves found an average of 29 microplastic particles per liter of melted snow, which is higher than marine concentrations reported previously from the surrounding Ross Sea and in Antarctic sea ice. Samples taken from immediately next to the scientific bases on Ross Island, Scott Base and McMurdo Station threw up larger concentrations -- nearly three times that of remote areas. There were 13 different types of plastic found, with the most common being PET -- the plastic commonly used to make soft drink bottles and clothing. Atmospheric modelling suggested they may have travelled thousands of kilometers through the air, however it is equally likely the presence of humans in Antarctica has established a microplastic 'footprint', Revell said.
We can detect a lot of things. (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember when it was news that radioactive iodine was detected in the water off the coast of California from the Fukushima meltdown. We can also detect the radio emissions from space probes that are out beyond the orbit of Pluto. We had people evacuated from the area around Fukushima "out of an abundance of caution" because radiation from the power plant was detected. We can detect these things because they stick out of the background radiation, they are things that do not occur naturally. Just because we can detect them does not mean they pose any threat. The poison is in the dose, and the doses of radiation from what is claimed to be the worst nuclear power accident in the world was not enough to pose any real threat.
The people leaving Japan by aircraft got more radiation on the flight from cosmic sources than had they stayed in place. But because one kind of radiation is "natural" and the other "not natural" we treat them differently. There's no logic in allowing exposure to "natural" radiation to avoid exposure to "not natural" radiation. People died from very real accidents in these evacuations over a theoretical threat of possible future cancers from radiation.
Now we have people getting all worked up about "micro-plastics" in the environment. Don't we have all kinds of naturally occurring microscopic this and that which can cause us harm? Again I will point out that the dose is the poison, which means we should not go swim in this stuff. We should take care to not spread this stuff. It might be worth the effort to go out to collect this stuff so it doesn't reach a level that it causes harm to people. There's likely microscopic natural stuff that can damage human cells too.
Out in Canada are large oil spills. These spills are killing wildlife, and it would be beneficial to collect this oil before it does more harm. But because many of these spills are deemed "natural" we get people very upset that anyone would go out to clean up these oil spills.
What a bunch of nonsense out of these environmental whack jobs. I can agree that radioactive iodine in the sea is not a good thing. What happens to that iodine though is if we do nothing it all decays away in about a month to where we can't detect it any more. The radioactive hydrogen so many people were worried about from Fukushima is indistinguishable from the radioactive hydrogen that is already naturally occurring in the water. Just dump it in the sea already. If oil spills concern people then all oil spills should concern people. We see people bathing themselves in "natural" oil slicks because somehow taking a swim in "natural" carcinogenic compounds is good for your health. If we merely "detect" these same compounds in drinking water from a source that is "not natural" then we get a notice that the city water is not fit for human consumption.
People need to get a grip on what is what, and act accordingly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hear, hear! Let's all celebrate the wonderful joy that is pollution!
Re:We can detect a lot of things. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: We can detect a lot of things. (Score:2)
Re:We can detect a lot of things. (Score:4, Informative)
We solved global warming, now stop scaring everyone's kids to death over it.
Huh?
When, and how...?
Re: (Score:3)
We solved global warming, now stop scaring everyone's kids to death over it.
Huh?
When, and how...?
You may have seen the stereotyped sequence of argumentation of people opposed to doing anything about climate change:
Re: (Score:1)
There is global warming. By the admission all but the most alarmist of global warming alarmists this will not be an extinction level event, it will merely suck for a lot of people. This means we have time to react and adapt. We must adapt, because by all indications the climate will still change no matter what we do. The means to adapt will require energy. Energy to build seawalls to hold back rising seas. Energy to build water reservoirs, dams, canals, and more so periods of excess rain don't result
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How unsurprising ignorant pro nuke moron cant understand pollution is bad.
Re:We can detect a lot of things. (Score:5, Informative)
MacMann: "We solved global warming, now stop scaring everyone's kids to death over it."
Also MacMann: "We'll never solve global warming without a full scale shift to nuclear power."
Depending on where he is in his meds cycle, you can depend on getting some version of one of these contradictory thoughts from our idiot buddy. Of course, if you're really lucky and catch him right on the balance point between barely medicated insanity and full-on drooling stupor, you might get both of them in the same comment.
Ideonella sakaiensis to the rescue? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It turns it into CO2, Yay!
Re: (Score:3)
Doubt (Score:3)
Ok a parallel reference test, which goes through everything but the actual sampling, could be a proof that the process is clean. Ah, sorry, too lazy to read and check.
Re: Doubt (Score:5, Informative)
They have a whole section about their control samples and blanks. This is field sampling 101.
https://tc.copernicus.org/arti... [copernicus.org]
"sad"? why? (Score:3)
Ubiquitous impermanent material used across the planet in a multitude of ways, why are we so shocked and saddened to see it everywhere?
This seems rather predictable.
Re: "sad"? why? (Score:3)
I agree that it's somewhat expected. My issue is with this notion that simply "finding" the particles is important. Detection or non-detection comes down to sensitivity of the method. What if they hadn't found any microplastics this time, but came back 10 years later with a method 100x as sensitive and then found them? The headline and title of the article would be the same.
The important thing is what are the concentrations of the microplastics and what do those concentrations mean ecologically? This isn'
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the well-documented globe-spanning reach of annual dust storms (https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/06/25/saharan-dust-cloud-arrives-at-the-us-gulf-coast) I'd be startled if we DIDN'T find the detritus of 7.5 bn humans more or less everywhere after a century of industrialized screwing around, most of it oblivious to the concept of pollution etc.
And I'm not entirely convinced if it is or isn't benign, at least, any more or less so than any number of other things that make up 'dust' from 'natural' sour
Re: (Score:3)
The problem right now is the science on just how much and of what variation on plastics and plasticisers impact what parts of the biome is pretty limited.
The trouble then becomes answering the question - does this matter? If we are really honest, we know that we can 'prove' almost any activity/chemical/etc whatsoever synthetic, natural, naturally occurring but synthetically concentrated is harmful to something in some degree.
Its like atmospheric CO2 is 400ppm to much? A lot of people desperately want to co
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of people desperately want to convince you it is, maybe they are right. On the other hand most animal and plan respiration alike seems unimpaired. Its certainly NOT the only climate change driver, but we have collectively decided to panic about it.
Is holding your head underwater a bad thing to do?
A lot of people desperately want to convince you it is, maybe they are right. On the other hand fish respiration seems unimpaired. So being underwater is certainly NOT the only "ability to breathe" driver, but we have collectively decided to panic about it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't see that there are several orders of magnitude of certainty, proof, and common sense experience between
- holding your head underwater until you drown
and
- the incremental damage done by the 0.01% of atmospheric CO2 contributed by human activity (vs 0.03% natural systems) toward the performance of something as staggeringly complex as the atmosphere and climate over century-long (at an absolute minimum) timespan ...then you're just a dogmatic zealot and your opinion is worthless.
"for First Time" is kind of misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid food companies (Score:2)
"XYZ with Sea Salt"
Bunch of stupid dumb idiots, who the fuck wants microplastics in their food?
Why don't you use salt from salt mines, you insensitive clods!