Ocean Spray Emits More PFAS Than Industrial Polluters, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 75
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Ocean waves crashing on the world's shores emit more PFAS into the air than the world's industrial polluters, new research has found, raising concerns about environmental contamination and human exposure along coastlines. The study measured levels of PFAS released from the bubbles that burst when waves crash, spraying aerosols into the air. It found sea spray levels were hundreds of thousands times higher than levels in the water. The contaminated spray likely affects groundwater, surface water, vegetation, and agricultural products near coastlines that are far from industrial sources of PFAS, said Ian Cousins, a Stockholm University researcher and the study's lead author. "There is evidence that the ocean can be an important source [of PFAS air emissions]," Cousins said. "It is definitely impacting the coastline."
The Stockholm researchers several years ago found that PFAS from ocean waves crashing are released into the air around shorelines, then can travel thousands of kilometers through the atmosphere before the chemicals return to land. The new research looked at levels in the sea spray as waves crash by testing ocean samples between Southampton in the UK and Chile. The chemicals' levels were higher in the northern hemisphere in general because it is more industrialized and there is not much mixing of water across the equator, Cousins said. It is unclear what the findings mean for human exposure. Inhalation of PFAS is an issue, but how much of the chemicals are breathed in, and air concentrations further from the waves, is still unknown.
The Stockholm researchers several years ago found that PFAS from ocean waves crashing are released into the air around shorelines, then can travel thousands of kilometers through the atmosphere before the chemicals return to land. The new research looked at levels in the sea spray as waves crash by testing ocean samples between Southampton in the UK and Chile. The chemicals' levels were higher in the northern hemisphere in general because it is more industrialized and there is not much mixing of water across the equator, Cousins said. It is unclear what the findings mean for human exposure. Inhalation of PFAS is an issue, but how much of the chemicals are breathed in, and air concentrations further from the waves, is still unknown.
Cranberry juice? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait, ocean spray, as in spray from the ocean, not the company.
Re: Cranberry juice? (Score:2)
Exactly what I thought first.
Re: (Score:2)
<AOL>Me Too!</AOL>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, we dodged a bullet, the cranberry drinks are safe for now.
Very good. I was really worried about this guy [youtube.com]. So all is okay with the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just so we are clear - it's all man made (Score:5, Informative)
I read the linked article.
It's not that PFAs are forming in the ocean and spreading out over the land and air. It's man made PFA getting into/contaminating the seas and oceans, and later cycling back to the ground at the shores.
Re: (Score:2)
That was pretty obvious to me. A friend of mine systematically refuses to eat anything coming from the ocean for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on the same boat (pun intended). Call it a pseudo religious belief. The sea is where all the pollution washes down to, so I don't eat out of it. This saves me from having to worry about which pollutant, and unknown pollutants.
Re: (Score:2)
The sea is where all the pollution washes down to, so I don't eat out of it.
Mmmm. More for me!
Re: (Score:2)
I find this endlessly amusing when people pay for fancy "sea salt" that is dried from seawater. The sea is full of our garbage, why would you want to concentrate anything from it!!!
And then there is the irony that most mined salt was formerly an ocean, so it's almost all sea salt.
Re: (Score:2)
And just in time: California has lined up another round of banning plastic bags. The last round wasn't too well thought out, so I don't expect this one to improve the results, but they must think there's a lot of shoppers that fly to China and throw their bags into chinese coastal rivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I don't get the idea of trying a ban when simple bag fee's have been shown to be quite effective already.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything not prohibited is compulsory.
Re:Just so we are clear - it's all man made (Score:5, Insightful)
We throw shit in the ocean... the ocean throws it back at us.
Define your damn acronyms (Score:4, Insightful)
I read the linked article.
I did too, and the writer doesn't bother to define PFAS there, either.
Damnit, Guardian, learn to define your damn acronyms. Don't assume readers just automatically know what four random letters mean.
Re: (Score:1)
I read the linked article.
I did too, and the writer doesn't bother to define PFAS there, either.
Damnit, Guardian, learn to define your damn acronyms. Don't assume readers just automatically know what four random letters mean.
Per- And Polyfluorinated Substances. Did that help?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you write the Guardian and tell them that, please?
My point is that expanding the acronym isn't useful, except perhaps to chemists who would already know what the acronym expands to. Explaining what PFAS are is useful. And the article did that:
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that makes sense. I was wondering if this was industry-planted “research” so that they could tell regulators “no, don’t regulate PFASs; nature produces far more than we do on its own.”
It wouldn't be ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The summary title is stupid and misleading. PFAS doesn't magically form in ocean spray.
The definition of 'industrial polluter' gets interesting, though. It's not like we have factories spewing plastic into the air, though I'd expect there are manufacturing processes pumping it out in waste water. An awful lot of it comes from normal wear and tear (and eventual landfill disposal) of consumer products. Do you blame that on the manufacturer or the consumer?
Since it's all entirely artificial, it all s
Re:It wouldn't be ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah it really feels like this is less a bunch of evil factories dumping chemicals ala a Captain Planet villain but more that these materials are involved in every part of our industrial processes and are just slowing disintegrating and breaking down as things are processed. How much food processing equipment is going to use Teflon or UHMWP as bearing surfaces for moving parts where traditional lubricants cant? Gasket materials everywhere contain them,
Just a quick search on McMaster for PTFE reveals tons of products, many of them certified for food service or sanitary uses.
Re: (Score:2)
These chemicals take thousands of years to breakdown or disintegrate. That's the problem. Every living thing has them in measurable levels making it impossible to conduct any real studies.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh, I didn't mean time, I meant in the sense that plastics don't "dissolve" but only get smaller and smaller and considering one of the reasons PFAS materials are so useful is that they are slippery and can be used in applications where you can't have a lubricant that catches your swarf as it were we are in a situation where these materials are literally rubbing themselves into dust, sometimes directly into the stuff we eat.
Re:It wouldn't be ... (Score:4, Informative)
Most plastics do break down, albeit slowly due to exposure to UV and other natural processes. These actually sever the bonds in the polymer chains, eventually decaying into simple hydrocarbons.
PFAS, on the other hand, while they may be broken into arbitrarily small particles, basically never degrade at the molecular level naturally.
Re:It wouldn't be ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably the same people who either can't properly close a valve or couldn't be bothered to maintain it which led to the death of all life in 60 miles of river [missouriindependent.com]. After all, when the fine is a few thousand dollars [thegazette.com], what's the big deal?
Re: (Score:1)
The fine is probably not a big deal, but the damage they might be sued for.
Some people do not grasp why France is throttling down nukes in summer. They claim: "to safe wildlife". Already idiotic to think wildlife has no value.
Point is: it is France. 90% of Frances population has 6 weeks holidays during mid summer. They make vacation. For example at the rivers above. If the rivers are full with stinking dead fish, then it has several drawbacks, e.g.: no fish to eat in the restaurants. In case you like fresh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not "someone".
Everyone.
PFAS (poly-fluoroalkyl substances) are in thousands of everyday products: food packaging, water/stain resistant clothing, carpets, firefighting foam, cleaning products, non-stick cookware (Teflon is a PFAS), gaskets, lubricants, shampoo, cosmetics, etc.
dubious value (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah at the end of the days these are truly wonder-materials with properties that are difficult to replicate otherwise but that's what legislation is about, rethinking the cost/benefit on where these materials are used.
If we start seeing negative outcomes and start pricing the negative externalities into them or outright bans in certain places where it looks like it won't work that will spur the development of alternative solutions and a more focused application of these materials to where they are in fact r
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, is this an AI post? Crap. That second sentence reads like one, AI is far more destructive than any PFAs.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. That second sentence reads like one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And now we are moving away from the HFCs we moved to from CFCs because their GWP is too [damn] high...
Re: (Score:2)
Ocean Spray (Score:5, Insightful)
It just isn't worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
No thanks. (Score:3, Funny)
I've recently switched to a Conservative ideology. I don't believe in believe in bad news or consequences. I chose this political belief system over science partly because that's what my friends and family believe. But I also can't stand the thought of a bookish scientist acting as an authority figure, I can only follow the lead of a Strong Man. While you'd think that believing in the most comfortable truth would bring me peace and happiness, now I spend my days dreaming of how we're going to destroy the liberals.
Re: No thanks. (Score:2)
Don't destroy the libs. Can't own them with no libs around.
Re: No thanks. (Score:2)
Good for you. Perhaps at some point you'll switch to the "I don't get spooked just because the control freaks and used car salesmen of the world tell me I should be afraid" ideology.
That one frees you to consider the benefits of banning $scary_chemical versus the costs of banning it in terms of both the immediate costs to install expensive and energy-intensive filtration systems and the indirect costs of not being able to have the stuff that that chemical was used to make.
Some idiots wanted to ban the VC in
Re: (Score:1)
Should we all go back to lead pipes for our sewer lines?
I guess for sewres that would not really be a problem.
Lead pipes are a problem for tab water.
But if you know better, just use ceramic or concrete.
Except for the first meters from the sink/toilet to the pipe outside of the house: no one uses plastic. Well, obviously your country might be completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
All the houses I've ever lived in have had mostly cast iron sewer pipes and copper for water coming in.There's probably some lead in the solder, but that is only usually a problem if you let the water sit for a long time. Just run the water for a few minutes after coming home from a vacation. Neither of my kids have ever tested positive for lead exposure.
Re: No thanks. (Score:2)
Lead pipes for sewer would leach into the soil, even if it didn't go straight into your drinking water.
Handling lead pipes as opposed to plastic during installation would be more expensive and more hazardous.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps at some point you'll switch to the "I don't get spooked just because the control freaks and used car salesmen of the world tell me I should be afraid" ideology.
oh the sweet delicious irony of a conservative extolling the idea that we shouldn't incorporate fear into our political beliefs
from the ideology built on fear: fear of the government, fear of the gays, fear of the younger generations, fear of losing a "way of life" and other vague intangibles, fear of immigrants, fear of books, fear of words.
i know who you are voting for and you're voting for them because you are afraid of things changing
Re: No thanks. (Score:2)
Yeah. The other guys are subhuman and incapable of rational thought. That means we can do stuff to them for our own amusement without feeling guilty later. Great way to live.
Re: No thanks. (Score:2)
So what's the dollar/environmental/fire hazard cost increase from having to mine copper and solder it in places where now you can just glue PVC?
There's a real answer to that question. Perhaps it's negligible (or not, copper or steel pipe wide enough for sewer or drains *is* pretty fucking expensive), but you never know if you don't even acknowledge the question in your zeal to be green at all costs.
root of the problem is human behavior (Score:2)
"That which is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common."
-- Aristotle
It takes an advanced culture and individual maturity to counter-act basic human nature that Aristotle identified and many have discussed through the centuries. So while you're goofing off with reactionary politics, can you stand back and let the big girls and boys take care of the serious problems?
Re: (Score:2)
I chose this political belief system over science
Well Troll, Considering most ocean plastic comes out of chinese coastal rivers, I suspect you weren't that science-based nor doing much to help the real source of ocean plastic.
Further studies (Score:1)
Would be nice but we can’t find people on the planet without detectable levels. So no control group. But I’m sure it’s all just fine, like the good folks at the leaded gasoline institute.
What that is? (Score:5, Informative)
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in various industries since the 1940s. They are known for their resistance to heat, water, and oil, making them useful in products like non-stick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, firefighting foams, and more. However, PFAS are also persistent in the environment and can accumulate in the human body over time. Studies have linked exposure to PFAS with various adverse health effects, including cancer, liver damage, immune system disruption, and developmental issues. Due to their widespread use and potential health risks, PFAS have garnered significant attention from regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone over 11 can feel your immaturity.
Re: (Score:2)
"...They are known for their resistance to heat, water, and oil,..."
"...they are persistent and don't break down over time..."
Feels like the latter is a completely predictable result of the former.
Let's forgive the manufacturers of PFAS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What you're apparently missing is that the PFAS are in the ocean because of human pollution - they're not claiming there are natural sources of the pollutant. But the ocean waves are apparently rather efficient at aerosolizing the chemicals.
Hmm (Score:2)
WTF are PFAS (Score:1)
This is man made (Score:2)
I am honestly befuddled why oceans are still polluted by plastic.
Here in American cities like San Francisco we ban plastic bags, and plastic straws. But they never went to the ocean anyway. The beach goes are usually clean, and rivers that lead to the ocean are not polluted. Even the sewer system goes through processing / filtering. The reason I am saying this is most of the Western countries already have taken precautions to prevent this.
Could this be maritime dumping? There are limits to ships on how much
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Sorry, I assumed sarcasm was apparent in my comment. Thanks for sharing, but it should be obvious if the Western countries are not polluting, then it is Asian and African ones that are left).