11 ms·
English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal
- baxtr 9y agoI wonder what the effect of neonicotinoids on humans is... it can’t be good
- goatlover 9y agoWell, It does help keep our windshields clean from all that bug splatter.
- titzer 9y agoIndeed. [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect...]
- ccozan 9y agoStart travelling from West Europe towards East Europe. Until you reach Romania/Slovakia/Serbia/Ukraine, your car is clean. Over these borders, after 10km of night ( or even day) drive your car will be splatted with insects. No idea why, but the vegetation is incredibly varied/wild compared with West Europe.
- pjc50 9y agoThat sounds like the boundary between the regions where herbicide/insecticide is economically viable and where food prices are low enough that it's not worth it.
- tpm 9y agoMore likely there are lower agricultural subsidies.
- tpm 9y agoSlovakia here. Not sure about the eastern part of our country as I don't travel there very often, but as for the western part, we are fully integrated into the ecological disasters of western Europe. Meaning almost no insects this summer. Even mosquitoes were far from their usual numbers.
- goatlover 9y agoI drove 400 miles in Florida at all times of day and night between Daytona Beach and Tampa, including a couple national parks along the coasts, and I only had about 2 bug splatters. But the mosquitoes north of Cape Canaveral were on to me the moment I got out to take a short hike. Did similar driving Eastern Kansas/Western Missouri below Kansas City, and no bug splatters. Doesn't matter time of day, traffic, countryside, just nothing.
- FiatLuxDave 9y agoThe water north of the Cape is called the Mosquito Lagoon for a reason... If you want to see serious bug splatters, try Okeechobee during love-bug season. I drove through that once about eight years ago, and the marks are still visible on the car.
- a_bonobo 9y agoThe NIH has a metastudy here: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515/ https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515/ >As reviewed here, four studies reported low rates of adverse health effects from acute neonic exposure. Even the most severe outcomes, including two fatalities, may have been mediated by other factors (age, underlying health conditions, undetected coexposures). The acute poisoning studies did, however, elucidate clinical findings important for the diagnosis and treatment of acute neonic exposures, including a better understanding of neonic toxicokinetics in humans.
- Karnickel 9y agoKeyword here: "acute". Nothing about chronic exposure, which is what is relevant here. Even if they did have a long-term study of low-dose exposure, it would be an extremely limited one (rats, mice, controlled conditions) missing the mix of much more stuff we are exposed to all the time. Having suffered from (finally clinically diagnosed and clinically treated with chelators DMPS and DMSA - with great results) low-dose long-term heavy metal poisoning I had to find out, both myself (studying as much as I could) and from the doctors, that there basically exists next to zero clinically relevant research for a) low-dose exposure, b) long-term, c) (and this one is by far the worst) a mix of chemicals rather than examining just one or two at a time in isolation. The last one is very relevant - mixing stuff often dramatically changes the effect. I once found an LD (lethal dose) heavy metal poisoning study on rats where mixing lead and mercury was about a thousand times more lethal (i.e. 1/1000th the dose of both) compared to poisoning the rats with only one of them. The reason isn't a conspiracy of course, it's just impractical to impossible to study anything but acute poisonings and only of one or very few chemicals at a time. Also, each time somebody recites officially allowed values I cringe - for example, the medical science opinion about the desirable lead exposure is zero. However, of course this isn't practical - and this is what all those official limits are: Administrative practical values, considering what can be done, where the research stands (always erring on the opposite side of caution - you have to prove the bad effect before the limits are lowered) and at what cost. So no, science does not have the answer about any of this. The internal medicine + environmental medicine research doctor that was my main doc is pretty pessimistic about the stuff we (humans) do, and this guy lives with the research, always citing this or that new study when we meet. Maybe I should add that there indeed are lots and lots of studies. However, they are incredibly specific, they won't be the basis for tougher legislation/lower official limits, because even if you take a hundred (good) studies of that kind you did not prove that the specific effect observed in the lab is relevant "in the world setting", and/or on humans, and/or what the combined net effect of "everything" might be. Which is, at least today, pretty much impossible.
- gerbilly 9y agoIt's effects pretty bad but indirect. Your question is interesting but might be better restated as: "What is the effect on humans if there is a drastic decline in flying insects?" [1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/...
- jimnotgym 9y agoAfter years of rubbish in the UK press about the impact of regulations from the EU, they can add protecting fish, bird and most likely human health to the list of 'harm' done. I'm glad the EU still cares about the environment.
- damal 9y agoDifferent countries have different priorities. That's the good thing about sovereignty. Don't like your current government's ideas? Replace them at the next election. On the other hand, you don't like the EU's ideas? Um... good luck with that. Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.
- adrianN 9y agoI think my chances of changing my country's government if I don't like it are pretty much the same as changing the EU.
- Moru 9y agoIt's the difference of (1/country population) and (1/511,805,088). So slightly higher chance changing your countrys government. But you have the added bonus of having the same language, good luck with that in the EU... :-)
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoIn the UK, I think chances of getting workers rights, privacy, consumer rights, environmental issues, etc., passed in the EU is far far greater than getting any such thing passed by the Tories. That's entirely expected, the EU as a whole is more liberal, more green, and more socialist than the Tories.
- giobox 9y ago> Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far. The creation of free movement of people, goods, services and capital across 28 States and creating a common currency used by many of them is arguably not “benign”. For avoidance of doubt I’m in no way expressing an opinion on the merits of these - simply that it is not benign in the sense of having done nothing.
- refurb 9y agoAnalytical techniques are incredible today. It's not unusual for the lower detection limit to be parts per billion or parts per trillion. One ppt is 1 mg of material (smaller than a match head) dissolved in a cube of water that measures 100m on each side. Bigger than an Olympic sized swimming pool. So the fact they said neonicotinoids were detected means nothing. The real question is how much was detected and dose that level have an impact on living organisms.
- lucaspiller 9y agoThe linked paper says this: > we recommend here that ecological thresholds for neonicotinoid water concentrations need to be below 0.2 μg/L (shortterm acute) or 0.035 μg/L (long-term chronic) to avoid lasting effects on aquatic invertebrate communities I assume the map refers to these values. μg/L is the same as parts-per-billion in case anyone was wondering.
- kurthr 9y agoI agree that analytical techiniques (e.g. detection of radio isotopes) are amazing, but I think this scale is off. (100^3)x(1000kg)=10^12 grams vs 1mg is a part per quadrillion. So a 10m cube compared to a 1mm cube is part per trillion. That's the 10,000^3 ratio.
- nlperguiy 9y agoHow would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Do we really need regulations? Why do these things happen? Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute?
- timecube 9y ago>How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Not sure what a capitalist incentive is, but we have plenty of ways to potentially regulate this. Are you asking about technical feasibility of finding the actors responsible for it? >Do we really need regulations? Yes. >Why do these things happen? Greed/profit motive. >Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute? Greed/profit motive.
- jorleif 9y agoSure greed/profit motive, but it is accepted by the general public because it is local direct benefit (less crop failure) vs diffuse harm to a large area.
- nlperguiy 9y ago> Not sure what a capitalist incentive is, but we have plenty of ways to potentially regulate this. Are you asking about technical feasibility of finding the actors responsible for it? I was thinking, in the framework of capitalism, what would the incentive be, other than regulation, to not pollute? Why does it not work, is the incentive missing? For example, there are companies like Clean Harbors that earn billions from recycling toxic waste, oil etc. Are they earning money because regulations need to be met, or is there a profit to be made? If latter, how come no one is trying to make profit by capturing pesticides/insecticides? Would deregularization make these billion dollar waste collection companies bankrupt?
- juliushuijnk 9y agoCapitalism optimizes for the impact it has on the actors involved in the transaction. The party offering the service/product, and the party paying for it. The impact of other parties is not part of that equation. So if you want create an incentive, have the health impact on society as a whole, impact the profits of the parties involved in creating the pollutants. So you could for instance bind their taxes to some health measurements. Then you would have a market for capturing pesticides (if that's even possible). Much simpler and probably more efficient is just to regulate.
- arethuza 9y agoIf that is the Dubh loch at the head of Glen Muick then I wonder how on earth stuff would get in there - it's fairly remote and reasonably high up. No farming territory for miles. I wonder if anti-midgie lotions have these things in them?
- userbinator 9y agoOne thing to keep in mind is to try to imagine what the world would be like had insecticides like neonicotinoids not been put into use. Sure, there wouldn't be pollution from them, but would there be other negative effects? Let's not forget that DDT, PCBs, and CFCs have contributed greatly in positive ways too. If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of life as we do today --- just imagine how people lived several hundred years ago. It's hard to say, really.
- amelius 9y ago> If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of life as we do today Those "organic/biological" products in the supermarket look fine to me.
- userbinator 9y agoThose "organic/biological" products in the supermarket look fine to me. ...but can the whole population survive on those exclusively, or even afford them?
- spodek 9y agoHundreds of thousands of years of human existence, in which our ancestors colonized the planet, suggests so. Do we want to temporarily overshoot the carrying capacity by poisoning our environment at the risk of collapse if we lower that capacity in the process?
- amelius 9y agoThere exists an automatic bird-repellent system: [1]. Can't we use the same idea for insects? [1] https://birdcontrolgroup.com/agrilaser-autonomic/ https://birdcontrolgroup.com/agrilaser-autonomic/
- kbart 9y agoThere might be literally millions of insects in a field, how many lasers would you need for that? Also, you would need much more precise sensors as detecting an insect is way harder than a bird. Such system would be way too expensive, unless you'd like to pay 100 euros for a loaf of bread.
- hycaria 9y agoBut some are good to have around, that's the whole problem...
- amelius 9y agoWe can use deep learning for that :)
- ddebernardy 9y agoBill Gates is funding some efforts to that effect to kill mosquitos. https://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_zap_malaria https://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_z...
- qwerty456127 9y agoA friend of mine once told me that swimming in Thames would be a serious mistake as its water is poisonous. Are the neonicotinoids the reason or are there other dangerous chemicals too?
- jl6 9y agoThat might once have been true, and it’s far from perfect, but the Thames is a cleanup success story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-thames-was-brought-back-from-the-dead http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-tham...
- jesperlang 9y agoThis reminds me of trophic cascades and e.g the unintuitive link that killing wolfs affects riverbeds: https://shadowproof.com/2014/02/20/trophic-cascade-how-wolves-change-rivers/ https://shadowproof.com/2014/02/20/trophic-cascade-how-wolve... It like we can't understand complex systems very well. Almost everything we do seem to have to have major unintended consequences. We see this over and over again, we have to abandon the "as cheap and fast as possible" thinking !
- projectileboy 9y agoFWIW, this is why some people have fears around GMO foods. It's not that they can't appreciate the benefits, it's because they fear that we're testing systems in production that we don't fully understand.
- Sone7 9y agoExactafuckingmundo. Those PR scumbags in Monsanto have been extremely effective at equating being anti-GMO with being anti-science, and it'd be real nice to see some accountability for them.
- afarrell 9y agoHow much of this is driven by Monsanto and how much is driven by individuals with worries of a Mathusian crisis, or who have concerns about nutrition deficits among the global poor, or who see the effects of climate change on Syrian agriculture and want a tool to counteract that? The reality is that we’ve always tested agricultural technologies in production. Sometimes with tragic results. But imagine you could control early 1800s European ag policy. Knowing both the Would you introduce the potato? Knowing the history of famine in 1780s France and the history of famine in 1840s Ireland, what policy would you set?
- freeflight 9y agoImho what makes people summon Monsanto isn't just the possible dangers to the biological ecosphere, it's also the fact that Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for patent infringements, due to the cross-pollination of the Monsanto plants. This sets a horrible precedent, I don't want to live in a world where corporate engineered, and patented, "super plants" contaminate the whole planet and people will end up being sued over patent infringement for trying to grow their own food.
- a3n 9y agoThe primary concern of industrial food is moving large quantities of food efficiently, the same as gasoline or, well, insecticides; safety and nutrition only have to be barely high enough to support that. It's why we're absorbing insecticides and high fructose corn syrup, for example, in our bodies.