3 ms·
Have a look here for wildlife - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cancer-wildlife-environmental-contaminant/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article
by vfc1 7y ago
Have a look here for wildlife - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cancer-wildlife-environmental-contaminant/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cancer-wildlife-e... If I remember well the same is happening to urban animals.
- gus_massa 7y agoIt's a very interesting article. I found the research article that has more details: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240769/ (I hope it's the correct one.) They study belugas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beluga_whale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beluga_whale that have a long life so cancer is a threat. They found that they got more cancer that other cetacean. I don't understand the comparison in table 3, because IIUC spotted dolphins have even more cancer, but not the same kind of cancer. They don't compare to the rate of the same animal in other places or before the smelter plants were created. It looks convincing, but it seams to be a case where there is a contaminated area and an animal that has a long life. I'm not convinced that this is a general trend for all wildlife.
- pvaldes 7y agoBelugas are a well known handbook case for contamination accumulating in life beings. Not because they live long (Pines live much longer than Belugas, but do not store the same amount of metals and pesticides). Is because, they are coastal and have a fat layer of blubber. Contaminants are often lipophilic and accumulate in the fat layer. The body of belugas act as a garbage trap.