4 ms·

Wow that is an incredible story and a great read. I am shocked that dumping millions of barrels of toxic waste into the ocean was potentially legal. And that th

Wow that is an incredible story and a great read. I am shocked that dumping millions of barrels of toxic waste into the ocean was potentially legal. And that this was actually alleged in a report in the 1980s and ignored until now. At the same time, it’s great to see this work in surveying the shelf and finding these barrels. I’m a bit surprised Montrose was only fined $140 million, given the scale of the dumping and because they allegedly slashed barrels open to help them sink. And now for decades fish caught in Southern California may be contaminated, and 25% of sea lions have cancer. It’s just sad. Although this story is about toxic waste disposal, another big character here is DDT. It’s crazy to me that a substance invented in 1939 was accepted so immediately for broad use and application only to be later identified as dangerous and then banned. This article notes that beaches were sprayed with it to keep bugs away - and now it’s considered a probable carcinogen. This reminds me of similar findings for other substances like BPA, pthalates, etc. For any artificial substance that we introduce into the environment or food chain or human bodies, how can we know its long term effects? What method is there to know ahead of time that some new material, medicine, or whatever else is a lurking carcinogen or hormone disruptor or whatever? Often times those who hold suspicion about such effects are derided as luddites or conspiracy theorists, but it also seems that societal opinion got it wrong in very bad ways on many instances. And we only come to find out decades later.

singularity2001 6y ago
>>> sea lions have cancer. connecting with the recent sea urchin explosion: could it be that this poisoning had long lasting repercussions on the sea lion population and thus for the whole ecosystem off of californias coast?
- pvaldes 6y ago
  Not probable. El Niño events have a bigger impact in the population trends. In any case, we have much more californian seals now than in 1970.
timeon 6y ago
> Often times those who hold suspicion about such effects are derided as luddites or conspiracy theorists, but it also seems that societal opinion got it wrong in very bad ways on many instances. There are now some countries where, in order to use new substance, it first needs to be declared as safe (and approved by agencies like EFSA). While in other countries they use it until it is proven that it is not safe.
- hef19898 6y ago
  REACH, the EUs chemical registration and certification regulation, maybe a pain in the ass and not as effective as possible. But it definetly is a step in the right direction.
pvaldes 6y ago
> and 25% of sea lions have cancer. You got it wrong, they are talking about percentage of sea lions stranded ill, that is a different issue than percentage of the whole population of sea lions. Is like saying that 80% of people that enter in an hospital are ill and concluding that 80% of people in the city is ill. That cancer started at the same time, so is suspicious, for sure.
einpoklum 6y ago
> Wow that is an incredible story and a great read. I am shocked that dumping millions of barrels of toxic waste into the ocean was potentially legal This is the USA, my friend! Land of the regulation-free, home of the brazen.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  That 'Now is your problem, not mine anymore' was a common way to do things in that time. Is not an US-centric problem only. Belgium, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Sweden dumped their radioactive garbage in barrels in the Atlantic Ocean between 1940's and 1982 at just 200km of the Spanish Coast. Greenpeace saved the day that time but it seems that everybody forgot that and we live in groundhog day again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...
pjc50 6y ago
There was a huge shift in Western perception of the environment and acceptable risks during the 60s and 70s, the very early era of the "green" movement. The world used to be a lot dirtier and a lot more dangerous. Urban smoke was a huge problem: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16778604/london-great-smog-1952-death-in-the-air-pollution-book-review-john-reginald-christie https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16778604/london-great-sm...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

singularity2001 6y ago

>>> sea lions have cancer. connecting with the recent sea urchin explosion: could it be that this poisoning had long lasting repercussions on the sea lion population and thus for the whole ecosystem off of californias coast?

pvaldes 6y ago
Not probable. El Niño events have a bigger impact in the population trends. In any case, we have much more californian seals now than in 1970.

timeon 6y ago

> Often times those who hold suspicion about such effects are derided as luddites or conspiracy theorists, but it also seems that societal opinion got it wrong in very bad ways on many instances. There are now some countries where, in order to use new substance, it first needs to be declared as safe (and approved by agencies like EFSA). While in other countries they use it until it is proven that it is not safe.

hef19898 6y ago
REACH, the EUs chemical registration and certification regulation, maybe a pain in the ass and not as effective as possible. But it definetly is a step in the right direction.

pvaldes 6y ago

> and 25% of sea lions have cancer. You got it wrong, they are talking about percentage of sea lions stranded ill, that is a different issue than percentage of the whole population of sea lions. Is like saying that 80% of people that enter in an hospital are ill and concluding that 80% of people in the city is ill. That cancer started at the same time, so is suspicious, for sure.

einpoklum 6y ago

> Wow that is an incredible story and a great read. I am shocked that dumping millions of barrels of toxic waste into the ocean was potentially legal This is the USA, my friend! Land of the regulation-free, home of the brazen.

pvaldes 6y ago
That 'Now is your problem, not mine anymore' was a common way to do things in that time. Is not an US-centric problem only. Belgium, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Sweden dumped their radioactive garbage in barrels in the Atlantic Ocean between 1940's and 1982 at just 200km of the Spanish Coast. Greenpeace saved the day that time but it seems that everybody forgot that and we live in groundhog day again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...

pjc50 6y ago

There was a huge shift in Western perception of the environment and acceptable risks during the 60s and 70s, the very early era of the "green" movement. The world used to be a lot dirtier and a lot more dangerous. Urban smoke was a huge problem: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16778604/london-great-smog-1952-death-in-the-air-pollution-book-review-john-reginald-christie https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16778604/london-great-sm...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]