29 ms·
DDT dump site off L.A. coast much bigger than scientists expected
- thread_id 5y agoThere is no mention of the companies involved. That would be almost impossible to track because those companies no longer exist and their operations ceased a long time ago as they have been bought and sold many times. https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2000/12/20/129165/four-companies-to-pay-73m-in-ddt-california-dumping/ https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2000/12/20/12916...
- darksaints 5y agoWe've known about this environmental catastrophe for decades now. Mind boggling that not a single person from the Montrose Chemical Corporation ever saw prison time.
- 8bitsrule 5y agoGood work. When they're done mapping the DDT, they should hunt down the barrels of nuclear waste. Ocean-dumped by 13 countries, from 1946 through 1993. A total of 85,000 TBq (85x10^15 Bq) at over 100 ocean sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...
- pottertheotter 5y agoInteresting. 87% of the 85,000 TBq is from two countries: the Soviet Union (46%) and the UK (41%).
- refurb 5y agoHow about the barrels and shells filled with chemical weapons dumped off the coast of California and the English Channel?
- TeMPOraL 5y agoHow about the barrels and shells filled with chemical weapons dumped in the Baltic Sea? This being a sea, all that munition has a good chance of making a big chunk of Europe very sad at some point in the near future.
- RealityVoid 5y agoReady to get crucified for this but... what is the problem with dumping nuclear waste in the ocean? If you just throw, for example, radioactive hunks of metal in the ocean, they are inert, stay in relatively dead zones of the world, they do not leech too much and the parts that _would_ leech would just be really insignificant when diluted in the vast vast amount of water of the oceans.
- staticelf 5y agoBecause what you think is true today may not be true tomorrow. You don't know how it affects the ocean or the life there and the ripple effect it may have on the ecosystem. This is effectively the same mistake as the people back in the day made, thinking that the ocean is so big we cannot impact it. The half life of many of these materials are very long time and it is extremely ignorant to think that highly radioactive materials won't affect ocean life during that time. Also, the material may be used as fuel for modern reactors in the future. Now you have dumped a lot of shit that is poision to basically all life which could be used to power society.
- RealityVoid 5y agoMaterials with high radioactivity have a short half life and materials with low radioactivity have a long half life. So that makes the problem a bit better. Then look at the kind of stuff that they have to bury and store. It's not just the fissile material itself, it's pretty much everything that had to have had contact with it. Wikipedia mentions "steam generators, pumps, lids of reactor pressure vessels" [1] - those seem very reasonable to just dump in the ocean. I agree that material that can be used as fuel for modern reactors in the future should be kept accessible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste#Types_of_waste_and_packaging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...
- black_puppydog 5y agobarrels have a habit of dissolving in salt water, and in germany, where barrels were dumped underwater in an old salt mine, the radioactive material ended up in the ground water.
- himinlomax 5y agoWhat's the actual risk posed by such nuclear waste?
- throwaway189262 5y agoRandom ocean dumping is not cool, but oceanic subduction zones are perhaps the best way to deal with long lived nuclear waste.
- rdevsrex 5y agoYet another reason why we have to be very careful about eating seafood. It's at the place now where the sensible thing to do is to avoid it all together.
- decasteve 5y agoNot just seafood but fish from remote lakes across the US and Canada which were heavily sprayed with DDT to kill the spruce budworm. This was done up until the early 1980s and now accumulated in lake beds with concerning levels still showing up in fish. We're also seeing blooms of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) in remote lakes that are now being linked to widespread glyphosate spraying over young forests.
- basicplus2 5y agoTruck load after truck load of 44gal drums of PCB based transformer oil was dumped off a jetty in South Fremantle Western Australia, not even offshore..
- fxtentacle 5y agoI always hate reading this kind of news, because it severely undermines our ability to scold and punish others for dropping their trash into the oceans. We should clean this up ASAP, if nothing else, then just to regain moral superiority. I'm sure that broken window theory also applies to dirty water. But I don't want my kids to inherit polluted drinking water.
- jahller 5y agoi totally agree, but realistically it will be very difficult and expensive to retrieve an estimated 500.000 barrels from ~3.000 feet depth. most likely there will be years if not decades of discussion who and how this will be cleaned.
- yeahnah 5y ago> regain moral superiority hahahaha, great stuff
- usaphp 5y agoIt’s sickening how people though it’s totally ok to dump tens of thousands of toxic waste into the ocean, I really hope they get prosecuted for that.
- pomian 5y agoAnd this is in a country that has learned it's lessons, and gradually, actually cares. Think of all the other places in the world with sites like this.
- paulmd 5y agoWe haven’t learned our lesson though. We went on and kept doing the same thing with Teflon, PFAS/firefighting foams, and endocrine-disrupting plasticizers like BPA. And it’s still not like we’ve learned any lesson from that, either. They don’t have to prove what they’re replacing it with is safe, or presumptively handle it like it’s unsafe. In 50 years we will find out that the next PFOA-like or BPA-like compound does the same thing, because it was selected for the same properties that posed the problems in humans in the first place. Until you flip the model on its head and require companies to establish safe handling protocols, biological limits, and appropriate disposal methods in advance, it’s just going to keep happening. But god forbid we tell industry “no”.
- brettermeier 5y agoAmerica learned its lesson and cares now? Just LOOOOL
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoTry dumping toxic waste in the environment in 2021 and see where that gets you. The lesson has mostly been learned.
- pvaldes 5y ago> Try dumping toxic waste in the environment in 2021 and see where that gets you. Directly to the second place in the "Most polluting countries" award, probably.
- tims33 5y agoThis is incredibly depressing. It sounds like the chemicals may have been impacting some sea life, but who knows how many humans have been impacted in that area of LA. I can't even imagine how much the clean up will cost.
- WillPostForFood 5y agoIt is 12 miles out, and 3,000 feet deep. It isn't going to affect humans directly. Maybe it could work its way into the food chain.
- adreamingsoul 5y agoRight... do you have any evidence to support your assumption?
- refurb 5y agoDDT isn’t water soluble. And the small amount that is dissolved is dispersed in literally an ocean of water.
- gzer0 5y agoThis is exactly why it is so dangerous. Because of DDT’s chemical properties it has the tendency to accumulate in animals. As animals lower on the food chain are eaten by other animals higher up, DDT becomes concentrated in the fatty tissues of predators. DDT was canceled because it persists in the environment, accumulates in fatty tissues, and can cause adverse health effects on wildlife [1][2][3]. Edit: I want to mention again that the company responsible is Montrose Chemical Corporation of California. CEO is Samuel Rotrosen and they have gone to extensive lengths to scrub their Google and online search histories. [1] Suspended, canceled, and restricted use pesticides; EPA-20T-1002; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1990 [2] https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/DDT_FactSheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/DDT_FactSheet.html
- ACAVJW4H 5y agoI tried to find if there are any concrete ideas how to clean this mess. Can anyone point me to research on how these deep sea barrels can be lifted back and properly handled? How does one destroy DDT? Is there any way it can be burned safely?
- pomian 5y agoYes. Can burn. Need an approved controlled hazardous waste incinerator. Need a temperature of at least 1850°C ! There are facilities, search on EPA. But that's a huge amount of barrels down there. And still counting. And it is extremely deep. Best to leave it there, don't disturb, until a complete plan in place. Even then , complete burial is likely a valid solution . Unfortunately.
- throwawayboise 5y agoProbably depends on how many of the barrels are intact enough to move. If they have all rusted open, there may not be anything to clean up, as the waste will have diffused into the water. Steel barrels, even if painted, will rust quickly in salt water. At that depth though, I don't know.
- usaphp 5y agoI think it's DDT waste, not DDT itself. I think at this stage they are trying to figure out what exactly is there and how many barrels, once they do - they will decide what to do with them.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoMy guess is they won't do anything with them, and just throw their hands up because it's too expensive.
- DoreenMichele 5y agoThey don't know how much of this is DDT but they have reason to believe there is a lot of DDT out there and the stability of the chemical is a big issue for cleanup efforts. From the article: The U.S. banned its use in 1972, but the chemical, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is so stable it continues to poison the environment and move up the food chain. One thing we do for petrochemical spills is release microbes that digest petrochemicals so the spill can be broken down. I wonder if we could develop a similar means to clean up DDT.
- pomian 5y agoYes, bacterial degradation is a thing, and a great idea.The problem with any degradation process: ozone, hydrogen peroxide, bacteria, can lead to intermediate or final forms of chemicals that are even worse (more toxic.) Organochlorine chemistry is complicated. The by products are even more complex. And then each of those reactions) effects on the environment are complex. One of the best places to put something at risk is deep in the water, hence deep tailing ponds for acid mine waste, to stop there Oxidation processes. For example surface rust on a car can prevent deeper rust, by creating a non reactive layer. But this is a huge problem! Thousands of barrels, probably other compounds equally or more vicious. The only known way of complete destruction is controlled high temperature incineration - which is expensive, and only certain sites certified to do it.(>1850°C) And of course transport risky. (And if you don't keep control of combustion, then more dangerous side products in the air.) So, for now, best to keep it there, until a complete plan is made. Moving it, touching it, without a that plan, could make it much worse, by mobilising it, exposing to water flows, disseminating it, making it accessible to animals. Quite possibly might be best to bury everything. A horrible thought, but may be the best. It's 3000 meters down! (And this isn't even radioactive!) Just for clarity: not a chemist, but an environmental engineer.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago> (And this isn't even radioactive!) That's sad, though. "Radioactive" is a synonym to "the problem solves itself given enough time". Non-radioactive toxic waste stays dangerous forever.
- throwawaysea 5y agoRelated prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26776086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26776086
- philips 5y agohttps://archive.is/aUkmm https://archive.is/aUkmm
- scibotics 5y agoIf you are interested in working in ocean research to explore, understand, and protect the ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is hiring. https://careers.whoi.edu https://careers.whoi.edu We built and operate the ROV Jason and AUV Sentry, which were previously used to map these dumpsites[1]. We are always working on innovative vehicle capabilities and are currently looking for data scientists, software/mechanical/electrical engineers, machine learning specialists, etc. to help us. It's also a great opportunity to take a sabbatical by the beach :) 1: http://4dgeo.whoi.edu/geo-bin/GB_cmd?cmd=SlideShow&Match=2013/10/13%2019:34:02&Show_What=Collections&Widgets=on&user_id=DAQ-DISP_9999 http://4dgeo.whoi.edu/geo-bin/GB_cmd?cmd=SlideShow&Match=201...
- hanniabu 5y agoAre volunteers welcome?
- pvaldes 5y agoYou would need to add some insurance in that volunteering plan. Doing field work in the ocean is hard and dangerous. For they would be a risk to be sued. ... And the ship job is not so glamourous as you think. Oceanography is fantastic, I enjoyed it a lot, but people shouldn't build a wrong image in their mind. This is hard work.
- scibotics 5y agoWe're not very well-equipped to handle volunteers right now, but we are releasing more data and open source software every day, and would be happy to see contributions from the community.
- pvaldes 5y agoCan you put a link here about that open source programs?
- scibotics 5y agoWe have a GitHub for the institution (https://github.com/whoigit/ https://github.com/whoigit/) and some individual labs have separate GitHub, Bitbucket, and GitLab accounts. For instance, some of the robotics code behind the AUV Sentry is here: https://bitbucket.org/whoidsl/ https://bitbucket.org/whoidsl/
- a-dub 5y agoddt you say... psh... https://www.sfweekly.com/news/fallout/ https://www.sfweekly.com/news/fallout/
- person_of_color 5y agoWhat company is responsible?
- jeffgreco 5y agoVery strange to me that the name of the responsible company (Montrose Chemical Corporation) is nowhere to be found in this article.
- throwawayfrauds 5y agoAlso the very vocal anti-environmentalist company CEO Samuel Rotrosen is barely mentioned. Montrose executives were basically exaggerated movie villains in their defense of dumping DDT. Unapologetic doesn’t begin to cover it.
- querez 5y agoI've tried googling for Samuel Rotrosen, but came up with almost nothing. If I had to guess, then someone payed (a lot of) money to scrub this name off the internet. It's pretty creepy, but also impressive what you can do if you're determined.
- the_lonely_road 5y agoThis guy had an article posted in the New York Times in 1972...I am pretty confident he was not scrubbed from the internet and was instead just dead before the internet and no one has cared enough about him to add much content. Note that the New York Times article was the first search returned on Google for me, so not very hidden.
- nanna 5y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/1972/09/17/archives/ddt.html https://www.nytimes.com/1972/09/17/archives/ddt.html
- stinos 5y agoExcatly. And that there's no mention of possible legal consequences. Or perhaps even a plan to do something about it (if that is even possible).