5 ms·

Seems obviously BMAA but clearly the government don’t want to say so because it will destroy the lobster industry. We should all be terrified of BMAA and it’s

Seems obviously BMAA but clearly the government don’t want to say so because it will destroy the lobster industry. We should all be terrified of BMAA and it’s here because of climate change. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190124110834.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190124110834.h... Climate change is making the oceans and fresh water toxic and very deadly. We’ve seriously fucked the earth. Have you ever heard weasel words more reminiscent of a cover up: “ But experts nonetheless warn that testing itself is also more difficult than the public realizes. While some medical tests can provide quick and definite results other types of investigation require far more work. “What people are talking about really amounts to a full research investigation, because then we know what we’re looking for precisely,” said the federal scientist who was familiar with both the cluster and the testing process. “Right now we don’t have a way to interpret simple data that you might get when testing a person’s brain tissue for a particular toxin. For example, how much are ‘elevated’ levels of a neurotoxin compared to the rest of the public? And when does that become a cause for concern?” The scientist said teams are ready to begin the research, but “New Brunswick has specifically told us not to go forward with that work”.”

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
This compound was new to me. Here's more info on it. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/2/83/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/2/83/htm Seems to accumulate in bivalves and crustaceans but not fish.
- ratsmack 5y ago
  More info from 2012 on the NIH site: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3295368/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3295368/ This has been known for quite a while.
chiefalchemist 5y ago
Not nitpicking but to clarify a bit, that study says "Such blooms are a regular feature of Australian inland waterways and are increasing due to nutrient run-off, reduced river flows and climate change." So while climate change (i.e., warming in targeted areas) doesn't help, it's more of the final nail in a series of nails we've been driving into Mother Nature's heart. The idea we could be so negligent and abusive of our own home without repercussions is a great narrative for profits, but not so good for our home.
- frogger8 5y ago
  Thanks for this clarification.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  The leading cause of toxic algae blooms like this is nutrient runoff. The leading cause of nutrient runoff is over-fertilization of industrialized farmland. I've never heard of climate change associated with these until now, but I've only worked tangentially with these phenomenon, and am not an expert.
  - paganel 5y ago
    > runoff is over-fertilization of industrialized farmland. And I'd say that the leading cause of that is the increase of world population which necessitates the "industrialized farmland". In other words there's always a balance between more people on this planet vs more wild-life.
    - jvanderbot 5y ago
      partially. Over fertilization, which causes nutrient runoff (by definition wasteful and not cost effective) is not required to grow the amount of food that we grow. Targeted fertilization or erosion control can both mitigate it by reducing waste, saving money and reducing occurance of side effects at the expense of a reduction fertilizer sales worldwide. Tech can help here. See precision agriculture and other related topics
      - paganel 5y ago
        Don't think precision agriculture would scale. And even if it would scale, meaning we would theoretically be able to grow a lot more food on a lot less land, it would only mean that we'd grow more food and especially that we'd have even cheaper food. The Jevons paradox is real.
relax88 5y ago
Seems more likely the old mines in the area are causing the contamination with BMAA and that it is being consumed in shellfish. BMAA contamination is often associated with old flooded mine shafts, and there are several in the area where these people are getting sick, most of them upstream. Not sure why you're assuming this has anything to do with climate change. What could be the link there?
- andrewclunn 5y ago
  I do wish that "climate change" was not lumped into every environmental concern. For example, if painting one of the blades black on a windmill means the birds don't fly into it and die, then let's do it! Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem.
  - fao_ 5y ago
    > Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem. Personally I feel that splitting up interests that are inherently to do with climate change and ecology into individual issues is detrimental. However, you're probably right that capitalism is inefficient and utterly ineffective at large scale projects, and that splitting everything into isolated issues that cannot be seen to lead to anything bigger is a more "efficient" way to solve the general problem under capitalism, sure.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      This is not artificially splitting anything up. Mines contamination has no relation at all with climate change. Birds death due to impact with windmills have nothing to do with climate change. It's lumping those things up that is artificial. And if you add noise to your goal, don't be surprised when people start to question if your actions actually lead to your stated goals or if you have a hidden agenda... because you do have a hidden agenda. It's hidden because of bad communication, but people can't tell the difference.
aaron695 5y ago

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

This compound was new to me. Here's more info on it. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/2/83/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/2/83/htm Seems to accumulate in bivalves and crustaceans but not fish.

ratsmack 5y ago
More info from 2012 on the NIH site: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3295368/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3295368/ This has been known for quite a while.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

Not nitpicking but to clarify a bit, that study says "Such blooms are a regular feature of Australian inland waterways and are increasing due to nutrient run-off, reduced river flows and climate change." So while climate change (i.e., warming in targeted areas) doesn't help, it's more of the final nail in a series of nails we've been driving into Mother Nature's heart. The idea we could be so negligent and abusive of our own home without repercussions is a great narrative for profits, but not so good for our home.

frogger8 5y ago
Thanks for this clarification.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jvanderbot 5y ago
The leading cause of toxic algae blooms like this is nutrient runoff. The leading cause of nutrient runoff is over-fertilization of industrialized farmland. I've never heard of climate change associated with these until now, but I've only worked tangentially with these phenomenon, and am not an expert.
- paganel 5y ago
  > runoff is over-fertilization of industrialized farmland. And I'd say that the leading cause of that is the increase of world population which necessitates the "industrialized farmland". In other words there's always a balance between more people on this planet vs more wild-life.
  - jvanderbot 5y ago
    partially. Over fertilization, which causes nutrient runoff (by definition wasteful and not cost effective) is not required to grow the amount of food that we grow. Targeted fertilization or erosion control can both mitigate it by reducing waste, saving money and reducing occurance of side effects at the expense of a reduction fertilizer sales worldwide. Tech can help here. See precision agriculture and other related topics
    - paganel 5y ago
      Don't think precision agriculture would scale. And even if it would scale, meaning we would theoretically be able to grow a lot more food on a lot less land, it would only mean that we'd grow more food and especially that we'd have even cheaper food. The Jevons paradox is real.

relax88 5y ago

Seems more likely the old mines in the area are causing the contamination with BMAA and that it is being consumed in shellfish. BMAA contamination is often associated with old flooded mine shafts, and there are several in the area where these people are getting sick, most of them upstream. Not sure why you're assuming this has anything to do with climate change. What could be the link there?

andrewclunn 5y ago
I do wish that "climate change" was not lumped into every environmental concern. For example, if painting one of the blades black on a windmill means the birds don't fly into it and die, then let's do it! Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem.
- fao_ 5y ago
  > Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem. Personally I feel that splitting up interests that are inherently to do with climate change and ecology into individual issues is detrimental. However, you're probably right that capitalism is inefficient and utterly ineffective at large scale projects, and that splitting everything into isolated issues that cannot be seen to lead to anything bigger is a more "efficient" way to solve the general problem under capitalism, sure.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    This is not artificially splitting anything up. Mines contamination has no relation at all with climate change. Birds death due to impact with windmills have nothing to do with climate change. It's lumping those things up that is artificial. And if you add noise to your goal, don't be surprised when people start to question if your actions actually lead to your stated goals or if you have a hidden agenda... because you do have a hidden agenda. It's hidden because of bad communication, but people can't tell the difference.

aaron695 5y ago