https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic Plastic contamination will have a “catastrophic” effect on human health unless urgent action is taken, according to experts. The warning comes as analysis of seawater collected during the Volvo Ocean Race, an extreme round-the-world sailing event, “proved conclusively that plastic pollution has spread to every part of the planet”, says Sky News. What is plastic contamination? Recent studies have revealed the unprecendented extent to which the Earth’s waters are polluted with microplastics, defined as plastic debris less than 5mm in length. Oceans are awash with plastic, and recent studies have shown that microplastic contamination is also present in tap and bottled water. What does the latest study show? Seawater samples collected by a yacht taking part in the 45,000-mile Volvo Ocean Race revealed that tiny fibres of plastic can be found almost everywhere. The highest readings were taken close to big population areas, with 349 particles per cubic metre of seawater in the South China Sea close to Hong Kong. Even in the remotest parts of the Southern Ocean, hundreds of miles from land, the researchers found 26 particles per cubic metre. How will this affect humans? Dr Luiza Mirpuri, co-founder of the Portugal-based environmental organisation Mirpuri Foundation, warns that plastic contamination is slowly “killing the human race”. “Not now but in the third generation, because each time we have diseases, new diseases from new contaminants. We are having more cancer, more allergic diseases, more infertility. We are less fertile than our grandfathers,” she told Sky Atlantic’s Turn the Tide on Plastic documentary, which airs tonight at 8.30pm. What do other experts say? “Other scientists are more measured in their conclusions,” notes Sky News. However, there are growing concerns about the microplastics consumed by fish, which are then eaten by humans. Ten ways to reduce plastic waste Wet wipes face ban in plastics crackdown Dr Malcolm Hudson, environmental scientist at Southampton University, told Sky News: “We actually don’t know the extent of the risk at the moment. “There will come a point where there will be so much plastic in the ocean that we will be facing hazards that could be endangering human life.” Professor Alex Rogers, a specialist in sustainable oceans at Oxford University, told The Guardian earlier this month: “Many of these chemicals are pretty nasty and as they move up the food chain they may be having serious consequences for the health of wildlife, and ultimately humans.” --- Can Our Ocean Be Saved? May 18, 2018 / Chase Holding / 0 Comments https://web.colby.edu/st112wa2018/2018/05/18/can-our-ocean-be-saved-2/ Chase Holding 5/6/18 Professor Fleming STS W1 Can Our Ocean Be Saved? Throughout history, humans have singlehandedly been the most detrimental species on planet earth. The Industrial Age in the early eighteenth century presented the world with its first real look at Climate Change. While environmental scientists have predominantly focused their studies on the increasing temperature due to Carbon emissions, the world is now faced with another issue; the excess amount of plastics and microplastics in the ocean. “Humanity’s plastic footprint is probably more dangerous than its carbon footprint”(US Deparment 2016). Not only has this form of pollution harmed marine life, but it has begun to affect human life as well. The ocean provides people with resources and more than half of the planet’s oxygen but is treated as a worldwide trash bin. Currently, there is no solution to dealing with the issue of microplastic and plastic pollution, however many environmentalists continue to search for one. While the more progressive countries are attempting to cut down on their plastic use, the amount of plastic debris in the ocean would take hundreds, maybe thousands of years to clean up. The best action an individual can do to help this issue is to influence others to reduce their plastic use. If our society cannot stop using disposable plastic or prevent it from accumulating in marine habitats, microplastics will kill off millions of species living in the ocean, and humans will start to suffer from the effects of this form of pollution. The use of plastic in human societies worldwide has a massive impact on all forms of marine life. The ocean is Earth’s largest ecosystem and supports all planet life. Marine life provides the human race with over a sixth of the animal protein people eat. If society cannot stop polluting the oceans’ ecosystems, this source of food will either become depleted or be too poisonous to eat. Microplastics are the biggest culprit in poisoning fish and other species in the ocean. This form of degraded plastic is defined as small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long (Cho 2011). The reason microplastics are so dangerous stems from their size, but more importantly their quantity. There are anywhere from 93,000 to 236,000 metric tons of these tiny particles floating in the ocean (Parker 2017). They have turned the ocean into what scientists often call a “plastic soup.” With such an abundance of this material, it’s no surprise that there is a severe impact on marine life. One of the biggest reasons that fish and other species consume microplastics and plastic, in general, is because they smell similar to food. When pieces of plastic enter their bodies, they are not able to properly digest it, which in most cases leads to death. Over 100 million marine animals are killed each year solely from plastic debris in the ocean (Sea 2018). While not all of these deaths directly stem from the ingestion of plastic, the number of microplastics entering the ocean will continue to increase this number if society does not change its ways. Unfortunately, plastic is difficult to dispose of properly, so this will likely be an issue for hundreds of years. If the human society does not stop using plastic, soon enough marine life will become completely inedible. On top of this, the animals that so many people claim to love will become much rarer or even extinct. Humans are artificial in this sense because while so many people share a sense of love for marine life and the ocean, their everyday habits show no sense of regard for protecting them. People’s use of plastic in society over the past hundred years has left hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics in the ocean, and with no sign of stopping plastic production, it is only a matter of time before many species go extinct or are completely poisonous to eat. Much of the ocean’s current plastic and microplastic pollution is a direct result of a variety of the world’s largest rivers. When researching the effect of plastics and microplastics on the Ocean’s ecosystem, the first question that comes to mind is; how does this debris enter the ocean, and where is it coming from? Often time’s plastics are directly placed into the ocean within countries that have less access to recycling programs, however, a large fraction of marine plastic debris comes from rivers and other water sources that transport all forms of debris into the ocean. Environmental researcher, Christian Schmidt, believes that ten major rivers in Asia and Africa transport 88-95% of the global load of plastic (Schmidt 2018). To give a more specific number, Environmental Science & Technology, show that rivers collectively dump anywhere from 0.47 million to 2.75 million metric tons of plastic into the seas every year (Patel 2018). People often think polluting rivers is less detrimental than directly dumping plastic waste into the ocean; however, rivers carry trash and connect nearly all land surfaces with various oceans across the world. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171017110028.htm While this illustration gives a simplistic view of the actual pollution process, it is essential for people to realize how detrimental it can be when industrial buildings and other factories are built around major rivers and other water sources. Not only do these rivers take in a large portion of mismanaged plastic waste, but also in many cases they are polluted with chemicals and other toxic waste. China, having the largest population, as well as two of the world’s largest rivers (the Yellow River, and the Yangtze), is not surprisingly predominantly blamed for the oceans’ plastic crisis. While there is currently no solution to the issue of river plastic pollution, governments must enforce stricter regulation in populated areas near rivers. If Schmidt is correct in stating that majority of this plastic is coming from rivers, governments and citizens across the world must focus their efforts on preventing mismanaged plastic waste from entering rivers. Microplastic ingestion from marine life has a greater effect on human beings than most of society realizes. When viewing the effects of plastic pollution, most people initially think of the numerous species that are harmed by this issue. The vast majority of the human society puts off being environmentally friendly, as they believe these issues have no effect on them. Especially with regards to recycling, most people don’t realize that plastic pollution is coming back to harm the very ones who started the issue. As more marine life ingest microplastics, more humans are exposed to these dangerous materials. http://plasticcontinents.com/2017/12/its-confirmed-plastic-is-now-in-our-food/ This image is a cycle that depicts not only how humans indirectly ingest plastic, but also how marine life and other animals do. When microplastics and other smaller forms of this debris either float to the bottom of the ocean or remain on the surface, small animals consume them. If the plastic filled animal isn’t killed initially, the animal might make its way up the food chain, eventually being consumed by either humans or other top predators. “A recent study by the University of Ghent in Belgium found human seafood eaters ingest up to 11,000 tiny pieces of plastic every year with dozens of particles becoming embedded in tissues” (Knapton 2017) This is important for society to understand because while a lot of people believe that climate change and pollution is a problem for future generations, they are very wrong. If ingested in high enough quantities, scientists believe humans could face issues with fertility, poisoning, and genetic disruption (Knapton 2017). Heavy seafood eaters already have to be cautious about getting mercury poisoning from various species of fish, but not enough people realize they are likely consuming microplastics as well. It seems fitting in some aspects that the species, which is poisoning the ocean, is in turn poisoning itself. Unfortunately, this species is also destroying the ecosystem that harvests the most life and diversity on our planet. Currently, there are no reports of human casualties from ingesting microplastics, but as more plastic is dumped into the ocean, higher concentrations of these materials will be present in marine life. It is only a matter of time before humans begin to reap the effects of plastic ingestion, and while human illness or even death is something to be avoided at all cost, it might be the only idea that will create change in our society. Societies use of the ocean as a plastic trash bin has, in turn, led to human ingestion of microplastics from eating various species of marine animals. Another question a lot of people have when researching microplastics and plastics is: where do these plastic go, and can we dispose of them? At this point in the paper, you hopefully understand that there is a lot of plastic in the ocean and that it is very dangerous. You also might be thinking, “I swim in the ocean all the time and never have seen evidence of the supposed hundreds of millions of tons of plastic waste in the ocean.” There is a reason that most people haven’t first hand witnessed this mass pollution. Plastic is predominantly widespread in the open ocean, but it is particularly concentrated in five major gyres –rotating currents of water– in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Weule 2017). These gyres consist of concentrated microplastics as well as other tiny fragments. The picture below depicts an extremely small fraction of a gyre. http://srfer.com/pacific-garbage-patch-the-plastic-tragedy/ Some of the largest gyres in the world cover hundreds of kilometers of open water. Let that sink in. Hundreds of miles of ocean are essentially uninhabitable for marine life because the surface is covered with plastic. A large portion of the marine animals killed in the ocean originates from these gyres that form. Seagulls and other predators, which feed on fish, are affected by the gyres as well as they mistake the plastic and other surfaced debris as food. Another commonplace to find plastic is the coastline. “I think that that is something that people really don’t appreciate. The gyres may have a fair bit of plastic in them, but the coastal margin probably has much more”(Wuele 2017). The United States’ coasts are for the most part clean as people and various organizations opt to clean beaches in their local towns. Unfortunately, not all countries possess the same motives to clean their costs. Many towns in less affluent countries leave their plastic waste on the coastline hoping that the tide will take it out into the ocean. In countries such as Indonesia, this is very prevalent, as you will often time see large portions of plastic debris floating near the coast. This is similarly detrimental to marine life as well as other inland animals that consume the washed-up plastic. The sad reality of these places is that often times they simply do not have the resources to properly manage their waste. While beneficial in many ways for society, plastic is one of the hardest materials to dispose of, which is why it often ends up in the ocean. Especially in regions where you cannot recycle, plastics and even tiny microplastics take hundreds of years to decompose properly. The reasons they take so long to decompose stems from the strong carbon-carbon bonds that make up plastic (Wolchover 2011). “Nature doesn’t make things like that, so organisms have never seen that before”(Wolchover 2011). Kenneth Peters who is an organic geochemist believes that plastics take long to decompose because they are newly exposed to nature. The organisms that break down food and other materials such as wood have been evolving for billions of years, allowing them to be effective. Plastics have newly started affecting nature; therefore it will take a while before organisms are able to properly dispose of them. Sadly, the only action that would be more detrimental to the environment than polluting it with plastic would be burning it. People have often attempted to burn plastic in order to dispose of it for good, but this material lets off highly toxic chemicals, which can be detrimental to humans as well as the atmosphere. Similar to the other issues of pollution, the only solution would be to decrease plastic use, and attempt to fix the mess society has made in the last hundred years. Planet Earth gifts humans and all other species around the world with endless beauty and nature, but time and time again society fails to treat it properly. Human nature has evolved over millions of years and is now filled with greed, and ignorance of the problems we are facing. Microplastics take hundreds of years to decompose and are some of the biggest issues for the environment in terms of marine and human impact, and yet most of the human society has made no intent to change its policies. Humans know that most plastic pollution originates from ten major rivers, and yet we do not stop polluting them. Images of gyres hundreds of miles wide flood world news and yet plastic straws are still served at restaurants. It is frightening that majority of the oceans’ plastic comes from regions that refuse to recycle even when they have the proper resources to do so. We live in a world filled with self-centered people, and industries that choose money over just about anything. Society has fooled us in this sense, twisting our priorities to focus solely on our own well-being. Even as I write this I realize I am not perfect. Plastic is difficult to avoid, and not everyone realizes how damaging the effects of microplastics are. I have spent much of my life in the ocean, and I intend to enjoy it for as long as I can. If we as a society cannot find alternatives to plastic, the ocean will no longer be a safe haven for millions of people worldwide. A world without an ocean and the diverse wildlife that inhabits it is not one that most people want to live in. “Many of us ask what can I, as one person, do, but history shows us that everything good and bad starts because somebody does something or does not do something”(Knight 2018). While an individual’s effort to not use plastic won’t have much effect on the environment, it’s their influence on others that creates change. The world is yours; what are you going to do with it? Work Cited: Cho, Renee. “Our Oceans: A Plastic Soup.” State of the Planet, 24 Feb. 2011, blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/01/26/our-oceans-a-plastic-soup/. “Information About Sea Turtles: Threats from Marine Debris – Sea Turtle Conservancy.”Sea Turtle Conservancy, conserveturtles.org/information-sea- turtles-threats-marine-debris/. Knapton, Sarah. “Fish Eat Plastic in the Ocean Because It Smells like Food, Scientists Discover.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 16 Aug. 2017, www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/15/fish-eat-plastic-ocean-smells- like-food-scientists-discover/. Knight, J.D. “Ocean Conservation Quotes – Famous Sea Quotes on Sea and Sky.” Deep Sea Creatures on Sea and Sky, www.seasky.org/quotes/sea-quotes-ocean- conservation.html. Parker, Laura. “Ocean Life Eats Tons of Plastic-Here’s Why That Matters.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 18 Aug. 2017, news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/ocean-life-eats-plastic-larvaceans- anchovy-environment/. Patel, Prachi. “Stemming the Plastic Tide: 10 Rivers Contribute Most of the Plastic in the Oceans.” Scientific American, 1 Feb. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers- contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/. Schmidt, Christian. “Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea.” C&EN: WHAT’S THAT STUFF? JELL-O, pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368. US Department of Commerce, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “What Are Microplastics?” NOAA’s National Ocean Service, 13 Apr. 2016, oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html. Weule, Genelle. “Plastic and How It Affects Our Oceans.” ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 27 Feb. 2017, www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-02-27/plastic-and-plastic-waste- explained/8301316. Wolchover, Natalie. “Why Doesn’t Plastic Biodegrade?” LiveScience, Purch, 2 Mar. 2011, www.livescience.com/33085-petroleum-derived-plastic-non- biodegradable.html. ---
https://www.mining.com/web/amazon-tribe-suffers-mercury-contamination-as-illegal-mining-spreads/ Amazon tribe suffers mercury contamination as illegal mining spreads Thomson Reuters Foundation | December 17, 2021 Nearly 60% of tested people in Munduruku villages had mercury levels above what global health organizations consider safe. (Image: Katiabraga | Pixabay.) Illegal gold mining in the north Amazonian territory of Brazil’s indigenous Munduruku people has led to more than half of several hundred people tested showing unsafe mercury levels in their bodies, including children, health researchers say. That is a particular worry to human rights defenders, as the country’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro pushes plans to introduce or expand mining and farming in protected areas of the world’s largest rainforest. That would include into indigenenous territory, where mining is currently forbidden by Brazil’s constitution. The spread of mines — with mercury used to extract gold from other minerals — is also helping drive Amazon deforestation, which has soared 22% in the last year to the highest levels since 2006, a government report showed last month. The accelerating destruction comes despite Bolsonaro’s insistence his government is serious about protecting the rainforest, considered crucial to staving off catastrophic climate change. “So much destruction, so much deforestation has been happening with the mining. Mining is devastating our lives, leaving the river completely polluted. It is making people sick,” said 19-year-old Beka Munduruku of Sawré Muybu village, a leader of community’s resistance movement against mining. Mercury testing was carried out in 2019 by the federally funded biomedical institute Fiocruz, at the request of the Munduruku, who had been following the mining activities upriver and noticed the water in the Tapajós river turning cloudy. That year, Brazil’s National Mining Agency estimated that wildcat gold miners were extracting about 30 tons of gold annually from the Tapajós watershed alone. The mercury tests were led by Paulo Basta, an epidemiologist specializing in indigenous health, with the results published this year. Basta and his team analyzed hair samples from 197 people in three Munduruku villages and found some level of the toxic heavy metal in all of them, said Basta, a professor at Fiocruz. Nearly 60% had levels above what global health organizations consider safe. Researchers traced the contamination to fish, the community’s main source of protein, Basta said in an online interview. The symptoms of mercury poisoning can range from vision problems and muscle weakness to mood and memory disorders. In extreme cases, it can lead to premature death. Basta’s team administered tests to 52 Munduruku children under the age of six and found nine of them showed neurological symptoms linked to mercury contamination, including memory deficits and learning difficulties. The epidemiologist expressed particular concern for children who were being exposed to mercury from conception up to two years old. “Those first thousand days are the most important in the (developmental) life of a human being,” he said. “In this timeframe, the children already presented levels of contamination and neurodevelopmental delay.” Mining and forest loss Illegal mining and deforestation go hand-in-hand, said Laize Sampaio, an environmental scientist at the University of Sao Paulo, whose research focuses on the impacts of wildcat mining along the Tapajós river basin in north Brazil. Citing data collected in 2020 by Brazil’s space research institute INPE and by ISA, a socio-environmental non-profit, Sampaio said parts of the Munduruku and Sai Cinza indigenous territories where illegal mining was spreading also had the highest rates of tree loss. According to documents from Para state’s Secretariat of Environment and Sustainability seen by Thomson Reuters Foundation, as of July 8, 2021, more than 1,120 hectares (2,767 acres) of Munduruku land had been cleared for mining activities. When the forest floor is disturbed, any mercury present in the soil can spread to contaminate other areas, said Sandra Hacon, a professor of public health and environment at Fiocruz. “When large areas are deforested, you remobilize this mercury, which is a part of the soil, and it is deposited in the leaves,” said Hacon, who worked with Basta to analyze the Munduruku mercury contamination. “And this mercury, in addition to being carried into the atmosphere, a large amount is carried to aquatic ecosystems.” Clearing land for mining is not the only way mercury gets into the air and the water, Hacon noted, pointing to forest fires – which are becoming more frequent and intense as the planet gets warmer – as another way mercury can spread. But Basta said illegal mining is by far the biggest culprit. “It is estimated that in the entire Amazon region, approximately 90% of the contaminant mercury present in the environment comes from illegal mining activities,” he said. ‘Keep the river clean’ Prompted by the Fiocruz research, shared with state officials before the publication of the scientific papers, the Para public prosecutor’s office is holding a civil inquiry into the causes of mercury contamination among the Munduruku. Inquiry documents state the office is also investigating whether the state should be held accountable for not protecting the community’s health. The inquiry, launched last January, is still ongoing. Brazil’s indigenous health agency SESAI told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an emailed statement that it has been monitoring the water in Munduruku villages, looking at various parameters including turbidity, chlorine content, and pH and E. coli bacteria levels. The statement did not say how long they have been monitoring the water or whether they are also measuring mercury levels. SESAI said in partnership with Fiocruz it has gathered a group of physicians and indigenous healthcare workers to “carry out a plan of action to prevent diseases caused by mercury contamination in the territory”, without providing more details. For the Munduruku, the health risks that mercury poses are just more evidence of how their community is being threatened by illegal mining and the destruction of the Amazon. “The miners want to take over indigenous lands, but we say no. We’re not going to let that happen. It is from the forest, from the river, from the land that we make our living,” said Beka Munduruku, the indigenous leader. “We fight to keep the river clean, (to protect) the game and the trees. We fight to leave the forest standing,” she said. (By Fabio Zuker, Editing by Jumana Farouky and Laurie Goering)
Have you watched seaspiracy? It’s on Netflix. Plastic garbage is a drop in the bucket to the real destruction going on with our ocean, ocean plant life and fish. Commercial fishing has got to be super heavy regulated immediately or it’s going to be irreversible.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...dumped-100-000-dead-fish-20220206-p59u65.html Super-trawler banned from Australia ‘dumped 100,000 dead fish’ By Campbell MacDiarmid and Henry Bodkin February 6, 2022 London: A super-trawler that was banned from fishing in Australian waters is being investigated after reportedly dumping more than 100,000 dead fish in the Atlantic Ocean. The Dutch-owned trawler FV Margiris – the world’s second-largest fishing vessel – spilled its catch after its net ruptured, according to the industry group that represents the vessel’s owner. Sea Shepherd estimated the super-trawler left as many as 100,000 dead fish.Credit:Sea Shepherd In a statement, the Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association (PFA) said the spill occurred “involuntarily” on Thursday and was a “very rare occurrence”. But French authorities have opened an investigation after an environmental group disputed this account, saying it was an illegal discharge. Annick Girardin, France’s maritime minister, called the images of the dead fish “shocking”, and has asked the country’s national fishing surveillance authority to launch an inquiry. The vessel, which is 14 times larger than UK fishing boats, was banned from Australian waters for two years in 2012 due to concerns about its effect on local stocks. It was later accused of plundering fish from the sea around Britain before Brexit. Giant fishing trawler the FV Margiris. The French arm of the campaign group Sea Shepherd first published images of Margiris’ spill, showing the ocean’s surface covered by a dense layer of blue whiting - a sub-species of cod used to mass-produce fish fingers, fish oil and meal. Sea Shepherd France said it did not believe the incident was accidental, but rather an attempt by the trawler to discharge a type of fish that it did not want to process. It is a practice known as discharging bycatch, which is banned under EU fishing rules. Lamya Essemlali, head of the campaign group in France, said she believed the fish were deliberately discharged. Sea Shepherd France said the spill affected more than 100,000 fish. The Margiris, which is 142 metres long with a net 594 metres in length and 200 metres wide, dwarfs most fishing boats. The Margiris can take in more than 250 tons of fish a day. In 2019 the Magiris was fishing off the Sussex coasts in waters designated as a bass hatchery, which are overfished. The UK’s Marine Management Organisation boarded the vessel but found no infringement of fishing regulations. Greenpeace protesters say they confronted the Margiris – previously known as Abel Tasman – in West Africa in 2012 and in the Netherlands and Australia in 2013. The campaign resulted in it being banned from Australian waters. Data by marinetraffic.com on Friday showed the vessel was still engaged in fishing activities off France’s coast. The fish discharged on Thursday would be deducted from the Margiris’ quota, PFA said. “The Margiris has implemented drastic measures to prevent similar accidents in the future,” it said, without saying what they were. The Telegraph, London
https://www.reuters.com/business/en...-58-million-years-ago-study-finds-2022-03-09/ March 10, 2022 Meteorite gouged huge Greenland crater 58 million years ago, study finds By Will Dunham Scientists perform research field work at the edge of the Greenland Ice Sheet while studying the age of the 19-mile-wide (31- km-wide) Hiawatha impact crater that is buried under ice six-tenths of a mile (1 km) thick in 2019. Joe MacGregor/Handout via REUTERS WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - An immense crater in northwestern Greenland, buried under a thick sheet of ice and first spotted in 2015, is much older than previously suspected - formed by a meteorite impact 58 million years ago, rather than 13,000 years ago as had been proposed. Scientists said on Wednesday they used two different dating methods on sand and rock left over from the impact to determine when the crater - about 19 miles (31 km) wide - was formed. They found that the meteorite - roughly one to 1.25 miles (1.5-2 km) in diameter - struck Greenland about 8 million years after a larger asteroid impact at Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula wiped out the dinosaurs. The crater lies beneath Greenland's Hiawatha Glacier, covered by an ice sheet six tenths of a mile (1 km) deep. It had remained undetected until airborne ice-penetrating radar data tipped off scientists about its existence. It is one of Earth's 25 largest-known impact craters. Over the eons, Earth has been hit by space rocks innumerable times, though gradual changes in the planet's surface have erased or obscured many of the craters. Greenland at the time - during the Paleocene Epoch - was not the icy place it is today, and instead was covered with temperate rain forests populated by a variety of trees and inhabited by some of the mammals that became Earth's dominant land animals after the dinosaurs - aside from their bird descendants - went extinct. The meteorite released millions of times more energy than an atomic bomb, leaving a crater big enough to swallow the city of Washington. "The impact would have devastated the local region," said Swedish Museum of Natural History geologist Gavin Kenny, lead author of the research published in the journal Science Advances. "The air blast from the impact would have knocked down most trees within tens to hundreds of kilometers, and the thermal blast from the impact would have ignited trees up to hundreds of kilometers from the site of impact, starting enormous forest fires," Kenny added. The impact also would have triggered regional seismic shaking while ash from the forest fires and dust and molten rock that had been violently ejected into the atmosphere would have rained down, yielding a thick blanket of debris, Kenny said. As bad as it was, it did not approach the scale of calamity wrought by the asteroid - estimated at 7.5 miles (12 km) wide - that struck 66 million years ago, erasing three quarters of Earth's species and initiating a global climate catastrophe. "Whether the impact had a long-lasting effect on the global climate is currently unclear, but unlikely in my opinion," said geology professor and study co-author Michael Storey of the Natural History Museum of Denmark. Some scientists had hypothesized that the impact occurred after the Greenland Ice Sheet formed 2.6 million years ago and perhaps even as recently as about 13,000 years ago to initiate a documented cold period. The researchers used two dating methods based on radioactive decay - the transformation of atoms of one element into atoms of another element. Because the ice-encased crater is inaccessible, they tested sand from rocks superheated by the impact and minerals called shocked zircons contained in pebbles - all scooped up from a river carrying material from the crater out of the glacier. Both methods yielded the same age results. "Thus, the impact did not happen - or cause a climate-change event - in the time of humans as had been proposed and speculated previously," Kenny said. "Impacts of this size occur only every few million years so we don't need to be very worried about such an impact happening anytime soon," Kenny added.
Video showing spiders hunting in packs is pure nightmare fuel March 10th, 2022 By Joshua Hawkins https://bgr.com/science/video-showing-spiders-hunting-in-packs-is-pure-nightmare-fuel/ Scientists have discovered a terrifying species of spiders that hunt in packs. Most adult spiders prefer to live their lives alone, like the Joro spiders spreading across the southeastern U.S. However, the tiny red members of the species Anelosimus eximius live their lives in colonies of hundreds. The spiders are smaller than a pencil eraser, but together they can build massive webs that span several meters in size. What’s most intriguing about these spiders, though, is the way they hunt. These spiders hunt in packs by using vibrations Image source: Chiara, Arrufat, Jeanson/University of Toulouse/CNRS Normally when you see animals hunting in packs, there’s usually a leader somewhere. This lead calls the shots, somehow commanding the members of its pack to do their different parts. That isn’t the case with these spiders, though. In fact, there is no leader coaxing these massive colonies forward. Instead, the spiders hunt using vibrations in their web. A new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences details this species’ peculiar hunting routine. The spiders weave massive nonstick webs and then wait for bugs to run into them. When they feel the vibrations in the web, the spiders hunt in packs moving towards the bug in synchronized motion. They stop whenever their own movements threaten to drown that of their prey, resulting in weird stop-animation-like movements. This spider hunting technique is extremely effective It’s a terrifying sight to watch as the colony move towards its prey in stop motion. The authors of the study were able to capture footage of it, too, by sending vibrations through a web using a miniature motor. Anytime the vibrations began, the spiders would surge towards it, descending on it quickly. The full video can be seen in the study, which is published online with full access for all. If you just want a quick look, though, the tweet included above shows a quick GIF of how the spiders move together. The way these spiders hunt in packs is extremely effective. Because so many spiders are moving towards the prey it has less chance to escape. These spiders also live in groups Image source: peter / Adobe While the tiny red spiders that make up Anelosimus eximius prefer large colonies, they aren’t the only spiders that live in groups. Evidence of spiders living thousands of years ago has been found. And, with other 40,000 different species of spiders in the world, it makes sense that other spiders like to hunt in packs. One species, the Agelena consociata resides in the Congo. This spider family prefers to live in colonies of as many as 1500. The species builds massive communal webs that allow them to capture and share their food. Some funnel-web spiders have also been known to create colonies and hunt in packs. Another species you might not expect to see working together is the Delena cancerides. This type of huntsman spider is found in Australia and New Zealand and is extremely social. These spiders often live in groups of up to 300. Like the tiny red members of the Anelosimus eximius, these spiders hunt in packs. However, they don’t use webs to catch their prey. Instead, they run along the ground, trees, and other terrains to catch their prey.
Why the Daintree’s going to be ‘the only rainforest that’s growing, not shrinking’ By Konrad Marshall April 15, 2022 https://www.smh.com.au/national/why...-s-growing-not-shrinking-20220304-p5a1so.html For years, the Amazon rainforest has been known to us by the loveliest descriptor – “the lungs of the planet” – yet a recent study found the South American wonder is now a net emitter of greenhouse gases due to burning, logging, mining and climate change. Remember that factoid from the 1980s that humankind destroys a football field-worth of rainforest every minute? Well, the World Wide Fund for Nature now believes that happens every 1.2 seconds. Rainforest Rescue CEO Branden Barber says helping restore and protect the environment strikes a chord with the community.Credit:Silvia Di Domenicantonio Luckily, there are groups and individuals trying to hold this trend at bay, from Omar Tello – an accountant who gave up his job as a banker in Ecuador to restore seven hectares of degraded rainforest – to charity One Tree Planted, which works in 43 countries on massive tree-planting projects. The idea is simple. A single tree can absorb as much as 22 kilograms of carbon in a year while adding enough oxygen to support a family of four. Collectively, trees help cool the planet, absorb harmful gases and clean pollutants from the soil. “Trees are the answer to climate change and habitat loss. And they’re beautiful!” says Branden Barber, CEO of Rainforest Rescue, a not-for-profit environmental action group founded and based in Mullumbimby, NSW. Barber, 53, a Californian who previously worked for Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and Amazon Watch, says the group buys back intact rainforest and restores denuded rainforest. The cash required comes from a mix of sources, including a few government grants and business partnerships, but overwhelmingly from individuals. “We get people who donate $5 once a year,” Barber says, “to those who come out of the blue with $50,000.” They recently began working north of Cairns on a 123-hectare parcel that borders Daintree National Park. Part of it will become the region’s largest nursery, growing 150,000 trees each year to help regenerate rescued land formerly ravaged by cattle or cane fields. They don’t simply plant a stand of tall eucalypts to act as a carbon farm, but rather, replant more than 150 species, in order to one day see endangered primitive flowers return or offer safe haven to threatened cassowaries. “The fact that the Daintree is going to be the only rainforest on the planet that’s growing, not shrinking, is pretty cool,” says Barber. “Planting trees does strike a chord with people who want to see us turn around from this destructive path we’re on.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04...nd-crisis-as-population-cities-grow/101021160 UN warns of looming sand crisis as population and city growth lead to surging demand Sand is used for many construction and manufacturing processes and use has tripled over two decades.(Supplied: Simon Rushton) A United Nations report calls for urgent action to avert a "sand crisis" — including a ban on beach extraction — as demand surges to 50 billion tonnes a year amid population growth and urbanisation. Key points: Global sand consumption has reached 50 billion tonnes a year, or about 17 kilograms per person per day Mining has lead to salination of fertile lands in Asia and coastlines being more exposed to the impacts of climate change The UN report recommends a ban on beach extraction and greater use of sand from recycled materials Sand is the most-exploited natural resource in the world after water, but its use is largely ungoverned, meaning we are consuming it faster than it can be replaced by geological processes that take hundreds of thousands of years, a UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report says. Global consumption for use in glass, concrete and construction materials has tripled over two decades, to reach 50 billion tonnes a year — or about 17 kilograms per person each day — it said, harming rivers and coastlines and even wiping out small islands. "We now find ourselves in the position where the needs and expectations of our societies cannot be met without improved governance of sand resources," Sheila Aggarwal-Khan, director of the Economy Division at UNEP, said in the report's foreword. "If we act now, it is still possible to avoid a sand crisis." UNEP's Pascal Peduzzi — who coordinated the report written by 22 authors — said that some of the impacts of over-exploitation were already being felt. In the Mekong River — the longest in South-East Asia — sand extraction was causing the delta to sink, leading to salinisation of previously fertile lands. In a Sri Lankan river, sand removal had reversed the water flow, meaning ocean water was heading inland and bringing salt-water crocodiles with it, Dr Peduzzi told journalists. Demand is now seen as shifting to Africa, where villagers often remove sand from beaches to build growing cities. In some cases, this can make coastlines more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as more powerful storms, the report said. Among the report's recommendations were a ban on beach extraction and the creation of an international standard for marine dredging that could harm ocean biodiversity. It also called for reducing demand by reusing sand from recycled materials such as concrete and mining tailings instead of using naturally occurring sand. Reuters
Where forests disappeared last year, in one chart Just one country was responsible for more than a third of all deforestation in the tropics. By Benji Jones@BenjiSJones Apr 28, 2022 https://www.vox.com/23032486/deforestation-2021-brazil-amazon Farming cattle, largely for beef, is the No. 1 driver of deforestation. Here, cattle graze in a deforested area in the Colombian Amazon on November 4, 2021. Raul Arboleda/AFP via Getty Images Last fall, more than 140 world leaders made a pact to stop deforestation within the decade, not long after dozens of countries vowed to conserve nearly a third of their land. But while policymakers deliberated, trees continued to get chopped down. In the tropics, where nearly all deforestation takes place, farming, logging, and wildfires destroyed more than 11.1 million hectares (27 million acres) of trees last year, an area roughly the size of Virginia, according to a new analysis by the nonprofit World Resources Institute (WRI). More than a third of that loss was in tropical “primary” rainforests — old and unharmed groves of trees that store huge quantities of carbon, which is now likely to reenter the atmosphere where it will fuel climate change. These losses extended to areas outside the tropics as well. In Russia, home to the largest forested area on Earth, wildfires wiped out more than 6.5 million hectares (16 million acres) of boreal, or snow, forest in 2021, roughly equivalent to the area of West Virginia, WRI’s analysis shows. (The organization typically doesn’t consider these losses “deforestation” because forests may grow back after a wildfire.) Losing two states’ worth of forests in a single year is alarming but not unusual. Compared to 2021, the tropics lost slightly moreprimary forest in 2020. What’s surprising is that rampant deforestation continues, seemingly unbridled, even as companies and countries promise to save these ecosystems, which people and animals depend on. What’s more, just a few places — and a few products — are behind the bulk of this destruction. Note: Primary forests are mature groves of trees that represent healthy ecosystems and are especially important for carbon storage and wildlife. Global Forest Watch/World Resources Institute Just one country is responsible for more than a third of all deforestation in the tropics More than 40 percent of the primary forests that humans wiped from the tropics last year were in Brazil, according to WRI’s analysis. Most of that loss was in the Amazon, the largest rainforest on Earth. Deforestation like this often appears in satellite imagery as large shapes cut from dark green expanses, typically near roads. The images below, taken last spring, show deforestation in Mato Grosso, Brazil. European Union/Copernicus Sentinel-2 imagery Continuing to cut down the Amazon comes at a staggering cost. It’s weakening the forest and pushing it closer to a dangerous tipping point, some scientists fear, beyond which much of it could turn into a grassy savanna — that is, an entirely different ecosystem. “Such losses are a disaster for the climate, they’re a disaster for biodiversity, they’re a disaster for Indigenous people,” Frances Seymour, a researcher at WRI, said on a call with reporters, speaking about deforestation in Brazil. (Hundreds of Indigenous tribes live in the Amazon.) WRI’s analysis also showed steep losses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), home to the world’s second-largest rainforest. The Congo Basin is not as famous as the Amazon but is no less important, providing habitat for countless endangered animals like chimpanzees and African forest elephants and a home to more than 100 distinct ethnic groups. But there are some glimmers of good news in the report. Once rampant, deforestation in Indonesia continues to decline thanks to strong corporate pledges and policies, according to WRI. In 2021, it dropped for the fifth straight year, the group said, falling by 25 percent compared to 2020. (However, the price of oil palm, a crop linked to deforestation in Indonesia, is currently at a 40-year high, WRI said. That could put pressure on the industry to chop down more forest for plantations.) The greatest threat to our forests It’s not toilet paper or hardwood floors or even palm oil. It’s beef. Clearing trees for cattle is the leading driver of deforestation, by a long shot. It causes more than double the deforestation that’s linked to soy, oil palm, and wood products combined, according to the World Wildlife Fund. And worldwide beef consumption is increasing. In 1990, the world ate roughly 48 billion kilograms of beef (and veal); in 2019, consumption surpassed 70 billion kilograms (154 billion pounds), according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Much of the beef-fueled deforestation is in Brazil, followed by Paraguay. Companies that raise cattle are responsible for an astonishing 80 percent of the forest loss in the Amazon, scientists estimate. Oil palm production is a problem, too, but many of the companies that sell it have committed to preventing forest loss; those pledges are less common among corporations that buy and sell cattle and beef, according to a 2016 report by the nonprofit Forest Trends. “The disparity is alarming,” wrote the authors of the report, who mention that cattle farming causes an estimated 10 times more deforestation than oil palm. Can the world actually stop deforestation by 2030? Advocates have tried to before. At a UN climate summit in 2014, dozens of governments signed a pact called the New York Declaration on Forests, which aimed to end deforestation by 2030. So far, it hasn’t done much. Last year, a much larger group of global leaders made a similar pledge at the big climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland. Will this time be different? “We have had many declarations before and nothing has changed,” Kimaren ole Riamit, an Indigenous leader in Kenya, told Vox last year. “There’s very little to inspire us.” WRI detected significant forest clearing last year in the Democratic Republic of Congo, home to the Congo Basin — a vast forest with animals like chimpanzees and African forest elephants. Guerchom Ndebo/AFP via Getty Images But some forest scientists and advocates are still hopeful. Last year’s pledge involves a large number of economic powerhouses, including China, and a lot of money. Countries and private institutions backed the commitment with more than $19 billion, which will help poorer nations restore damaged forests and prevent wildfires. There are other positive signals, too, such as what’s happening in Indonesia. And more than ever, major agencies that shape environmental policies are beginning to incorporate the rights and contributions of Indigenous people and local communities. (It remains to be seen whether support for Indigenous groups extends beyond acknowledging them on paper, advocates caution.) Getting beef consumption to decrease is a bit trickier, but there’s been some progress. Fast food joints including Burger King and TGI Fridays are now serving plant-based burgers, for example, and the alternative meat sector is beginning to receive government funding. Ultimately, companies and politicians are responsible for ending deforestation, but that doesn’t mean individuals can’t help. Eating less beef (and other meats) is perhaps the best way to limit your impact on the planet.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-hits-april-high-nearly-double-previous-peak Brazil ‘Record after record’: Brazil’s Amazon deforestation hits April high, nearly double previous peak Climate analysts are astounded by such a high reading during the rainy season, and is the third monthly record this year An aerial view shows logs that were illegally cut from the Amazon rainforest in Anapu, Para state, Brazil, in 2019. Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon surged to record levels for the month of April, nearly doubling the area of forest removed in that month last year – the previous April record – preliminary government data has shown, alarming environmental campaigners. In the first 29 days of April, deforestation in the region totalled 1,012.5 square km (390 square miles), according to data from national space research agency Inpe on Friday. The agency, which has compiled the monthly data series since 2015/2016, will report data for the final day of April next week. ‘Loophole’ allowing for deforestation on soya farms in Brazil’s Amazon April is the third monthly record this year, after new highs were also observed in January and February. Destruction of the Brazilian Amazon in the first four months of the year also hit a record for the period of 1,954 square km (754 square miles), an increase of 69% compared to the same period of 2021, clearing an area more than double the size of New York City. Deforestation in the Amazon has soared since rightwing president Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019 and weakened environmental protection. Bolsonaro argues that more farming and mining in the Amazon will reduce poverty in the region. “The cause of this record has a first and last name: Jair Messias Bolsonaro,” said Marcio Astrini, head of Brazilian advocacy group Climate Observatory, in a statement. Bolsonaro’s office directed questions to the ministries of environment and justice. Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon at highest level since 2006 The ministries said in a joint statement the government was making major efforts to fight environmental crimes and that police and environmental authorities were cooperating on an operation to combat deforestation in five Amazon states. Even with deforestation already on the rise, Climate Observatory said its analysts were astounded by such a high reading in April, which is part of the rainy season when the muddy forest is harder for loggers to access. Preservation of the Amazon is vital to stopping catastrophic climate change because of the vast amount of climate-warming carbon dioxide it absorbs. Ane Alencar, science director of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute , said she had expected deforestation to keep rising ahead of the October presidential election, like it has in Brazil’s past three election years, as officials wary of angering voters generally do less to enforce the law. Still, she called the surge in deforestation last month “absurd.” “It seems that the clearing of forests has become institutionalised in the country as something common, with record after record,” Alencar said.