Melting glaciers releasing an alphabet soup of chemical pollutants into the ocean?

Question

Trace levels of DDT don't appear to be enough to harm the Adélie penguins, but scientists are concerned that a slew of chemical pollutants are being released into the ocean, including PCBs and PBDEs – industrial chemicals that have been linked to health problems in humans.

Answer 1

One of the problems with the environmental field is that laboratories are able to detect the most minuscule traces of pollutants.  I think that DDT in concentrations of less than 1 in a  billion (and far less in the ocean) isn't going to hurt anything and is more about fomenting alarmism than presenting actual problems that we should be concerned with.

Answer 2

And do you want to re-freeze them or what?

Answer 3

What's your point?

Answer 4

Probably a dump site that the NAS recommended. Shoot it into space, unload it in the ocean, isolate it in a glacier, and bury it in a mountain. Now they have something to blame it on.

Answer 5

what is your question?

Answer 6

Yes, and addressing the source of those pollutants also is the fastest way to decrease global warming forcing.  

Study Identifies Contribution of Man-Made Soot to Warming in Greenland in the Early 20th Century

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/08/...

"In addition to black carbon, we measured a broad range of other chemicals at very high depth resolution in this same ice core."

New study: Ordinary soot second biggest driver of climate change

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/...

After carbon dioxide, the second largest contributor to global warming is ordinary soot, according to new research published Sunday in Nature Geoscience. So-called "black carbon" has up to 60 percent the warming effects of the more oft-noted culprit CO2.

The implication is fairly radical: Quickly reducing soot could have substantial short-term effects on the rate of climate change. Whereas CO2 molecules stay in that atmosphere for years, soot particles stay about a week.

(In 2006, U.S. EPA's Stephen Johnson released soot standards substantially weaker than his scientific advisers recommended.)

Since 40 percent of soot comes from power sources, mainly coal and oil, that also produce CO2, measures to reduce soot would likely reduce other GHGs as well.

The other 60 percent comes from burning biomass, mainly in the developing world, where a great deal of wood is burned for heating and cooking and forests are burned to clear them for agriculture.

Reducing Black Carbon, or Soot, May Be Fastest Strategy

for Slowing Climate Change

http://www.igsd.org/docs/BC%20Briefing%2...

Emissions from black carbon (BC), or soot, are the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and reducing these emissions is the fastest strategy for slowing climate change. The most recent estimate of BC forcing, 0.9 watts per square meter (W/m2) (range of 0.4 to 1.2 W/m2), is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other GHGs such as CH4, CFCs, N2O, or tropospheric ozone.”1 In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of BC on melting snowpacks and glaciers may be equal to that of CO2.2 BC emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, and reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.”3 Since 1950, developed countries have successfully reduced BC emissions by a factor of five, primarily to improve public health, and “technology exists for a drastic reduction of fossil fuel related BC” in the rest of the world.

Answer 7

Obviously pollutants pumped into the atmosphere in years past are still affecting the environment.  A recent study in my area found dangerously (for fishermen eating the fish) high levels of Mercury in lakes situated in a national park (no industry within 20 miles).  Anyone denying this simply has their head in the sand.  But these were past failings of modern life, now we "know" better and hopefully will be more cautious in the future.

I wouldn't consider the contents of glaciers (most of which have existed for 1000's of years) to be a major concern in this regard.  Only a small percentage of the top layers would have pollutants caused by human activities. The more they melt the purer will be their contents.  Of course, we'd all rather have them not melt (at least not quickly).

Answer 8

Ahhhhhhh! We're all going to die!

Answer 9

This is interesting.  Do you have a link?  

Of course, no one can prove that pollutants are dangerous in low concentrations.  So, industry should be allowed to profit as much as possible before the health effects become noticeable and the industry gets shut down.  Of course, by that point it's too late to undo the damage. Sound familiar?

edit:

Thanks for the link.

I wonder what other surprises are trapped in the ice?    

The post by this guy (in response to the typical flat earth stuff) is hilarious!

--------------------------------------...

By Tony Wagner

Wed May 07 18:29:23 BST 2008

Nothing like perpetrating the pap that the chemical industry has dumped on us for the past 60+ years. Your reply indicates a lack of critical thinking abilities on your part similar in type but larger in scope than those you criticize in the article.

I have a friend who wrote a well thought out article on global warming for a small regional newspaper. He received several lengthy emails, purportedly from individuals, containing what appear to be professionally created presentations. Examine the cleverly created streams of misinformation and obfuscation that spew from organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, and the pattern of your comment and the source mentality become self-evident.

So...... I have one question. Are you actually suggesting that the world body of science and scientists that support concepts such as global warming,somehow have all been unknowingly bent to the will of some "politically correct" right wing movement?

It is people of your ilk that continuously and relentlessly attempt to undermine science by substituting obfuscation, confusion and doubt for critical thinking. No wonder grandma and grandpa had to resort to "simplified" versions to cut through the unrelated c**p that gets injected into public scientific discourse.

Tell me, please, is the earth exactly 6,000 years old, or is there some room for discussion?