| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Toxic waste creates hermaphrodite Arctic polar bears |
| 2006-01-12 |
| Giant hairy she-males... I think I already saw that somewhere on the internet... Serously, toxic-induced hermaphrodism already was noticed among french rivers fishes for example, I'm sure this is not good for the general population... could this be related to the loss of fertility in developed countries? By David Usborne in New York Toxic waste creates hermaphrodite Arctic polar bears Wildlife researchers have found new evidence that Arctic polar bears, already gravely threatened by the melting of their habitat because of global warming, are being poisoned by chemical compounds commonly used in Europe and North America to reduce the flammability of household furnishings like sofas, clothing and carpets. A team of scientists from Canada, Alaska, Denmark and Norway is sounding the alarm about the flame retardants, known as polybrominated diphenyls, or PBDEs, saying that significant deposits have recently been found in the fatty tissues of polar bears, especially in eastern Greenland and Norway's Svalbard islands. Studies are still being carried out on what impact the chemicals might be having on the bears, but tests on laboratory animals such as mice indicate that their effects can be considerable, attacking the sex and thyroid glands, motor skills and brain function. There is also evidence that compounds similar to the PBDEs have contributed to a surprisingly high rate of hermaphroditism in polar bears. About one in 50 female bears on Svalbard has both male and female sex organs, a phenomenon scientists link directly to the effects of pollution. "The Arctic is now a chemical sink," declared Colin Butfield, a campaign leader for the Worldwide Fund for Nature, which last month indicated that killer whales in the Arctic were also suffering from elevated levels of contamination with fire retardants as well as other man-made compounds. "Chemicals from products that we use in our homes every day are contaminating Arctic wildlife." The pollutants are carried northwards from industrialised regions of the US and western Europe on currents and particularly on northbound winds. Contaminated moisture often condenses on arriving in the cold Arctic climes and is then deposited, ready to enter the food chain. For several years, scientists have observed how the concentrations of the pollutants are magnified as they ascend the food chain, from plankton to fish and then to marine mammals such as seals, whales and polar bears. The new study, first published last month in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, shows, for instance, that one compound was 71 times more concentrated in polar bears than in the seals they normally feed upon. Conservationists are especially alarmed by these new findings because of the already fragile condition of the Arctic polar bear populations, some of which could be devastated before the end of the century. As warming temperatures erode their hunting grounds, polar bears in Canada's western Hudson Bay region, for instance, saw their numbers slide from 1,100 in 1995 to only 950 in 2004. The dangers now posed by the PBDEs are reminiscent of the crisis 30 years ago over PCBs - polychlorinated biphenyls - a highly toxic by-product of many industries that was also found to be migrating to the Arctic. The dumping of PCBs was swiftly banned. Since 2004, manufacturing has stopped in the US of two of the most toxic retardants, called penta and octa. Stockpiles of both still exist, however. According to Derek Muir, of Canada's Environmental Department and a leader of the new research, there are signs of a slightly different retardant, typically used in construction materials and furnishings, also showing up in the Arctic and in the bears, called HBCD. "It's a chemical that needs to be watched, because it does biomagnify in the aquatic food webs and appears to be a widespread pollutant." The research team tested 139 bears captured in 10 different locations across the Arctic region. They found that the bears in Norway's Svalbard, a wildlife refuge where all hunting is banned, had 10 times the levels of the chemicals than bears in Alaska and four times those in Canada. Toxic waste creates hermaphrodite Arctic polar bears Wildlife researchers have found new evidence that Arctic polar bears, already gravely threatened by the melting of their habitat because of global warming, are being poisoned by chemical compounds commonly used in Europe and North America to reduce the flammability of household furnishings like sofas, clothing and carpets. A team of scientists from Canada, Alaska, Denmark and Norway is sounding the alarm about the flame retardants, known as polybrominated diphenyls, or PBDEs, saying that significant deposits have recently been found in the fatty tissues of polar bears, especially in eastern Greenland and Norway's Svalbard islands. Studies are still being carried out on what impact the chemicals might be having on the bears, but tests on laboratory animals such as mice indicate that their effects can be considerable, attacking the sex and thyroid glands, motor skills and brain function. There is also evidence that compounds similar to the PBDEs have contributed to a surprisingly high rate of hermaphroditism in polar bears. About one in 50 female bears on Svalbard has both male and female sex organs, a phenomenon scientists link directly to the effects of pollution. "The Arctic is now a chemical sink," declared Colin Butfield, a campaign leader for the Worldwide Fund for Nature, which last month indicated that killer whales in the Arctic were also suffering from elevated levels of contamination with fire retardants as well as other man-made compounds. "Chemicals from products that we use in our homes every day are contaminating Arctic wildlife." The pollutants are carried northwards from industrialised regions of the US and western Europe on currents and particularly on northbound winds. Contaminated moisture often condenses on arriving in the cold Arctic climes and is then deposited, ready to enter the food chain. For several years, scientists have observed how the concentrations of the pollutants are magnified as they ascend the food chain, from plankton to fish and then to marine mammals such as seals, whales and polar bears. The new study, first published last month in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, shows, for instance, that one compound was 71 times more concentrated in polar bears than in the seals they normally feed upon. Conservationists are especially alarmed by these new findings because of the already fragile condition of the Arctic polar bear populations, some of which could be devastated before the end of the century. As warming temperatures erode their hunting grounds, polar bears in Canada's western Hudson Bay region, for instance, saw their numbers slide from 1,100 in 1995 to only 950 in 2004. The dangers now posed by the PBDEs are reminiscent of the crisis 30 years ago over PCBs - polychlorinated biphenyls - a highly toxic by-product of many industries that was also found to be migrating to the Arctic. The dumping of PCBs was swiftly banned. Since 2004, manufacturing has stopped in the US of two of the most toxic retardants, called penta and octa. Stockpiles of both still exist, however. According to Derek Muir, of Canada's Environmental Department and a leader of the new research, there are signs of a slightly different retardant, typically used in construction materials and furnishings, also showing up in the Arctic and in the bears, called HBCD. "It's a chemical that needs to be watched, because it does biomagnify in the aquatic food webs and appears to be a widespread pollutant." The research team tested 139 bears captured in 10 different locations across the Arctic region. They found that the bears in Norway's Svalbard, a wildlife refuge where all hunting is banned, had 10 times the levels of the chemicals than bears in Alaska and four times those in Canada. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #27 Aris, Birthrates mean nothing, note North Korea, if they don't live beyond adolescence. It is the adult population, or least one that can reproduce that makes the difference. If you breed them you got to feed them, otherwise its just a number count for the bureaucrats. |
| Posted by: Ebbeagum Cleque4324 2006-01-12 22:13 |
| #26 I really wonder why the Hollywood suits didn't call it "Bareback mountain" I read somewhere (can't remember where and don't know if it's true) that they originally did intend to call it that but changed their mind. However, for reasons unclear - (as it would have generated tons of publicity for their target audience) they decided it wasn't a good idea. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-12 21:33 |
| #25 3dc - I agree, I'm sure there were some....but they'd have had to be awfully discrete for the reasons you note. This is Hollywood celebrating itself and their values, nothing more. I have a couple friends/coworkers who are gay and a two cousins that are as well. All I ask is (the same as my hetero friends) keep it to yourself. I don't need public displays of affection, or to hear how "hot" that guy is. They agree or they wouldn't be friends |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-12 20:24 |
| #24 You make a valid point Aris: economic freedom generally equates to lower birth rates, but not uniformly so. It's strange to see that Ireland's fertility rate has dropped that far. That's not the Ireland I remember from years past! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-01-12 20:14 |
| #23 Frank G. As to that movie... I don't buy it. I grew up about 7 miles from GoatRope (er cowboy) country and have lots of real cowboy type relatives. I just don't see it. Before this century if there was any hint a cowboy was gay (only they would have used a different word starting with the letter Q) that cowboy would have had the living daylights whupped out of him by the other cowboys and likely dragged through Texas Sandburs, Tared and Feathered and left for Indians to laugh at. Its just not plausible. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-01-12 20:05 |
| #22 Thank you, Secret Master. Going by the fertility rates at a CIA info page we have: Estonia - 1.39 children per woman Singapore - 1.05 children per woman (third lowest fertility in the world) Mexico - 2.45 children per woman There doesn't seem to be any positive correlation here between socialism and low fertility rates -- or the opposite, capitalism and high fertility ones. Indeed going by the index of economic freedom and comparing the five most economically free with the most economically repressed countries, and correlating fertility rates with each: Most free --------- Hong Kong 0.93 Singapore 1.05 Ireland 1.87 Luxembourg 1.79 United Kingdom 1.66 Iceland 1.92 Least Free ---------- North Korea 2.15 Iran 1.82 Burma 2.01 Zimbabwe 3.18 Libya 3.34 Venezuela 2.26 ...we see that the more economically free countries seem to tend to have fewer children than the more repressed ones, though that's far from an absolute. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-12 19:22 |
| #21 Question: Is there *any* country (other than the United States) that you DON'T consider to be a socialist one? That's a reasonable question, Aris. I can only speak for myself, but here goes: 1)Mexico - Pure dog-eat-dog capitalist by nature. Corrupt, but capitalist. 2)Singapore - Tiny authoritarian capitalist nation that is also quite wealthy. 3)Estonia - Have instituted Steven Forbes economic ideas straight down the line. Currently has the fastest growing economy in Europe. Those are off the top of my head. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-01-12 18:47 |
| #20 Been wondering where Rosie O'Donnell's been lately.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-01-12 18:30 |
| #19 Nah, that's socialism. Question: Is there *any* country (other than the United States) that you DON'T consider to be a socialist one? Just want to see if there's any true correlation between childbirths and your belief in which nations constitutes socialist ones and which don't. But if there's only one non-socialist nation in the world, namely yours, attempts at correlation become meaningless. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-12 18:24 |
| #18 :-) I tried it, but the crowd said I'd be a better engineer...not sure what they were saying.. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-12 17:32 |
| #17 I understand that everything is Bush's fault, but I'm not exactly sure how pollutants would get there from the U.S. The Atlantic currents flow north to south along the east coast, as do the Pacific currents along the Pacific coast. The prevailing jet stream flows west to east in North America, sucking air south from Canada. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2006-01-12 16:35 |
| #16 Frank, you gotta change careers and do stand up!! LOL |
| Posted by: RD 2006-01-12 16:12 |
| #15 I suppose someone did a study of the incidence of pre-PBDE hermaphrodite bears, and thats how we know that the 1/50 rate is a significant increase compared to the historical norms for Norway's Svalbard. Who is out there sexing these rare polar bears in large numbers? Still no cure for cancer. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-01-12 14:48 |
| #14 could this be related to the loss of fertility in developed countries? Nah, that's socialism. Too much imposed control on what is naturally a chaotic environment leads to entropy which leads to stagnation which leads to decay which leads to a couple chapters back in the history books. |
| Posted by: Glamble Elmeating6835 2006-01-12 14:33 |
| #13 Giant hairy she-males... Must be Ellen deGeneres night at the Comedy Club. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-01-12 13:52 |
| #12 Frank G : speaking of that gay cowboys movie I so much read about, I really wonder why the Hollywood suits didn't call it "Bareback mountain", given the opening (hum) of the plot, the lurid (unlubrificated, guess that hurts, especially if you're going to ride a horse for hours the next day) love in the tent. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-01-12 13:46 |
| #11 The Wedding Announcments in the Boston Sunday Globe... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-01-12 13:21 |
| #10 "Giant hairy she-males... I think I already saw that somewhere on the internet..." andrewsullivan.com? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-01-12 13:18 |
| #9 I blame Brokebank Mtn |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-12 12:53 |
| #8 Please tell me the rate of hermaphrodism in polar bears for the last 150 years. What, you mean no one has ever studied it before? A statisically insignificant data point is generated and that means that evil industrialists are the cause. |
| Posted by: Whinemp Unogum4891 2006-01-12 12:51 |
| #7 Any minute now, someone's going to form a letterhead group called Transgendered Polar Bears Against Global Warming, or some such. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-01-12 12:16 |
| #6 How do they know it's not evolution? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-01-12 12:14 |
| #5 Phil_b To be entirely sure, I'd have to read the original professional report. However, I'd guess that (i) the methodology and (ii) the interpretation of results in that that paper are (somewhat) less than perfect. Happens even then authors don't have a politico/ideological ax to grind. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-01-12 12:13 |
| #4 I say proximity to discos and androgynous males therein. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-01-12 12:03 |
| #3 gromgoru, I'd suggest a combination of prevailings winds and proximity of industry. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-01-12 11:57 |
| #2 They found that the bears in Norway's Svalbard, a wildlife refuge where all hunting is banned, had 10 times the levels of the chemicals than bears in Alaska and four times those in Canada. ??????? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-01-12 11:25 |
| #1 They can go f*ck themselves. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-01-12 11:20 |