NPS Airborne Contaminants Study

[Ohio_Scouter]

So what do you think, if anything, can be done about this?

 

-------------------

 

For Immediate Release:

February 26, 2008

Contact(s): David Barna, 202-208-6843

 

Colleen Flanagan, 303-969-2011

 

Airborne Contaminants Study Released Measurable Levels Detected in Twenty Western U.S. and Alaska National Parks

 

WASHINGTON, DC According to a study released by the Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project (WACAP), numerous airborne contaminants, including heavy metals and both current-use and North American historic-use pesticides, have been detected at measurable levels in ecosystems at twenty western U.S. and Alaska national parks from the Arctic to the Mexican border. The eight core national park areas studied were Glacier, Mount Rainier, Olympic, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, Denali, Gates of the Arctic, and Noatak. The study was funded primarily by the National Park Service (NPS) to evaluate the potential threats to park ecosystems and likely sources of these contaminants.

 

While the extent of the effects on wildlife depending upon fish for survival is unknown, the risk to people is considered low and varies given location, frequency and type of fish consumption. How scientific data are used to make recommendations for peoples diets varies between states, as health risks associated with exposure to contaminants in select fish may be outweighed by the benefits of continued consumption of traditional foods. Most people are not likely to eat enough of the contaminated fish to be at risk.

 

Key findings from the six-year, multi-agency study, which can be accessed at: http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Studies/air_toxics/wacap.cfm indicate that out of over 100 organic contaminants tested, 70 were found at detectable levels in snow, water, vegetation, lake sediment, and fish. While concentrations of most of these contaminants were below levels of concern, others appear to be accumulating in sensitive resources such as fish. For some contaminants, high concentrations in fish have exceeded fish-eating wildlife and/or human health consumption thresholds in many of the eight core parks studied.

 

Results from this project add considerably to the state of the science concerning contaminant transport and subsequent biological and ecological effects in remote ecosystems in the western U.S. These well-documented and carefully analyzed data will provide a basis for evaluating future changes in the status of these ecosystems, said Dr. Dixon Landers of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the projects Science Lead.

 

The analysis of fish tissue provided a window into the contaminant situation in various parks, regardless of what fish species were sampled, said Landers. Given that the knowledge of contaminant concentrations in particular species may aid members of the public when making personal health decisions, the list of fish species sampled in lakes at the eight core parks follows: lake trout from Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and Wonder Lake at Denali; burbot and whitefish from McLeod Lake at Denali; cutthroat trout from Glacier; brook trout from Olympic, Mount Rainier, Sequoia, and Lone Pine Lake at Rocky Mountain; and rainbow trout from Mills Lake at Rocky Mountain. Nevertheless, any one fish species, or lake, excluded from the above list is not necessarily exempt from contaminant concentrations of concern.

 

Evidence suggests that the contaminants found in this study are carried in air masses from sources as far away as Europe and Asia, and as near as the local county. According to Landers, the presence of contaminants in snow is well-correlated with the proximity of each park to agricultural areas, pointing to these areas as probable major sources of these contaminants. In Alaska parks, with little nearby agriculture in the region, there are very low concentrations of most current-use compounds. However, concentrations of historic-use chemicals in Alaska systems are similar to those in the other parks sampled, suggesting greater influence from global atmospheric transport.

 

The three contaminants of highest concern for human and wildlife health included: 1) Mercury a heavy metal emitted through processes such as burning coal for electricity that causes neurological and reproductive impairment; 2) Dieldrin an acutely toxic insecticide banned from use in the U.S. since 1987 that decreases the effectiveness of the immune system; and 3) DDT an insecticide banned in the U.S. since 1972 that reduces reproductive success.

 

Average mercury concentrations in fish from Alaskas Noatak National Preserve were above the EPA human health threshold for consumption (i.e., adults eating 2.3 meals of these fish per month), while mercury concentrations in some fish exceeded the threshold at Gates of the Arctic, Olympic, Mount Rainier, and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks. Dieldrin concentrations in fish from Rocky Mountain, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, and Glacier National Parks exceeded the health threshold for recreational fishermen (i.e., adults eating 2.3 meals of these fish per month). Dieldrin concentrations also exceeded health thresholds for subsistence fish consumption (i.e., adults eating 19 meals of these fish per month) at all national parks, except Olympic. Average DDT concentrations in fish exceeded the human risk threshold for subsistence fishers at Sequoia & Kings Canyon and in Oldman Lake at Glacier National Park.

 

Concentrations of contaminants in fish were also compared to health thresholds for fish-eating wildlife. Mercury concentrations in fish at all eight parks exceeded health thresholds suggested for birds, and were above mammal health thresholds at some parks. DDT concentrations in fish exceeded the fish-eating bird health threshold in Glacier and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks.

 

In Rocky Mountain and Glacier National Parks, some individual trout were intersex (i.e., male and female reproductive structures in the same fish). This condition is commonly associated with exposure to certain contaminants (e.g., dieldrin and DDT) that mimic the hormone estrogen. Because the sample size was small, however, the extent of the problem and correlation between fish reproductive effects and contaminant concentrations has not been established for parks in the study.

 

Concentrations of current-use pesticides and other compounds, such as the commonly used flame-retardant, PBDE, were detected at Rocky Mountain and Mount Rainier National Parks, but concentrations in fish did not exceed human or wildlife health consumption thresholds. Exposure to PBDEs affects liver, thyroid and neurobehavioral development. Other participating institutions included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service, Oregon State University and the University of Washington. National park resource managers worked with scientists from the collaborating agencies to plan and conduct the WACAP study.

 

For additional information on WACAP findings and implications, contact Dr. Dixon Landers at 541-754-4427 or e-mail Landers.Dixon@epamail.epa.gov (USEPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR).

 

-NPS-

 

 

 

 

[scottteng]

Can be done? Some enviro nut will gladly spend billions of your money to try to solve this unsolvable problem.Probably better to focus on banning a real killer:

http://www.gopetition.com/online/2479.html

[scoutldr]

NOthing can be done. If the source of contamination can be stopped, nature will clean itself in a few thousand years.

[CalicoPenn]

Nothing can be done? That's a rather defeatist attitude.

 

There are, in fact, a couple of things I can think of right off the bat that can be done.

 

For instance, the study states the three contaminants of highest concern are Mercury, DDT and Dieldrin.

 

DDT has been banned from use in the United States since 1972. Dieldren since 1987. So where is it coming from? The story tells us its coming in from the atmosphere. How can that be if its been banned in the US? Simple - other countries. There is no universal ban on DDT or Dieldren - the US is way ahead of the curve on that one. Both of these chemicals are still being used in other countries - and that use is contaminating our atmosphere and in turn, its traveling by air current to our Western Parks (and if its getting into our Western Parks, its getting other places out West as well). Solution? The US can lead a fight at the UN for a Worldwide Ban of both chemicals. Of course, the US could have done so a long time ago too but a lot of these chemicals are produced by US corporations so we haven't rocked the boat. We lack the will to stand up and tell the corporations to stop polluting our atmosphere with your junk.

 

Same goes with the Mercury issue - also coming in from the atmosphere, mostly from coal burning plants. Solution? Enforce laws requiring scrubbers in the smoke stacks of power plants in the US and push for a treaty requiring coal fired power plants worldwide to install scrubbers. The technology already exists to pull most heavy metals from the power plant exhausts - we just need the will to make it happen.

 

Calico

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, I noticed that the photo on the linked page had a caption about air sampling while the photo was a person in a boat holding a Kemmerer WATER sampler. Someone needs a better editor.

 

The top three contaminants are quite different in behavior. The two pesticides, DDT and dieldrin, were extensively sprayed over large areas of the country before they were banned, in order to control a variety of insect pests. Today we are living with that legacy of our collective ignorance. And although these remain in the atmosphere, the greater amount is bound to soils and sediments associated with the areas of application.

 

Mercury is a different matter. The global airshed and mercury's relatively high vapor pressure ensure that its release from gold mining, coal combustion and other sources (including re-release from the surface of the ocean and other water bodies) will be circulated to ALL of us...without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sexual orientation, or national origin.

 

I also tend not to be very optimistic about these things. The cleanup costs for less-prominent contaminants (such as PCBs) are great enough that we, the public, have already collectively decided in case after case, to do nothing. What makes anyone think that the even-more-massive costs for the top three will go down any smoother with the public? I'm not betting the ranch on it.

 

Dieldrin and DDT are mostly legacy problems and now mostly bound to soils in the watersheds and sediments in the lakes. We could do something with the sediments but we've already chosen to do nothing in most cases - because it's too expensive.

 

Mercury is indeed an international problem and as long as countries burn coal, and as long as we try to maximize profit, we are going to tend to minimize the costs associated with, for example, scrubbing stack gases. That is to say, we're not likely to put many scrubbers on the stacks because until there is an international mandate, the cost to one country who did it on their own would give a competitive advantage to another (arguments similar to CO2 emissions).

 

As NOMAD would describe us in Episode 37 of the historical documents, we are, "...a mass of conflicting impulses..."

 

[scoutldr]

It's a tradeoff. If you ban insecticides, then crops will fail and deaths from malaria and other vector-borne diseases will skyrocket (which is already happening). If we convert to compact flourescents to reduce our carbon footprint, then mercury contamination will increase when us stupid people start sending their burned out bulbs to the landfill. Most people have an amazing ignorance of what they are throwing away. Do they send their broken smoke detectors back to the manufacturer in accordance with NRC regulations? No...the Americium radiation source goes to the landfills. All flourescent bulbs contain elemental Mercury...they must be recycled properly, or our waters will be polluted.

 

So there is no answer, as I said. All solutions present new problems. It's the price of industrialization and "civilization". Humans will eventually destroy the environment. Unless a coronal mass ejection or a rogue asteroid gets us first.

[packsaddle]

Interesting you should mention the smoke detectors. Americium sources should be disposed of properly but on the scale of radiation hazards, it isn't near the top. For example landfills are now being equipped with gamma detectors (even the individual trucks, more and more) and if a truck enters with a radiation source, the government environment types have to do an expensive piece-by-piece pick through to find the source. Smoke detectors usually are not the culprit. Here's a story about one common culprit. Read the second article about the radioactive diaper:

http://www.calcupa.net/news/newsletters/WebAug2004.pdf

 

I mean, is THAT cool or what?

[OldGreyEagle]

Heck, anybody here ever eat from red Fiestaware?

[packsaddle]

Quick thumbnail calculation:

Assuming the average human breathes approximately 3000 gallons of air per day (an OK figure), and figuring that the atmosphere has a mass of about 5 x 10**18 kg which converts at the rate of about 1.2 kg per cubic meter(at STP), then the standard volume of the atmosphere is about 4.17 x 10**9 cubic km and the 6 billion or so people breathe about 68.14 cubic km per day.

 

Now doing the appropriate math it looks like the current population could theoretically filter the entire atmosphere through our lungs once about every 167,664 years, give or take a few minutes. I think we need to get right on the stick and start making lots more people! And get double the benefit with all that heavy breathing as well ....eeeeeeehaaaaaa!

"Say goodnight Gracie..."

[CA_Scouter]

Yea, I got my compact flourescents in a box in the garage for now, I figured the mercury might be an issue.

 

Along these lines though...

 

Any studies on airborne contaminants generated by smelly socks after a long hike?

 

What about after 3 days of heavy carbs on the trail ( or are those considered greenhouse gases ) ?

 

:-)

 

 

[scottteng]

Yes the banning of DDT has killed one million people per year in Africa due to malaria spread by mosquitoes. That is why they are starting to produce and use this very effective pesticide again. What needs to happen is for for actual "toxic" levels of substances to be carefully determined. When they talk about PPB parts per billion there is usually no associated toxicity and the effects are negligible. Everyone needs to check out the link I posted lots of people are killed every year by exposure to DiHydrogen Oxide. It is one of the leading killers of scout age children as well. We need to Ban DiHydrogen Oxide immediately.

http://www.gopetition.com/online/2479.html

[local1400]

No OGE, most of my meals are eaten straight from the wrapper.