Total de visualizações de página

domingo, 27 de setembro de 2015

CHANGES IN OCEAN CONDITIONS MAY AFFECT DRASTICALLY THE BASIS OF MARINE LIFE: THE PHYTOPLANCTON



Abstract

Identifying major trends in biogeochemical composition of the oceans is essential to improve our understanding of biological responses to climate forcing. Using the NASA Ocean Biogeochemical Model (NOBM) combined with ocean color remote sensing data assimilation, we assessed the trends in phytoplankton composition (diatoms, cyanobacteria, coccolithophores and chlorophytes) at a global scale for the period 1998–2012. We related these trends in phytoplankton to physical conditions (surface temperature, surface photosynthetically available radiation [PAR] and mixed layer depth [MLD]) and nutrients (iron, silicate and nitrate). We found a significant global decline in diatoms (−1.22% y−1, P<0.05). This trend was associated with a significant (P<0.05) shallowing of the MLD (−0.20% y−1), a significant increase in PAR (0.09% y−1) and a significant decline in nitrate (−0.38% y−1). The global decline in diatoms was mostly attributed to their decline in the North Pacific (−1.00% y−1, P<0.05) where the MLD shallowed significantly and resulted in a decline in all three nutrients (P<0.05). None of the other phytoplankton groups exhibited a significant change globally, but regionally there were considerable significant trends. A decline in nutrients in the northernmost latitudes coincided with a significant decline in diatoms (North Pacific, −1.00% y−1) and chlorophytes (North Atlantic, −9.70% y−1). In the northern mid-latitudes (North Central Pacific and Atlantic) where nutrients were more scarce, a decline in nutrients was associated with a decline in smaller phytoplankton: cyanobacteria declined significantly in the North Central Pacific (−0.72% y−1) and Atlantic (−1.56% y−1) and coccolithophores declined significantly in the North Central Atlantic (−2.06% y−1). These trends represent the diversity and complexity of mechanisms that drives phytoplankton communities to adapt to variable conditions of nutrients, light, and mixed layer depth. These results provide a first insight into the existence of trends in phytoplankton composition over the maturing satellite ocean color era and illustrate how changes in the conditions of the oceans in the last ~15 years may have affected them.


terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015

GLYPHOSATE, THE CONTROVERSIAL AND TOXIC INGREDIENT OF MONSANTO'S ROUNDUP HARMS HONEY BEE NAVIGATION SENSE

Glyphosate harms bees' spatial learning


A new study shows it's not just neonicotinoids that impair bees' ability to navigate to nectar and pollen sources, and to their nests: now the herbicide glyphosate has been found to have the same impact even at very low levels.


Glyphosate's harmful effects continue to accumulate, this time with evidence pointing to toxic and sublethal effects on bees.

According to a new study conducted by German and Argentinian researchers, honey bees exposed to low levels of glyphosate have a hard time returning home.

Glyphosate, the controversial and toxic active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, is an herbicide widely used on genetically-engineered (GE) crops as well as on parks and golf courses, for control of weeds and grasses.

Along with neonicotinoids, which have been linked to worldwide bee decline by a growing body of science, glyphosate is just another chemical in the toxic mixture that bees and other non-target organisms are constantly exposed to in the environment.

In the study, titled 'Effects of sublethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation' and published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, researchers evaluate the effects of recommended concentrations of glyphosate used in agricultural settings on honey bee navigation and found that a single exposure to a concentration of glyphosate within this range delays the return of the foraging honey bee to the hive.

Flight trajectories were also affected after successive exposure to the herbicide, suggesting that the spatial learning process is impaired by glyphosate ingestion during feeding.

And that's on top of all the other environmental and health impacts

Other environmental problems from exposure to glyphosate that have been documented include adverse effects on earthworms and other soil biota, as well as shape changes in amphibians.

The widespread use of the chemical on genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops has led it to be implicated in the decline of monarch butterflies, whose sole site to lay their eggs, milkweed plants, is being destroyed by glyphosate applications.

Along with environmental effects, glyphosate exposure has also been linked to health problems in humans. A research study published in the journal Environmental Health links chronic, links ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate through drinking water to adverse liver and kidney function.

The study, 'Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure', is the latest in a string of data showing unacceptable risks resulting from the use of glyphosate and products formulated with the chemical, like Roundup.

Beyond direct impacts to the kidney and liver, glyphosate has recently been implicated as a having sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based upon an analysis of laboratory animal studies conducted by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Recently, California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that it intended to list glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical under California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

The #1 most widely used chemical in the US

Most commonly formulated as Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, glyphosate end-use products account for approximately 180-185 million pounds applied per year, making it the number one commonly used chemical in the US. Glyphosate use is currently growing due in large part to the increased cultivation of GE crops that are tolerant to the herbicide.

Corn and soybeans were originally genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate in the mid-1990s. Today, these crops account for 90% of corn and soybeans in the US, leading to a dramatic increase in herbicide use.

In fact, the researchers point out that glyphosate use has increased by a factor of more than 250 - from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. This not surprisingly allows herbicide-resistant superweeds to emerge, which leads the industry to turn to other dangerous chemicals like 2,4-D and glufosinate.

In the face of these widespread health impacts, and in the absence of real action to restrict this chemical at the federal level, concerned citizens are increasingly advocating for changes in public land management practices within their community.

Although glyphosate is an important chemical to remove from use in your community, a range of chemicals are linked to public health impacts, and a comprehensive approach that encourages organic land management is the best long-term solution.

 


 

The paper: 'Effects of sublethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation' is published in the Journal of Experimental Biology.

Campaign: Whether the pesticide use relates to a local government, homeowners' association, or child's playing field, concerned residents can effect positive change to get glyphosate and other unnecessary bee-toxic chemicals like neonicotinoids out of the community. Get your community campaign going with Beyond Pesticides' Start Your Own Local Movement factsheet.

This article was originally published by Beyond Pesticides. All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

segunda-feira, 21 de setembro de 2015

STUDY ON CANCER CAUSED BY NUCLEAR POWER CANCELLED IN US

Nuclear power kills! The real reason the NRC cancelled its nuclear site cancer study

Chris Busby

19th September 2015

Reproduced from http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2985492/nuclear_power_kills_the_real_reason_the_nrc_cancelled_its_nuclear_site_cancer_study.html

The US's Nuclear Regulatory Commission just cancelled its study into cancer near nuclear plants citing the 'excessive cost' of $8 million, writes Chris Busby. Of course that's rubbish - similar studies in the UK have been carried out for as little as £600 per site, and in any case $8 million is small change for the NRC. The real reason is to suppress the unavoidable conclusion: nuclear power kills.


After spending some $1.5 million and more than five years on developing strategies to answer the question of increases of cancer near nuclear facilities, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last week reported that they would not continue with the process. They would knock it on the head [1].
This poisoned chalice has been passed between the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the NRC since 2009 when public and political pressure was brought to bear on the USNRC to update a 1990 study of the issue, a study which was widely seen by the public to be a whitewash.
This poisoned chalice has been passed between the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the NRC since 2009 when public and political pressure was brought to bear on the USNRC to update a 1990 study of the issue, a study which was widely seen by the public to be a whitewash.

The NCR quickly passed the unwelcome task up to the NAS. It requested that the NAS provide an assessment of cancer risks in populations living 'near' the NRC-licenced nuclear facilities that utilize and process Uranium. This included 104 operating nuclear reactors in 31 States and 13 fuel cycle facilities in operation in 10 States.

The NRC request was to be carried out by NAS in two phases. Phase 1 was a scoping study to inform design of the study to be begun in Phase 2 and to recommend the best organisation to carry out the work.

The Phase 1 report was finished in May 2012. The best 'state of the art' methods were listed and the job of carrying out the actual study, a pilot study, was sent to: Guess who? The NRC. The poisoned chalice was back home. The NRC was now in a corner: what could they do?

If you don't like the truth ... suppress it

The committee sat for three years thinking about this during which time more and more evidence emerged that if it actually carried out the pilot study, it would find something bad. It had to escape. It did. It cancelled it. The reason given was that it would cost $8 million just to do the pilot study of cancer near the seven sites NAS had selected in its 600 page Phase 1 report. [2]

So despite the truly enormous amount of information that has emerged about the adverse health effects of releases of radioactivity since 1990, no official investigation will be carried out. The nuclear industry is now in a corner.

Its only way forward is to continue with what is now clearly definable as a psychosis: a failure to compare belief with reality. It has to stick its fingers in its ears put on the blindfold and soldier on.

But this recent move of the NRC was unexpected. The closure of the study is hard for it to explain to Congress, the Senate and the public. Because even if it does cost $8 million, what is that compared with saving the lives of the thousands - or millions, if we take the whole radiation risk model?

On the European Child Health Committee PINCHE [3] there was a French statistician who told me that the sum they put on a single child leukemia was $1.7M. I bet you didn't know they have costed it. NRCs best option (and I suspect their original plan) would have been to carry out some more dodgy epidemiology, like the 1990 study.

[Complete report access the link above]

quinta-feira, 17 de setembro de 2015

5th SEPTEMBER: BEST CELEBRATION OF THE AMAZON DAY 'FLYING RIVERS' (VIDEOS)

https://youtu.be/jT0FgvjRthY

Watch  this video (above) on 'flying rivers' (English subtitles).
With its large surface area and abundant rainfall, Brazil receives more rain in a year (estimated at 15,000 cubic kilometres (3,600 cu mi)) than any other country. In 2007, the Swiss-Brazilian pilot Gérard Moss joined with scientists to initiate a project to evaluate the source of the atmospheric water over Brazil and examine the possibility that recent droughts in the country are being caused by the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. This is the Flying Rivers Project. The primary objective of the project is to "try to ascertain the origin of the water vapour, rainwater and river water in the areas crossed by the flying rivers". Other objectives are to scientifically evaluate the processes involved in this water transfer and to educate the public in understanding the importance of the Amazon rainforest as a source of the water that is vital for their lives and the economy. [Reproduced from the Wikipedia]

[Another video, in Portuguese, shows the scientists and institutions involved in the project: https://youtu.be/jz4wsKNCPTk]

Some photos obtained by Margi Moss:





segunda-feira, 14 de setembro de 2015

PHOTOS OF AMAZON FOREST SHOWN ON 'CRISTO', RIO DE JANEIRO


On the evening of the last Saturday, 5th September,  images of the Amazon rainforest eternalized by established photographers like Adriano Message, Edward Parker, Zig Koch and Leonardo Milano covered the Cristo Redentor, main postcard of Rio de Janeiro, which lies within the National Park of Tijuca. 
The screening was part of the celebrations of the day of the Amazon, celebrated the day on that date.
The event promoted by the WWF-Brazil emphasized the importance of protected areas and indigenous lands for the Amazon region.

Some photos of 'Cristo Redentor":




terça-feira, 8 de setembro de 2015

'BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY'! NO GLYPHOSATE IN MY FOOD, PLEASE!

Keep glyphosate out of our food!

Reproduced from http://www.theecologist.org/campaigning/2985214/keep_glyphosate_out_of_our_food.html

Peter Melchett

3rd September 2015

Following scientific confirmation of the severe hazards to health caused by residues of glyphosate weed killers in food, the Soil Association is calling on bakers and retailers to stop 'pre-harvest' spraying on arable crops. The SA's Peter Melchett just sent out this letter - adapt as necessary and send to retailers, bakers, makers of cereals, pasta, biscuits and others.


[From Weekipedia:
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicideused to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. It was discovered to be an herbicide by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970.[3] Monsanto brought it to market in the 1970s under the trade name Roundup and Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000.]
[From The Telegraph: Weedkiller alert over cancer link

The World Heath Organisation's cancer agency has declared that glyphosate, the active ingredient in popular herbicide Roundup, is 'probably carcinogenic'.]




Dear bread manufacturer or retailer,

I am writing to you to follow up the letter I sent in July about the World Health Organisation's Committee's finding that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen to humans.

I'm grateful to Tesco, Sansbury's, Waitrose, Co-op, Warburtons, the National Association of British and Irish Millers and Allied Mills for their replies to my letter or their comments on it, and I am looking forward to our meeting with the Federation of Bakers in early September.

The main response made by industry spokespeople to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has been to say that while it is clear that up to a third of samples of UK bread tested by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF) contain glyphosate, glyphosate is present below the Maximum Residue Level, and therefore should not be of concern to your customers.

As many scientists have pointed out, there has been long-standing scientific concern that glyphosate can have negative impacts on human health at well below the MRL, and that it may act as a hormone disrupter, and there is therefore unlikely to be a level at which glyphosate can be safely eaten in bread. This is because hormone disrupting chemicals can have an impact on human health at extremely low doses.

Since I last wrote to you, two new scientific papers have been published which support previous scientific concerns that there are no levels below which glyphosate can be safely eaten in bread.

Damaging alterations in gene function at 

The first paper 'Transcriptome analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure' (2015 Environ Health, 2015 Aug 25; 14(1): 70. doi: 10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1) concludes:

"A distinct and consistent alteration in the pattern of gene expression was found in both the liver and kidneys of the Roundup treatment group ... these alterations in gene function were consistent with fibrosis (scarring), necrosis (areas of dead tissue), phospholipidosis (disturbed fat metabolism) and damage to mitochondria (the centres of respiration in cells." [Note: Roundup is Monsanto's proprietary glyphosate herbicide product.]

Over 4,000 genes were affected in the Roundup treatment group, with either increased or decreased activity (expression).  The glyphosate equivalent dose of Roundup administered in this study is what may be found in drinking water (the levels investigated were half that permitted in drinking water in the European Union).

Moreover the amount of glyphosate-equivalent Roundup consumed by the research animals on a daily basis was many thousands of times below the regulatory set safety limits of glyphosate alone.

The lead scientist, Dr Michael Antoniou of Kings College said: "The findings of our study are very worrying as they confirm that a very low level of consumption of Roundup weedkiller over the long term can result in liver and kidney damage. Our results also suggest that regulators should re-consider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides."

Liver and kidney damage at ultra-low environmental doses

The second paper, 'Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits', concludes:

"Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH [Glyphosate-based herbicide] in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations."

The study highlights toxic effects below regulatory limits, in around 30 studies, including studies performed by chemical companies on their own products. This new study also looked at the impact of Roundup at a concentration of 0.1 parts per billion, with a glyphosate concentration which was half the concentration in drinking water allowed by the European Union (which is 0.1 μg/L):

"The results showed that Roundup caused an increased incidence of anatomical signs of pathologies, as well as changes in urine and blood biochemical parameters suggestive of liver and kidney functional insufficiency in both sexes."

The scientists say that their results suggest that further research is needed "to evaluate the endocrine disruptive capability of glyphosate-based herbicides."

They add that "It was previously known that glyphosate consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke kidney failure and reproductive difficulties. The results of the study presented here indicate that consumption of far lower levels of a GBH formulation, at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations, are associated with wide-scale alterations of the liver and kidney transcriptome that correlate with the observed signs of hepatic and kidney anatomorphological and biochemical pathological changes in these organs."

Any reliance on the current MRL is potentially dangerous

The Soil Association believes that the ultra-low doses of Roundup investigated by these two new pieces of scientific research, and the negative impacts on human health identified, make any reliance on the existing MRL for glyphosate both redundant and potentially dangerous.

The only responsible course for any retailer, manufacturer or miller must be to eliminate exposure to glyphosate from eating British bread.

The main route of exposure: pre-harvest herbicide application

As you know, because we do not currently have any GM crops that are resistant to Roundup grown in the UK, the main source of glyphosate in British flour and bread comes from the practice of farmers spraying Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed killers on wheat crops a few days before they are harvested.

The August edition of an East Anglian farming magazine contains an article in which Monsanto say that "Roundup is particularly useful" on later-maturing varieties of wheat even when grain is dry enough to combine. Farmers are being told in this article that spraying with Roundup will speed up their harvest, and give them a drier grain sample.

However, it is clear that the use of Roundup immediately before harvest is mainly a matter of convenience for farmers, and not a necessity.

Indeed, there are already concerns about the possibility of Roundup-resistant weeds arriving in the UK (they are now a major nuisance for US farmers), with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board warning of "the threat of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and the associated economic consequences."

In the light of this new scientific evidence, published over the last few days, which confirms previous concerns about the impact of very low doses of glyphosate on human health, the Soil Association is again urging you to ensure that none of the flour or bread products you manufacture or sell to British people contains any glyphosate at all.

In view of the serious human health implications of these two new scientific studies, the Soil Association is making this letter available to the public.

 


 

Peter Melchett is Policy Director at the Soil Association.

Campaign: Peter invites food campaigners to adapt this letter to send to the consumer affairs departments of other food companies that may be providing food containing glyphosate residues, and send it under their own names.

While the SA's current campaign focuses on bread, other companies to press on the issue include those making or retailing breakfast cereals, oatmeal, biscuits, pasta, baked foods, vegetable oils, mushy peas and other products.

Backgound information: the UK licences the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on a variety of arable crops. For example, Monsanto's 'Roundup with MAPP Number 12645' is licenced for use on wheat, barley, oats, durum wheat, combining pea and field bean, just seven days before harvest. It can also be used on oilseed rape and linseed 14 days before harvest and on mustard crops eight days before harvest.

Also on The Ecologist: 'Keep health-damaging weed killer out of our bread!'