Scientists find massive reserves of mercury in permafrost(news.agu.org)
news.agu.org
Scientists find massive reserves of mercury in permafrost
https://news.agu.org/press-release/scientists-find-massive-reserves-of-mercury-hidden-in-permafrost/
111 comments
Does it mean that as the global warming progresses all that mercury will mobilize and Earth will poison itself...?
using gallons as a unit - that's ri-di-cu-lous
Study: Permafrost Stores a Globally Significant Amount of Mercury
Citation: Schuster, Paul F.; Schaefer, Kevin M.; Aiken, George R.; Antweiler, Ronald C.; Dewild, John F.; Gryziec, Joshua D.; Gusmeroli, Alessio; Hugelius, Gustaf; Jafarov, Elchin; Krabbenhoft, David P.; Liu, Lin; Herman-Mercer, Nicole; Mu, Cuicui; Roth, David A.; Schaefer, Tim; Striegl, Robert G.; Wickland, Kimberly P.; Zhang, Tingjun. Geophysical Research Letters, 45.
Link: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075571
DOI: 10.1002/2017GL075571
Abstract: Changing climate in northern regions is causing permafrost to thaw with major implications for the global mercury (Hg) cycle. We estimated Hg in permafrost regions based on in situ measurements of sediment total mercury (STHg), soil organic carbon (SOC), and the Hg to carbon ratio (RHgC) combined with maps of soil carbon. We measured a median STHg of 43 ± 30 ng Hg g soil−1 and a median RHgC of 1.6 ± 0.9 μg Hg g C−1, consistent with published results of STHg for tundra soils and 11,000 measurements from 4,926 temperate, nonpermafrost sites in North America and Eurasia. We estimate that the Northern Hemisphere permafrost regions contain 1,656 ± 962 Gg Hg, of which 793 ± 461 Gg Hg is frozen in permafrost. Permafrost soils store nearly twice as much Hg as all other soils, the ocean, and the atmosphere combined, and this Hg is vulnerable to release as permafrost thaws over the next century. Existing estimates greatly underestimate Hg in permafrost soils, indicating a need to reevaluate the role of the Arctic regions in the global Hg cycle.
Citation: Schuster, Paul F.; Schaefer, Kevin M.; Aiken, George R.; Antweiler, Ronald C.; Dewild, John F.; Gryziec, Joshua D.; Gusmeroli, Alessio; Hugelius, Gustaf; Jafarov, Elchin; Krabbenhoft, David P.; Liu, Lin; Herman-Mercer, Nicole; Mu, Cuicui; Roth, David A.; Schaefer, Tim; Striegl, Robert G.; Wickland, Kimberly P.; Zhang, Tingjun. Geophysical Research Letters, 45.
Link: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075571
DOI: 10.1002/2017GL075571
Abstract: Changing climate in northern regions is causing permafrost to thaw with major implications for the global mercury (Hg) cycle. We estimated Hg in permafrost regions based on in situ measurements of sediment total mercury (STHg), soil organic carbon (SOC), and the Hg to carbon ratio (RHgC) combined with maps of soil carbon. We measured a median STHg of 43 ± 30 ng Hg g soil−1 and a median RHgC of 1.6 ± 0.9 μg Hg g C−1, consistent with published results of STHg for tundra soils and 11,000 measurements from 4,926 temperate, nonpermafrost sites in North America and Eurasia. We estimate that the Northern Hemisphere permafrost regions contain 1,656 ± 962 Gg Hg, of which 793 ± 461 Gg Hg is frozen in permafrost. Permafrost soils store nearly twice as much Hg as all other soils, the ocean, and the atmosphere combined, and this Hg is vulnerable to release as permafrost thaws over the next century. Existing estimates greatly underestimate Hg in permafrost soils, indicating a need to reevaluate the role of the Arctic regions in the global Hg cycle.
I have no knowledge about how accurate measurements of mercury are but from this and the article, it seems pretty conclusive that there is a lot of it with potentially very dangerous outcomes. I guess we can add another one to the list of dangers associated with climate change. Also how important funding is for projects.
I just recently read about iron fertilization as a potential tool to fight climate change, can't believe I'd never read about it before. Potential downsides but still very interesting, especially if economical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
I strayed far away from the research side of things back in school, but I wish we had more bold disrupters or shapers in the field. I know it's antithetical to the personality, skills, structure, and honestly the traits to succeed in the field but someone who'd be bold, sway the media, public opinion and congress with visions for deep funding and just dive in and trailblaze and get stuff done instead of so much research. I dont keep up with the field and Im sure this is extremely naive but just my thoughts.
I just recently read about iron fertilization as a potential tool to fight climate change, can't believe I'd never read about it before. Potential downsides but still very interesting, especially if economical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
I strayed far away from the research side of things back in school, but I wish we had more bold disrupters or shapers in the field. I know it's antithetical to the personality, skills, structure, and honestly the traits to succeed in the field but someone who'd be bold, sway the media, public opinion and congress with visions for deep funding and just dive in and trailblaze and get stuff done instead of so much research. I dont keep up with the field and Im sure this is extremely naive but just my thoughts.
It's fine to post links to the relevant paper, but could you please stop pasting bibliographic boilerplate into HN threads? I'm sure your intention is good, but the purpose of HN threads is thoughtful conversation, and this is not that.
Bibliographic info along with an abstract are an excellent way to help contextualize a thoughtful conversation, and does so without diverting attention away from the main thread.
I'm afraid I don't agree, for the same reason that no one would read all that stuff out loud in a normal conversation.
This information is easy to get for anyone who wants it, particularly if someone has posted a link to it. There's no need to inline the content.
This information is easy to get for anyone who wants it, particularly if someone has posted a link to it. There's no need to inline the content.
How does a full citation list help with context?
Sure. Thoughtful conversation and adding to it is definitely part of the intention; not trying to be a bother. Happy to adjust and try to keep contributing if you could be so kind as to let me know what would be preferred instead of a citation like this.
I think the poster was irritated with the long citation list and other extraneous items.
Just share a link and a part of the abstract, or do a summary.
Just share a link and a part of the abstract, or do a summary.
A link to the paper is fine. If you have a thought you want to share about it that's even finer.
p.s. We really do appreciate the intent.
p.s. We really do appreciate the intent.
[deleted]
You saved me the trouble of scrounging for the PDF link in the article, so thank you.
BTW, good job on your blog randomdrake!
BTW, good job on your blog randomdrake!
>"The study found approximately 793 gigagrams, or more than 15 million gallons, of mercury is frozen in northern permafrost soil. That is roughly 10 times the amount of all human-caused mercury emissions over the last 30 years, based on emissions estimates from 2016.
>The study also found all frozen and unfrozen soil in northern permafrost regions contains a combined 1,656 gigagrams of mercury, making it the largest known reservoir of mercury on the planet. This pool houses nearly twice as much mercury as soils outside of the northern permafrost region, the ocean and the atmosphere combined.
Gigagram? Never heard that one before.. uh a billion (US) grams? So.. a million kilos..a thousand tonnes..a kilotonne. or 1,656 gigagrams = 1.656 million tonnes, I think. (Weird that the imperial unit is gallons, a measure of volume I thought)
This doesn't sound good. Also I'm surprised that human mercury emissions in the last 30 years were so high. Since the late 80s..sheesh.
>The study also found all frozen and unfrozen soil in northern permafrost regions contains a combined 1,656 gigagrams of mercury, making it the largest known reservoir of mercury on the planet. This pool houses nearly twice as much mercury as soils outside of the northern permafrost region, the ocean and the atmosphere combined.
Gigagram? Never heard that one before.. uh a billion (US) grams? So.. a million kilos..a thousand tonnes..a kilotonne. or 1,656 gigagrams = 1.656 million tonnes, I think. (Weird that the imperial unit is gallons, a measure of volume I thought)
This doesn't sound good. Also I'm surprised that human mercury emissions in the last 30 years were so high. Since the late 80s..sheesh.
You're recalling correctly, gallon is a measure of volume. I would assume they used density conversions just to make it into a "relatable" measure for US readers.
But there is no US-gram. The SI unit for mass is the kilogram, (for which "kilo" is shorthand), where kilo- and giga- are standard SI prefixes. Units and prefixes are designed to be mixed and matched, so gigagram is just as valid as kilogram, even if it's more rare.
Edit: thank you userbinator for the base unit correction. I've edited above to not be blatantly wrong.
But there is no US-gram. The SI unit for mass is the kilogram, (for which "kilo" is shorthand), where kilo- and giga- are standard SI prefixes. Units and prefixes are designed to be mixed and matched, so gigagram is just as valid as kilogram, even if it's more rare.
Edit: thank you userbinator for the base unit correction. I've edited above to not be blatantly wrong.
There is US-gram. See slug, pound-mass.
The SI unit for mass is the gram, (not "kilo" which is just shorthand for kilogram, which is just commonly used because it's relatable)
The SI base unit for mass is actually the kilogram. It is memorable and notable for being the only base unit that already has a prefix.
The SI base unit for mass is actually the kilogram. It is memorable and notable for being the only base unit that already has a prefix.
Oh, thank you for the correction, not sure why I forgot that.
> the only base unit that already has a prefix.
That is interesting. So is kg actually not designed to work with other prefixes? Is it supposed to be megakilogram vs gigagram? Or are you just supposed to convert to something else or always use scientific notation? Or am I right about gigagram being valid, but for the wrong reasons?
> the only base unit that already has a prefix.
That is interesting. So is kg actually not designed to work with other prefixes? Is it supposed to be megakilogram vs gigagram? Or are you just supposed to convert to something else or always use scientific notation? Or am I right about gigagram being valid, but for the wrong reasons?
No, it's supposed to be used just like others, it just has a prefix at its 'base' unit. Milligram and Megagram would indeed be technically right, but no one uses it (edit: in the case of megagram, thanks daveguy).
I suspect this is because, sort of like length, there's many different names for essentailly different orders of magnitude and you'd first go to the largest (a tonne, 1000 kg) before adding on prefixes. I suspect this many-names factor is in turn because they're such historical things that humans have measured and quantified since prehistory, because distance and mass are the first 'quantities' we begin to encounter.
So instead of 793 gigagrams, I'd say 793 thousand tonnes, or 793 kilotonnes.
I suspect this is because, sort of like length, there's many different names for essentailly different orders of magnitude and you'd first go to the largest (a tonne, 1000 kg) before adding on prefixes. I suspect this many-names factor is in turn because they're such historical things that humans have measured and quantified since prehistory, because distance and mass are the first 'quantities' we begin to encounter.
So instead of 793 gigagrams, I'd say 793 thousand tonnes, or 793 kilotonnes.
Milligram is used extensively in biochemistry when defining concentrations milligrams per milliliters or mg/ml. This is the equivalent of g/L, but in biochemistry lab quantities are often measured in mg and ml rather than larger masses and volumes.
Also common: micrograms and microliters.
Also common: micrograms and microliters.
Sorry you're right, I added that 'no one uses it' comment on afterwards in reference to the Mega- prefix and in my exhausted state didn't parse the milli- version which indeed people do use.
Per my latter comment, it's because we don't really deal with everyday words for masses smaller than a gram, but we do for those bigger. It still holds that as far as I can think, people will go to the closest 'common term' word and then use prefixes to bridge the remaining gap (milligram, megatonne)
Per my latter comment, it's because we don't really deal with everyday words for masses smaller than a gram, but we do for those bigger. It still holds that as far as I can think, people will go to the closest 'common term' word and then use prefixes to bridge the remaining gap (milligram, megatonne)
No-one uses milligram?! hehe uh.. Maybe that was a typo. What do you call that amount?
Also, 'liter' is used only in the US I believe. You guys just won't play with the other children, huh. :-)
edit: ah ok sorry NamTaf. Get some sleep!
Also, 'liter' is used only in the US I believe. You guys just won't play with the other children, huh. :-)
edit: ah ok sorry NamTaf. Get some sleep!
To be clear, a "liter" and a "litre" are the same unit of volume, just spelled differently. (It's not like "gallons", where the US and Imperial gallon have different volumes.)
I do not have any sources, but I'm pretty sure litre (or liter) is used very extensively, across the ocidental world at least, including Australia. What country are you from?
Liter is used very widely in Europe, at least in non-english languages.
Ah, such as? I assume it's litre in France, I think it's litro in Spanish..
I know about German [1], Slovak [2]
[1] https://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Liter
[2] http://slovniky.korpus.sk/?w=liter
I think it's the same in Slovenian, Hungarian, Serbian (litar?), Norwegian and Swedish.
[1] https://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Liter
[2] http://slovniky.korpus.sk/?w=liter
I think it's the same in Slovenian, Hungarian, Serbian (litar?), Norwegian and Swedish.
No. The base unit with regard to notation/prefixes is definitely the gram.
This question of whether there's a meaningful send in which the base unit is the kilogram and not the gram really confuses people and I don't know what the answer is. People eagerly proclaim (a) it has something to do with French historical convention (but, they admit when pressed, this gives it no non-trivial meaning today) or (b) it has to do with the size of the actual reference weight in France (which doesn't make sense because the second was never an object, and a meter no longer is represented by an object yet we still call it a base unit).
The only non-trivial interpretation I've heard (although it is still silly) is that the kilogram is the base unit in the sense that adding "kilo" to gram makes the derived units like the Newton the simplest. (You could define a Newton in terms of grams and, say, kilometers and seconds, or meters and milliseconds, but this would end up disturbing the other derived units even worse.) But of course, this is just a statement about the derived units.
This question of whether there's a meaningful send in which the base unit is the kilogram and not the gram really confuses people and I don't know what the answer is. People eagerly proclaim (a) it has something to do with French historical convention (but, they admit when pressed, this gives it no non-trivial meaning today) or (b) it has to do with the size of the actual reference weight in France (which doesn't make sense because the second was never an object, and a meter no longer is represented by an object yet we still call it a base unit).
The only non-trivial interpretation I've heard (although it is still silly) is that the kilogram is the base unit in the sense that adding "kilo" to gram makes the derived units like the Newton the simplest. (You could define a Newton in terms of grams and, say, kilometers and seconds, or meters and milliseconds, but this would end up disturbing the other derived units even worse.) But of course, this is just a statement about the derived units.
No, the SI base unit of mass is the kilogram. From the NPL: http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/measurement-units/
"The kilogram is the International System of Units (SI) unit for mass. It is the only remaining base unit to be defined by a physical object. All standards of mass must ultimately be traceable to this one object, a cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in France"
"The kilogram is the International System of Units (SI) unit for mass. It is the only remaining base unit to be defined by a physical object. All standards of mass must ultimately be traceable to this one object, a cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in France"
The entire point of my comment is to note that "the SI base unit is the kilogram and not the gram" appears to be a contentless statement which is repeated mindlessly by people. And you responded by just repeating the statement that someone else made.
If the President issues a statement that says "the base unit of the US is the furlong", but nothing else about the US or its system of measurements changes, this is a contentless statement. If someone else asks "but what does it actually mean for the furlong, as opposed to the inch, to be the base unit?", pointing them to the President's statement does not help.
(Remember, saying "the kilogram is the base unit" cannot refer to the fact that the mass object in France weighs a kilogram, not a gram, because people also say "the meter and the second are base units", neither of which are physically instantiated anywhere.)
If the President issues a statement that says "the base unit of the US is the furlong", but nothing else about the US or its system of measurements changes, this is a contentless statement. If someone else asks "but what does it actually mean for the furlong, as opposed to the inch, to be the base unit?", pointing them to the President's statement does not help.
(Remember, saying "the kilogram is the base unit" cannot refer to the fact that the mass object in France weighs a kilogram, not a gram, because people also say "the meter and the second are base units", neither of which are physically instantiated anywhere.)
NIST is working on a new reference for the kilogram based on Planck's constant, so that quote may become invalid in the near future.
NPL invented the Kibble balance that is being used in the proposed redefinition[0]. They discuss it and the Avagadro project on the page. So indeed it won't be valid much longer!
[0] http://www.npl.co.uk/educate-explore/kibble-balance/
[0] http://www.npl.co.uk/educate-explore/kibble-balance/
The kilogram the SI standard. It's used in kilogram-meter-second reasoning systems as the base of derivative units, such as Newtons (1kg * G) or torque (N*m). (Basing these off of the gram would be... weird. You might protest the gram's the wrong size, but it's too late to change it.) Prefixes are applied as normal to 'gram' despite this (so milligram, microgram, and exotically gigagram) are correct.
Gigagram just seems exotic in the same way that megameter does - it's perfectly correct and understandable, it's just rarely necessary.
Gigagram just seems exotic in the same way that megameter does - it's perfectly correct and understandable, it's just rarely necessary.
Some sciences used to prefer (or still prefer?) doing it the other way and use the CGS system, where you prefix meter instead of gram.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre%E2%80%93gram%E2%8...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre%E2%80%93gram%E2%8...
It's vary rarely written.
As an mechanical engineer educated in the UK the base unit would be kg but you would use ax10^n [kg] to denote mass.
As an mechanical engineer educated in the UK the base unit would be kg but you would use ax10^n [kg] to denote mass.
https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/history-si/name-kg...
Love the last paragraph:
The decision of the Republican government may have been politically motivated; after all, these were the same people who condemned Lavoisier to the guillotine. In any case, we are now stuck with the infelicity of a base unit whose name has a "prefix".
Love the last paragraph:
The decision of the Republican government may have been politically motivated; after all, these were the same people who condemned Lavoisier to the guillotine. In any case, we are now stuck with the infelicity of a base unit whose name has a "prefix".
Hehe thanks, yeah. I meant US billion (10^9 not 10^12). I'm not saying 'gigagram' isn't valid, just I'd never heard it used before so had no sense how big it is. Amounts that big are usually talked about in millions or billions of tonnes or something like that. (1 tonne = 1000kg) Hmm this is harder than I thought, USA doesn't have the "o" sound in "tonne" either, hehe—it rhymes with "pot" for non-US speakers of English, 'on' with a 't' in front.
Ah you're talking about short scale and long scale. Actually most English speaking countries use short scale, even in the UK for official sources. It's unfortunate that there are so many hiccups in communicating numbers and units even with the SI system.
The differing meanings of billion, trillion, etc. drive me crazy. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY???
US seems to use the kilogram for one and only one thing: reporting the size of drug hauls.
(Weird that the imperial unit is gallons, a measure of volume I thought)
It is volume. The density of mercury is 13.69 g/cm3 and thus 793E9 grams is 5.8E7 litres, or 1.5E7 gallons. "more than 15 million gallons" is correct.
It is volume. The density of mercury is 13.69 g/cm3 and thus 793E9 grams is 5.8E7 litres, or 1.5E7 gallons. "more than 15 million gallons" is correct.
The "Gigagram" makes me smile. The one thing where the metric system annoys is the "ton" and "kilo-ton" labeling. A ton is 1000 kilograms, hence a megagram, and a gigagram is 1000 megagrams.
The "ton" is not strictly an SI unity. It's widely accepted, but it's not an insider :)
It's all a bit of a mess because the SI base unit is the kilogram, not the gram.
Yes, that is a bit annoying as well, but I made my peace with that (Probably also because I'm not affected by it directly). But the "ton" is a constant companion, and when it then gets to "kilo-tons" it just breaks the entire SI-prefix system to bits.
In practice, I just think of it as two base units: grams for small masses (i.e. prefixes smaller than 1 aren't used with tonnes), and tonnes for large ones. (Though terms like kiloton and megaton may well be referring to the US ton (2000 lb) or the Imperial ton (2240 lb) rather than the Metric (1000 kg) one).
Hey, it's still simpler than the American system.
Hey, it's still simpler than the American system.
1,656 gigagrams = 1,656 10^9 grams = 1,656 10^3 tonnes = 1,656 thousand tonnes
"tonnes" as a metric unit is new to me. (vs imperial "tons", ie 2,000 lbs)
Scary stuff:
> The study reveals northern permafrost soils are the largest reservoir of mercury on the planet, storing nearly twice as much mercury as all other soils, the ocean and the atmosphere combined.
And the permafrost is thawing thanks to climate change.
> “There’s a significant social and human health aspect to this study,” Sebestyen said. “The consequences of this mercury being released into the environment are potentially huge because mercury has health effects on organisms and can travel up the food chain, adversely affecting native and other communities.”
> The study reveals northern permafrost soils are the largest reservoir of mercury on the planet, storing nearly twice as much mercury as all other soils, the ocean and the atmosphere combined.
And the permafrost is thawing thanks to climate change.
> “There’s a significant social and human health aspect to this study,” Sebestyen said. “The consequences of this mercury being released into the environment are potentially huge because mercury has health effects on organisms and can travel up the food chain, adversely affecting native and other communities.”
How did it get there? I was disappointed that wasn't mentioned.
Dead predators (seals, cats, etc.), which fed on other predators - probably fish - which accumulate mercury through eating other aquatic organisms. This is why tuna has relatively high levels of mercury, and humans moreso - once it's in you, it tends not to leave. The higher up the food chain you are, the more mercury you consume and retain.
The reason there's such an accumulation in the permafrost is that predators which die up there don't decompose, they just freeze. Sure, they might get snacked on by scavengers before they freeze, but those scavengers then get eaten by predators, resulting in the vast majority of organic tissue and therefore mercury in the arctic ending up as frozen organic matter. The permafrost comprises incredibly vast quantities of organic material, animal and plant, and not much else. Elsewhere on earth, decomposition happens, flies eat the rotting meat, the mercury gets scattered to the four winds, and goes back into the food chain.
It's also the same reason for the vast quantities of methane that are beginning to be released - huge quantities of organic matter that's been in the deep freeze, decomposing.
The arctic is going to be the biggest charnel pit the earth has ever seen.
The reason there's such an accumulation in the permafrost is that predators which die up there don't decompose, they just freeze. Sure, they might get snacked on by scavengers before they freeze, but those scavengers then get eaten by predators, resulting in the vast majority of organic tissue and therefore mercury in the arctic ending up as frozen organic matter. The permafrost comprises incredibly vast quantities of organic material, animal and plant, and not much else. Elsewhere on earth, decomposition happens, flies eat the rotting meat, the mercury gets scattered to the four winds, and goes back into the food chain.
It's also the same reason for the vast quantities of methane that are beginning to be released - huge quantities of organic matter that's been in the deep freeze, decomposing.
The arctic is going to be the biggest charnel pit the earth has ever seen.
Scary but amazing stuff, thanks for taking time to explain!
Just speculating: maybe atmospheric dust (pollen, etc.), and/or migrating animals contain it and it gets deposited wherever the dust comes down, or the animal dies.
But in permafrost, it is quickly fixed by humidity and ice, and it isn't returned to the oceans by a constant flow of water?
But in permafrost, it is quickly fixed by humidity and ice, and it isn't returned to the oceans by a constant flow of water?
My guess would be that first it was there everywhere else too, just that in warmer climate it would not remain frozen, and got released from the soil. And then got transported by various ways:
"If the mercury is transported across waterways, it could be taken up by microorganisms and transformed into methylmercury, he said."
"Mercury released into the atmosphere can travel large distances and could affect communities and ecosystems thousands of miles away from the release site, he said."
"If the mercury is transported across waterways, it could be taken up by microorganisms and transformed into methylmercury, he said."
"Mercury released into the atmosphere can travel large distances and could affect communities and ecosystems thousands of miles away from the release site, he said."
When a mommy sun and a daddy cloud of interstellar gas condense into higher-order matter...
It wouldn't be trapped in ice if it had been there for that long... I think he meant: how did it get trapped in permafrost? The only hint the article gave was this:
> Mercury accumulates in aquatic and terrestrial food chains [...]
and:
> [...] trapped in permafrost [...] since the last Ice Age.
> Mercury accumulates in aquatic and terrestrial food chains [...]
and:
> [...] trapped in permafrost [...] since the last Ice Age.
I read before (this study) that mercury accumulates at the poles more than anywhere else. Context was affect on wildlife there, some birds turning gay [0][1] (that effect is location independent, but I read it first in a northern location context). A possible reason for it to "go north" is mentioned here: [2].
> Environmental scientists at Harvard have discovered that the Arctic accumulation of mercury ... is caused by both atmospheric forces and the flow of circumpolar rivers that carry the element north into the Arctic Ocean.
[1] also is a pretty good article on the effects of mercury on wildlife.
There also is mentioning of possible pathways to the north here: [3] - unlike [2] they claim it's mostly through the atmosphere though.
> From our observation site north of Alaska’s Brooks Range, we determined that gaseous elemental mercury in the atmosphere is the dominant source of Arctic mercury. We calculated that it accounted for 70 percent of the mercury that finds its way into tundra soil.
[0] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101203-homo...
[1] http://e360.yale.edu/features/mercurys_silent_toll_on_the_wo...
[2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/arctic-rive...
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mercury-from-indu...
> Environmental scientists at Harvard have discovered that the Arctic accumulation of mercury ... is caused by both atmospheric forces and the flow of circumpolar rivers that carry the element north into the Arctic Ocean.
[1] also is a pretty good article on the effects of mercury on wildlife.
There also is mentioning of possible pathways to the north here: [3] - unlike [2] they claim it's mostly through the atmosphere though.
> From our observation site north of Alaska’s Brooks Range, we determined that gaseous elemental mercury in the atmosphere is the dominant source of Arctic mercury. We calculated that it accounted for 70 percent of the mercury that finds its way into tundra soil.
[0] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101203-homo...
[1] http://e360.yale.edu/features/mercurys_silent_toll_on_the_wo...
[2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/arctic-rive...
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mercury-from-indu...
Sounds like a job for Cody of Codyslab. I see "Recovering Mercury From Permafrost" videos in our future...
Cody extracts mercury by roasting cinnabar which is a mineral rich in HgS - or maybe HgS is called cinnabar - I forget.
I'm assuming this mercury is also bounded, and not lying around in pools of Hg. Hg is less toxic than Pb, and yet the government is OK with people shooting thousands of kilograms of the stuff over swamps and waterways and food crop fields.
I'm assuming this mercury is also bounded, and not lying around in pools of Hg. Hg is less toxic than Pb, and yet the government is OK with people shooting thousands of kilograms of the stuff over swamps and waterways and food crop fields.
It's going to be biological mercury - from bioaccumulation in top predator tissue which ends up frozen and inert in the permafrost when the top predators die.
The thing that makes this really nasty is that biological mercury is most commonly methylmercury - which makes free mercury look like delicious gravy. It's very readily absorbed by tissues, and doesn't leave.
God help us if it's acquired a second methyl group through tens of thousands of years of incredibly slow decomposition - dimethylmercury is pretty much the most toxic thing we know of.
The thing that makes this really nasty is that biological mercury is most commonly methylmercury - which makes free mercury look like delicious gravy. It's very readily absorbed by tissues, and doesn't leave.
God help us if it's acquired a second methyl group through tens of thousands of years of incredibly slow decomposition - dimethylmercury is pretty much the most toxic thing we know of.
I think inferring bioaccumulation is the biggest source is a bit of a stretch. Naturally occurring processes can result in organomercury compounds in soil as well.[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury#Environmental_so...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury#Environmental_so...
[deleted]
You can't shoot lead shot at waterfowl in most jurisdictions these days, and it's been that way for around 20 years at least.
I'm not sure that the bismuth and tungsten and other heavier than steel shot that has partly replaced lead is a whole lot better, though...
I'm not sure that the bismuth and tungsten and other heavier than steel shot that has partly replaced lead is a whole lot better, though...
From a toxicity standpoint they are safer. Bismuth can be consumed in medicine (Pepto Bismol). I work in toxicology and we are worried about the "big four": lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic. These are from the Q3D guidelines on toxicity. Tungsten and Bismuth aren't on the list at all. Nickel is a unique concern, since it's so dang useful in metal alloys, and a high percentage of people have an allergic reaction to nickel particles.
Edit for a plug: Don't throw away NiCd batteries folks! Recycle them properly!
https://www.call2recycle.org/locator/
Edit for a plug: Don't throw away NiCd batteries folks! Recycle them properly!
https://www.call2recycle.org/locator/
I guess I'm getting pretty far off topic from the original discussion, but being allergic to nickel is really annoying.
I bought these nickel free stainless steel pans, because apparently stainless steel has nickel in it to make it shinier. I had to buy three different "nickel free" belt buckles (don't trust random Amazon products to be free of an allergen, even if they claim it!) before I got one that doesn't make my skin break out, and I have to wear plastic glasses because my skin and the metal on glasses doesn't play nice. Even the rivets in some jeans cause problems.
I bought these nickel free stainless steel pans, because apparently stainless steel has nickel in it to make it shinier. I had to buy three different "nickel free" belt buckles (don't trust random Amazon products to be free of an allergen, even if they claim it!) before I got one that doesn't make my skin break out, and I have to wear plastic glasses because my skin and the metal on glasses doesn't play nice. Even the rivets in some jeans cause problems.
Stainless Steel is a huge class of metals, most (but not all) have nickel in them. Also alloys of cupronickel, coin metal, cobalt chromium, and nitinol all have nickel in them. And certain countries lie constantly about nickel content in metal they sell. When we source for medical implants, we have to specify no material from certain countries, because we can't trust their certifications, and we can't re-do all of the certification testing on our own.
Nickel is just too useful (and pre-existing in a lot of metal ores, I think) to stop using it, despite the fact that a large percentage of people are allergic to it.
Nickel is just too useful (and pre-existing in a lot of metal ores, I think) to stop using it, despite the fact that a large percentage of people are allergic to it.
I just buy my Cinnabons at the Cinnabar.
”mercury is frozen in northern permafrost soil”
Is it? From a quick scan, I couldn’t find any reference to mercury compounds in the paper, and pure Mercury has a freezing point of -38,83 °C.
Seems you could crush the frozen ground, and the Mercury would drop out. Also, if that’s the case, how much of it would simply drop deeper into the ground when the permafrost thaws?
Is it? From a quick scan, I couldn’t find any reference to mercury compounds in the paper, and pure Mercury has a freezing point of -38,83 °C.
Seems you could crush the frozen ground, and the Mercury would drop out. Also, if that’s the case, how much of it would simply drop deeper into the ground when the permafrost thaws?
frozen as in 'surrounded by ice' <>
frozen as in 'surrounded by police'
Even if the mercury remains a liquid, it could still pose a risk if it is currently trapped within ice but flows into waterways when released from the thawed ice.
It's almost certainly not in the form of elemental mercury (which would be a liquid), but a solid mercury compound.
[deleted]
Camillo(1)
Well, climate scientists have been predicting it for years, but the evidence is finally in: the mercury is definitely rising.
joantune(3)
793 gigagrams in how many grams of permafrost?
From the paper's estimate of the concentration in soil (43ng mercury per gram of soil) this mercury is dispersed in 18 exagrams of soil.
For scale, the concentration of mercury in permafrost is about an order of magnitude less than what is found in tuna, and about the same as what is found in haddock or mackerel. (At least according to Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish)
From the paper's estimate of the concentration in soil (43ng mercury per gram of soil) this mercury is dispersed in 18 exagrams of soil.
For scale, the concentration of mercury in permafrost is about an order of magnitude less than what is found in tuna, and about the same as what is found in haddock or mackerel. (At least according to Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish)
I don't understand why the concentration is relevant. The issue is the amount. Once the permafrost melts, the mercury locked in it will enter the mercury cycle. I don't have a model of how this will change the amount of mercury in our diet, for example, but it seems a good first order estimate would be that it is proportional to the total increase of mercury in the mercury cycle. The concentration of mercury in fish may be higher than in soil, but is the total amount of mercury in fish greater than than the total amount in soil?
>> I don't understand why the concentration is relevant.
Well from the one part is sounds like the concentration is normal:
>> Schuster and his colleagues found their measurements were consistent with published data on mercury in non-permafrost and permafrost soils from thousands of other sites worldwide.
Once you realize that, the whole thing becomes a big alarmist scare. If the arctic melts that doesn't mean the mercury is going to suddenly migrate into the rest of the world. It will probably be taken up in arctic plants and wildlife in the same proportions it exists everywhere else. But they seem to want us to think this is some new lurking scary demon of climate change that's going to come get us.
I was hoping to read something interesting, like a hypothesis about why mercury was concentrated in the arctic but all I got was a finding that it's the same as everywhere else.
Well from the one part is sounds like the concentration is normal:
>> Schuster and his colleagues found their measurements were consistent with published data on mercury in non-permafrost and permafrost soils from thousands of other sites worldwide.
Once you realize that, the whole thing becomes a big alarmist scare. If the arctic melts that doesn't mean the mercury is going to suddenly migrate into the rest of the world. It will probably be taken up in arctic plants and wildlife in the same proportions it exists everywhere else. But they seem to want us to think this is some new lurking scary demon of climate change that's going to come get us.
I was hoping to read something interesting, like a hypothesis about why mercury was concentrated in the arctic but all I got was a finding that it's the same as everywhere else.
> If the arctic melts that doesn't mean the mercury is going to suddenly migrate into the rest of the world. It will probably be taken up in arctic plants and wildlife in the same proportions it exists everywhere else.
I am curious if you are an expert in this field and know this to be true, or if you are making a quick assumption from a layman's understanding.
Reading the full text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075571/full Where there is more context to the quote about their measurements being consistent with non permafrost sites, and the discussion about active layer vs permafrost layers and mercury cycles, it is not clear to me that you take is correct.
It would be wonderful if someone knowledgeable could chime in.
I am curious if you are an expert in this field and know this to be true, or if you are making a quick assumption from a layman's understanding.
Reading the full text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075571/full Where there is more context to the quote about their measurements being consistent with non permafrost sites, and the discussion about active layer vs permafrost layers and mercury cycles, it is not clear to me that you take is correct.
It would be wonderful if someone knowledgeable could chime in.
No, it's not my field. I agree it would be nice if someone who is could explain how the findings are different than elsewhere, and how and why it might be a problem, without all the "game changer" and other panic hype.
I was just going mainly on that one paragraph which seems rather benign. It would be really nice to understand why they think it's not.
I was just going mainly on that one paragraph which seems rather benign. It would be really nice to understand why they think it's not.
Can confirm from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284385/#!po=12...
That 30-50ng/g is the concentration in uncontaminated temperate soil.
That 30-50ng/g is the concentration in uncontaminated temperate soil.
Does an 'exagram' mean anything to you? Doesn't to me. Those weights are meaningless in that format, except to geologists I suppose. (Please no-one explain to me what 'exa-' means, I don't mean that!)
Anyway, it says the median is 43±30ng/g, the mean 62±35ng/g. Why wouldn't they use the mean in the main results? That's what I imagine would give the 'concentration of mercury', the average (mean) concentration.
Reading the method, it's a huge guesstimate in a dozen ways, even much further than I would have thought. Guess that's how they get 13-73ng/g. I wonder how they have any confidence in the error range.
Anyway, it says the median is 43±30ng/g, the mean 62±35ng/g. Why wouldn't they use the mean in the main results? That's what I imagine would give the 'concentration of mercury', the average (mean) concentration.
Reading the method, it's a huge guesstimate in a dozen ways, even much further than I would have thought. Guess that's how they get 13-73ng/g. I wonder how they have any confidence in the error range.
The mean is only a good measure of central tendency for Gaussian distributions. It is very sensitive to outliers. The median is better when you don't know what the distribution is.
late edit: Could downvoters please explain why? Thanks.
Wow, ok, I give up. Fuck trying to understand why people downvote on here.
Dunno about the other ones, but this one (the one you're responding to) could be because it's against the guidelines:
> "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's best to just roll with it, I think. Follow the guidelines and post as substantively as you can. The population of HN is large and diverse and you're unlikely to be able to figure out why each and every downvote (or upvote, for that matter) is handed out, and even if you could, you may not agree with why they did so or think it’s fair. They can be useful as a guide and an opportunity to imagine how the comment may come across differently than you intend. But at the end of the day, it's the nature of the beast. Use what you find useful and let the rest slide.
> "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's best to just roll with it, I think. Follow the guidelines and post as substantively as you can. The population of HN is large and diverse and you're unlikely to be able to figure out why each and every downvote (or upvote, for that matter) is handed out, and even if you could, you may not agree with why they did so or think it’s fair. They can be useful as a guide and an opportunity to imagine how the comment may come across differently than you intend. But at the end of the day, it's the nature of the beast. Use what you find useful and let the rest slide.
> Does an 'exagram' mean anything to you?
You just need the density of permafrost and then you can compute the volume from the exagram value, and depending on how thick you make it you get back either the surface of northern Canada and Siberia or you get a really really tall tower of permafrost that reaches into low earth orbit :-).
> I wonder how they have any confidence in the error range.
It is my understanding that there are many many core samples at various locations in the permafrost to understand its nature and make up. My guess would be that they derive the error ranges using the change in concentrations between all of the sample points leading them to a median and mean difference in concentration samples as their base set.
You just need the density of permafrost and then you can compute the volume from the exagram value, and depending on how thick you make it you get back either the surface of northern Canada and Siberia or you get a really really tall tower of permafrost that reaches into low earth orbit :-).
> I wonder how they have any confidence in the error range.
It is my understanding that there are many many core samples at various locations in the permafrost to understand its nature and make up. My guess would be that they derive the error ranges using the change in concentrations between all of the sample points leading them to a median and mean difference in concentration samples as their base set.
Do Tuna and other forms of life effectively act as a sort of biological filter collecting mercury over time though? Like we would too if we ate too much Tuna getting mercury poisoning.
Could an order of magnitude less actually be a lot if you look at it that way? Since the permafrost would just be passively accumulating, as opposed to actively in a way which only something living can do.
Could an order of magnitude less actually be a lot if you look at it that way? Since the permafrost would just be passively accumulating, as opposed to actively in a way which only something living can do.
> Do Tuna and other forms of life effectively act as a sort of biological filter collecting mercury over time though?
Yes. This is called biomagnification. Basically, animals absorb heavy metals that are in the food they eat, but don't have an efficient way of excreting it again. Mainly since these metals are bound so they're fat soluble, not water soluble. The higher up in the food chain, the worse it gets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification
Yes. This is called biomagnification. Basically, animals absorb heavy metals that are in the food they eat, but don't have an efficient way of excreting it again. Mainly since these metals are bound so they're fat soluble, not water soluble. The higher up in the food chain, the worse it gets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification
Just change it to Gold.
$_$
https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Gold-from-Mercury
https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Gold-from-Mercury