Scientists tracked down a mass killer of salmon(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Scientists tracked down a mass killer of salmon
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/climate/salmon-kill-washington.html
154 comments
Agreed. The same thing happened with BPA — banned in toys and bottles after decades of harm to be replaced by at least 40 other chemicals that haven’t proven to be unsafe — yet.
>It seems to me these things should be considered unsafe by default, tested at small scale for years, proven to be bio-degradable and if used at scale introduced very slowly
That's no way to create shareholder value.
That's no way to create shareholder value.
Socialist countries (without capitalism) have a worse track record.
Oh? I'm sure you have evidence for that, I'd like to see it.
Google Volga pollution.
Russia hasn't been socialist for 30 years. If we're dredging up the past, look up "Cuyahoga River pollution". Spoiler alert: it was addressed through government regulation, not the free market.
>The other thing is individual accountability: chemical engineers who facilitate this insanity should be held responsible.
Hey, I wanted to point out for your future reference that you really should be blaming the chemists. They’re the ones who design the product and intentionally choose this. Chemical engineers are the ones who do the manufacturing of chemical products. I have CE friends and they’re the ones in the plants keeping processes running
Hey, I wanted to point out for your future reference that you really should be blaming the chemists. They’re the ones who design the product and intentionally choose this. Chemical engineers are the ones who do the manufacturing of chemical products. I have CE friends and they’re the ones in the plants keeping processes running
Thanks, good clarification!
The precautionary principle, which is what you describe, is in greater use in Europe.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsal...
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsal...
Probably the best known example of this (who I assume you are referring to) is incidentally responsible for both leaded fuel and CFCs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
there was a fun dollop episode about him if you want a little levity while listening to an absolute ecological monster... https://soundcloud.com/the-dollop/393-thomas-midgley
He also appears on this amazing list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_th...
I guess my proposal is that new chemicals need to be tested at a 100x dose on 15 different species, up to primate. On lesser species, things such as number of offspring need to be measured (reproductive health seems to be the first to go a lot of times). On primates, we'd look for sperm count relative to a control group (again the first thing to go).
If any effect is seen at a 100x dose (of the amount expected to be ingested) the chemical would be dropped.
If any effect is seen at a 100x dose (of the amount expected to be ingested) the chemical would be dropped.
No.
First, what is a 'dose' for a new chemical?
Second, there are all sorts of critical things that if you took 100x the recommended dose you would see a significant negative physiological effect. Like salt. Or water.
This is a far more nuanced problem that "let's just shoot up some monkeys with a gallon of the stuff and see if their nuts shrivel up". In fact, that sort of reductionist approach is why we have this problem.
First, what is a 'dose' for a new chemical?
Second, there are all sorts of critical things that if you took 100x the recommended dose you would see a significant negative physiological effect. Like salt. Or water.
This is a far more nuanced problem that "let's just shoot up some monkeys with a gallon of the stuff and see if their nuts shrivel up". In fact, that sort of reductionist approach is why we have this problem.
> First, what is a 'dose' for a new chemical?
The dose is the amount you expect an animal to ingest in its lifetime.
> Second, there are all sorts of critical things that if you took 100x the recommended dose you would see a significant negative physiological effect. Like salt. Or water.
Uh, lol, no. 100x and 1000x multiples are standard EPA testing procedure, so you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the EPA, and I'm gonna stick with the EPA on this one. [1]
> This is a far more nuanced problem that "let's just shoot up some monkeys with a gallon of the stuff and see if their nuts shrivel up". In fact, that sort of reductionist approach is why we have this problem.
That's a disingenuous reading. A 1000x dose of these chemicals would be less than a miligram, which is plenty to do harm. Even lead can do brain damage at the ppm level (some chemicals are even ppb). Don't be too embarrassed by your comment though, we all start somewhere.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_dose
The dose is the amount you expect an animal to ingest in its lifetime.
> Second, there are all sorts of critical things that if you took 100x the recommended dose you would see a significant negative physiological effect. Like salt. Or water.
Uh, lol, no. 100x and 1000x multiples are standard EPA testing procedure, so you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the EPA, and I'm gonna stick with the EPA on this one. [1]
> This is a far more nuanced problem that "let's just shoot up some monkeys with a gallon of the stuff and see if their nuts shrivel up". In fact, that sort of reductionist approach is why we have this problem.
That's a disingenuous reading. A 1000x dose of these chemicals would be less than a miligram, which is plenty to do harm. Even lead can do brain damage at the ppm level (some chemicals are even ppb). Don't be too embarrassed by your comment though, we all start somewhere.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_dose
Having a 100x multiples for clearance leaves a large safety margin but again take water, 0.5L per day is good, 1L won't kill you but above 8L people have known to die. That's only 16x. People also get get cyanide poisoning from raw almond smoothies, alcohol poisoning from binge drinking and caffeine poisoning at and also less than 100x regular portion.
Radiation too, 2-30 is pretty typical and no statistically significant results but bring that to 300 and you get measurable increase in cancer rates.
Radiation too, 2-30 is pretty typical and no statistically significant results but bring that to 300 and you get measurable increase in cancer rates.
Definition of dose (Websters)
(Entry 1 of 2) 1a : the measured quantity of a therapeutic agent to be taken at one time b : the quantity of radiation administered or absorbed 2 : a portion of a substance added during a process 3 : an amount of something likened to a prescribed or measured quantity of medicine a daily dose of hard work a dose of scandal 4 : a gonorrheal infection
So the common definition isn't the one you are using. But if you pick your own definition, you get to be right.
Being able to write with accuracy and precision is hard. Don't be too embarrassed by your comment though, we all start somewhere.
(Entry 1 of 2) 1a : the measured quantity of a therapeutic agent to be taken at one time b : the quantity of radiation administered or absorbed 2 : a portion of a substance added during a process 3 : an amount of something likened to a prescribed or measured quantity of medicine a daily dose of hard work a dose of scandal 4 : a gonorrheal infection
So the common definition isn't the one you are using. But if you pick your own definition, you get to be right.
Being able to write with accuracy and precision is hard. Don't be too embarrassed by your comment though, we all start somewhere.
IDK, I think disposal and recycling is really where we need to focus.
Some chemcials are damn useful while being toxic. I don't think the right thing to do is banning all toxic chemcials because they might cause environmental damage. Instead, let's focus on figuring out safe handling upfront.
A good example of this is batteries. Super toxic, super useful.
Some chemcials are damn useful while being toxic. I don't think the right thing to do is banning all toxic chemcials because they might cause environmental damage. Instead, let's focus on figuring out safe handling upfront.
A good example of this is batteries. Super toxic, super useful.
Damn useful but at what cost? Unfortunately we often don’t know the cost until 10 to 50 years on. It’s impossible to close Pandora’s box once it’s open. Look at DDT https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground... and mercury in the food chain and and and and
I think GPs point is to keep them contained while in use, with a plan to keep them out of the environment once you're done with them.
Batteries are a great example. We really need good battery recycling. We also really need good batteries, since it looks like they'll play a major role in preventing catastrophic global warming.
Batteries are a great example. We really need good battery recycling. We also really need good batteries, since it looks like they'll play a major role in preventing catastrophic global warming.
Strong acute exposure and slow chronic exposure will show different effects overall. But yours sounds like a decent heuristic as a first pass.
>The other thing is individual accountability: chemical engineers who facilitate this insanity should be held responsible.
How would they be expected to know what the results of their chemical will be? Drug companies focus exclusively on biological effects and can't even get drugs to regularly pass phase 1 trials, and you're asking for a single chemist at Industrial Sealants Inc to do what entire pharma companies can't? Putting lead in gasoline sounds dumb, but so does putting mercury in vaccines. The only way to tell the difference is to do studies, which would take teams of people. It is absolutely not possible to expect individual chemists to accurately predict the biological consequences of their products.
How would they be expected to know what the results of their chemical will be? Drug companies focus exclusively on biological effects and can't even get drugs to regularly pass phase 1 trials, and you're asking for a single chemist at Industrial Sealants Inc to do what entire pharma companies can't? Putting lead in gasoline sounds dumb, but so does putting mercury in vaccines. The only way to tell the difference is to do studies, which would take teams of people. It is absolutely not possible to expect individual chemists to accurately predict the biological consequences of their products.
Be careful about diluting responsibility---if everyone can point to someone else, no one will make a hard (and not immediately profitable) decision.
In all of those studies, etc., there is someone at the top who does, and should, make the ultimate decision, just like when building a bridge, there is an engineer who puts his career on the line.
In all of those studies, etc., there is someone at the top who does, and should, make the ultimate decision, just like when building a bridge, there is an engineer who puts his career on the line.
If you're going to assign responsibility, you need to assign it to people who know the right decision to make. If you assign responsibility to a janitor or a chemist for any torts set against the company, then janitors and chemists will simply quit working there. The only person who could begin to approach responsibility would be an executive with the authority to organize and pay for clinical trials and toxicity studies.
> authority to organize and pay for clinical trials and toxicity studies.
But further to that, if said executive does follow regulatory guidance and accepted practice but the product has a problem, should they really be held individually responsible?
For the clinical trials example, if a trial fails to turn up a significant problem, is it the exec's fault or the regulators? The regulators or the legislative body?
But further to that, if said executive does follow regulatory guidance and accepted practice but the product has a problem, should they really be held individually responsible?
For the clinical trials example, if a trial fails to turn up a significant problem, is it the exec's fault or the regulators? The regulators or the legislative body?
Oftentimes, regulatory bodies make companies immune to lawsuits in exchange for compliance. That leads to there being no incentive against creating products that are compliant, yet dangerous. It might be a good idea to reform the system so that harm is the ultimate decider.
Maybe we should have tiered rules for how much testing is done based on the number of tons that are going to be produced and how they are being disposed of.
(And if we already do, then the rules for the higher tiers need to be tightened.)
(And if we already do, then the rules for the higher tiers need to be tightened.)
Given the extreme differences in badness per ton I'm not sure if that's a reasonable metric. Maybe instead we could mandate yucca mountain level storage for everything that hasn't been evaluated, and then let companies decide for themselves whether or not they will be making enough of the stuff to justify studying how to dispose of it more cheaply.
It might be possible to establish categories where if your molecule has XYZ properties it falls into this bucket. I think a category for really novel molecules that haven't been evaluated is a good idea with tight restrictions on how much can be produced.
There should also be a presumption that minor edits to known dangerous molecules should be presumed dangerous without testing.
There should also be a presumption that minor edits to known dangerous molecules should be presumed dangerous without testing.
Putting mercury in vaccines was also dumb. It is impossible to quantify the damage just from the direct consequence of people beginning to avoid vaccines because of it. They don't put mercury in vaccines anymore.
> so does putting mercury in vaccines
Putting a known biologically tested and FDA cleared preservative into vaccines is not "dumb".
Having to remove said preservative because because people committed medical fraud (and later lost their licenses) to create fear about it and because a bunch of people picked up on it as a desperate, now-negatively validated reason for their child having autism?
That's dumb. But the manufacturers did it anyway because people are dumb.
Putting a known biologically tested and FDA cleared preservative into vaccines is not "dumb".
Having to remove said preservative because because people committed medical fraud (and later lost their licenses) to create fear about it and because a bunch of people picked up on it as a desperate, now-negatively validated reason for their child having autism?
That's dumb. But the manufacturers did it anyway because people are dumb.
You missed the phrasing slightly. I said they both sound dumb, and it's only testing that can distinguish them. In an alternate universe, it's leaded gasoline that is safe and mercury in vaccines that is poisoning people.
But in this universe, you can eat a can of tuna and have both!
> It seems to me these things should be considered unsafe by default, tested at small scale for years, proven to be bio-degradable and if used at scale introduced very slowly...
It sounds like you are describing the Precautionary Principle, which is unfortunately made light of here due to its impact on GMO food adoption in the EU. I do agree with you, but this idea seems to go against the hyper-growth form of capitalism which is generally accepted as the only option in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
It sounds like you are describing the Precautionary Principle, which is unfortunately made light of here due to its impact on GMO food adoption in the EU. I do agree with you, but this idea seems to go against the hyper-growth form of capitalism which is generally accepted as the only option in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
The problem with the Precautionary Principal (that you seem to describe) is that it doesn't account for opportunity cost. New compounds are developed for a reason and to contribute some value to society. That could be a very small convenience optimization, or could be for a life-saving purpose.
While we're waiting for some compound to be deemed 'safe' for some particular use, society is missing out on the benefits of that use.
The COVID vaccine is a very timely example of this. It/they haven't gone through nearly the amount of testing and trials that are normally required. But we're going ahead with it anyway, since waiting would cost more lives. This is a judgement call that some set of fallible humans has made. Easy in this huge, public, major case. But for the thousands of compounds developed yearly, who decides this, and at what cost to society in lives, quality of life and resources?
And this doesn't count the resources that society has to spend to make the determination of safety, which have their own opportunity cost as well.
While we're waiting for some compound to be deemed 'safe' for some particular use, society is missing out on the benefits of that use.
The COVID vaccine is a very timely example of this. It/they haven't gone through nearly the amount of testing and trials that are normally required. But we're going ahead with it anyway, since waiting would cost more lives. This is a judgement call that some set of fallible humans has made. Easy in this huge, public, major case. But for the thousands of compounds developed yearly, who decides this, and at what cost to society in lives, quality of life and resources?
And this doesn't count the resources that society has to spend to make the determination of safety, which have their own opportunity cost as well.
Taking a step back: here, incidentally, they were trying to basically facilitate driving, which is not really in the interest of society / life on the planet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe the vaccine is actually a bad idea? I don't think so.
But even if it turned out to have terrible side effects, that would only affect people (the people alive now and taking the vaccine) and not the environment (all the humans and other animals, present and future).
Maybe the vaccine is actually a bad idea? I don't think so.
But even if it turned out to have terrible side effects, that would only affect people (the people alive now and taking the vaccine) and not the environment (all the humans and other animals, present and future).
Underlying this all is a sort of scientism issue. On the one hand you have a culture that assumes the framework of a scientific framework is "truth" and that the lingua franca of risk should be demonstrable evidence. On the other is a culture that denies the realism of the scientific studies, and sees risk in misrepresentative evidence.
Generally speaking, the latter camp gets labeled as "antiscientific" by the former, and the former gets labeled as "elitist" or having conflicts of interest. It's part of a theme that seems to be popping up a lot in the last several years or so in numerous settings: which is worse, lack of evidence or misleading evidence?
This example with the salmon is interesting to me because (if I'm understanding it correctly), the compound in the tire isn't the problem, it's a byproduct of tire breakdown. So I could see a chemist in the lab sitting there saying "ok we ran our tests on X it's fine" without understanding that in the real world, X reacts and breaks down into other compounds that are problematic. It's kind of a prime example of how the scientific model isn't the correct one to be using in the first place. Within the bounds of the model, X is fine, but the model is wrong as a representation of reality, so the conclusions are wrong.
I think underlying a lot of this are differing ideas of what is "scientific", or what constitutes the universe of risks. I don't see this dynamic changing until certain cultures surrounding scientific authority change.
Generally speaking, the latter camp gets labeled as "antiscientific" by the former, and the former gets labeled as "elitist" or having conflicts of interest. It's part of a theme that seems to be popping up a lot in the last several years or so in numerous settings: which is worse, lack of evidence or misleading evidence?
This example with the salmon is interesting to me because (if I'm understanding it correctly), the compound in the tire isn't the problem, it's a byproduct of tire breakdown. So I could see a chemist in the lab sitting there saying "ok we ran our tests on X it's fine" without understanding that in the real world, X reacts and breaks down into other compounds that are problematic. It's kind of a prime example of how the scientific model isn't the correct one to be using in the first place. Within the bounds of the model, X is fine, but the model is wrong as a representation of reality, so the conclusions are wrong.
I think underlying a lot of this are differing ideas of what is "scientific", or what constitutes the universe of risks. I don't see this dynamic changing until certain cultures surrounding scientific authority change.
The solution to poor results from scientific work is better scientific work, not throwing out the scientific model.
The issue described is akin to testing some new code with unit, integration, and end-to-end tests, and running it for some time in a dev environment, but not running it in a QA environment that mirrors production, and not monitoring it for issues when it does get deployed to production.
The response there wouldn't be "the test/devops model isn't the correct one to use in the first place", it's that the testing and QA was inadequate because it only looked at an idealized model of reality and didn't consider "where the rubber meets the road" (literally). Testing something in isolation is insufficient, since you need to test the downstream effects and potential complex interactions with everything else in the environment.
There is no testism problem; only a poor testing problem. Unless, as you say in your last sentence, one is just arguing about definition semantics - e.g. if "QA" falls under "testing", or, here, if "real-world observation" falls under "scientific testing". I'd argue both do. I think your concerns might be better phrased as "lab model" and "lab-ism".
The issue described is akin to testing some new code with unit, integration, and end-to-end tests, and running it for some time in a dev environment, but not running it in a QA environment that mirrors production, and not monitoring it for issues when it does get deployed to production.
The response there wouldn't be "the test/devops model isn't the correct one to use in the first place", it's that the testing and QA was inadequate because it only looked at an idealized model of reality and didn't consider "where the rubber meets the road" (literally). Testing something in isolation is insufficient, since you need to test the downstream effects and potential complex interactions with everything else in the environment.
There is no testism problem; only a poor testing problem. Unless, as you say in your last sentence, one is just arguing about definition semantics - e.g. if "QA" falls under "testing", or, here, if "real-world observation" falls under "scientific testing". I'd argue both do. I think your concerns might be better phrased as "lab model" and "lab-ism".
>It's kind of a prime example of how the scientific model isn't the correct one to be using in the first place.
What's your proposed alternative to science for determining the products of tire breakdown? Asking psychics? Polling facebook moms? Voting on it in Congress?
What's your proposed alternative to science for determining the products of tire breakdown? Asking psychics? Polling facebook moms? Voting on it in Congress?
Maybe what I wrote was misleading or vague. What I mean is that to do a study, you have some model. It's implicit in the way the data is collected, whether that be experiment or observational study. But it's a model with assumptions.
The problem is that all models are wrong to varying extents, but often in the scientific community the wrongness of models isn't recognized. You estimate your effect size or the p-value or posterior predictive p or whatever it is, but all those themselves are some estimates based on assumptions, and there's always some probability of being radically incorrect.
My concern isn't with science per se, it's that science as a community is often too arrogant and underestimates the extent to which it is likely to be incorrect. I just think critics need to be given more respect, especially when the argument against the critics is "we did a carefully controlled lab study under isolated conditions."
Maybe there needs to be a greater meta-scientific perspective with these things, like some policy that explicitly asks "how often when these types of evidence are submitted is something wrong?"
The problem is that all models are wrong to varying extents, but often in the scientific community the wrongness of models isn't recognized. You estimate your effect size or the p-value or posterior predictive p or whatever it is, but all those themselves are some estimates based on assumptions, and there's always some probability of being radically incorrect.
My concern isn't with science per se, it's that science as a community is often too arrogant and underestimates the extent to which it is likely to be incorrect. I just think critics need to be given more respect, especially when the argument against the critics is "we did a carefully controlled lab study under isolated conditions."
Maybe there needs to be a greater meta-scientific perspective with these things, like some policy that explicitly asks "how often when these types of evidence are submitted is something wrong?"
The scientific method enables us to rigorously build models.
But it takes effort, so the model only expands in the directions where a person chooses to the do that work. Scientific models are a communal human artefact, flawed with the bias and inattention of those that built them.
The is a lot we know about the world, from history, from our experience, that we are not able to express with enough rigor to include them in a scientific model.
So we can be confident that our scientific understanding of any new compound, will not gives us a complete understanding of the impact of that compound in the world. From history we have a partial map of our ignorance. We know from past experience that there are realms of unknown - ecological effects, decomposition products, birth defects, health impacts - associated with new products. We know there is a very big difference between safe and no known adverse impacts
Rather than an alternative to science, we need a more vigorous meta model, better appreciation of where the model ends, and a better model for how we should act given our ignorance. I don't think we lack the ability to do this, it's a matter of will and power.
But it takes effort, so the model only expands in the directions where a person chooses to the do that work. Scientific models are a communal human artefact, flawed with the bias and inattention of those that built them.
The is a lot we know about the world, from history, from our experience, that we are not able to express with enough rigor to include them in a scientific model.
So we can be confident that our scientific understanding of any new compound, will not gives us a complete understanding of the impact of that compound in the world. From history we have a partial map of our ignorance. We know from past experience that there are realms of unknown - ecological effects, decomposition products, birth defects, health impacts - associated with new products. We know there is a very big difference between safe and no known adverse impacts
Rather than an alternative to science, we need a more vigorous meta model, better appreciation of where the model ends, and a better model for how we should act given our ignorance. I don't think we lack the ability to do this, it's a matter of will and power.
>The is a lot we know about the world, from history, from our experience, that we are not able to express with enough rigor to include them in a scientific model.
Of course, gut feeling and "pontification-based" methods still have to prove themselves effective. You would need to have one group pontificate about the future using your meta-level thinking, and another group just focus on the concrete-level, and demonstrate that the proposed meta-model would improve the situation. A system to figure out what scientific discoveries were going to be made before they are made would be nice, but you can't just pick an oracle and say you've found it.
Of course, gut feeling and "pontification-based" methods still have to prove themselves effective. You would need to have one group pontificate about the future using your meta-level thinking, and another group just focus on the concrete-level, and demonstrate that the proposed meta-model would improve the situation. A system to figure out what scientific discoveries were going to be made before they are made would be nice, but you can't just pick an oracle and say you've found it.
Look up scientism.
The whole point is we need to accept that no single method will give us this kind of visibility and understanding, and given that fact we should be more careful about certain things, especially things we just seem to keep miscalculating and that have long-lasting, terrible effects.
That's actual science vs. commercial/industrial marketing masquerading as science.
The whole point is we need to accept that no single method will give us this kind of visibility and understanding, and given that fact we should be more careful about certain things, especially things we just seem to keep miscalculating and that have long-lasting, terrible effects.
That's actual science vs. commercial/industrial marketing masquerading as science.
Unfortunately, alternatives to science are being pushed right now in the current culture war. Google “other ways of knowing”.
Worth pointing out just because your appeal to absurdism (which most of us would agree with) is losing steam in the marketplace of ideas.
Worth pointing out just because your appeal to absurdism (which most of us would agree with) is losing steam in the marketplace of ideas.
> It's kind of a prime example of how the scientific model isn't the correct one to be using in the first place.
This seems to be a category error - after all it was science that found the problem also.
I think you are poking around the edges of something real here, but suspect the thinking is muddy still and falling into a false dichotomy. There is a lot of confusion about the role of science and what it can and can't do, but I don't think it maps at all purely onto the "culture wars" as you are seeming to suggest.
This seems to be a category error - after all it was science that found the problem also.
I think you are poking around the edges of something real here, but suspect the thinking is muddy still and falling into a false dichotomy. There is a lot of confusion about the role of science and what it can and can't do, but I don't think it maps at all purely onto the "culture wars" as you are seeming to suggest.
> the scientific model
What you described isn't "the scientific model" but merely one flawed study. Science is the process of learning about the world. Scientific paradigms change. Right now we seem to have a statistical frequentist paradigm in most fields, but it's shifting towards Bayesian. The business science field still seems stuck in the case study / anecdote paradigm, though it's also shifting.
If the science doesn't seek to learn about "the real world" then it's bad science.
What you described isn't "the scientific model" but merely one flawed study. Science is the process of learning about the world. Scientific paradigms change. Right now we seem to have a statistical frequentist paradigm in most fields, but it's shifting towards Bayesian. The business science field still seems stuck in the case study / anecdote paradigm, though it's also shifting.
If the science doesn't seek to learn about "the real world" then it's bad science.
> It's kind of a prime example of how the scientific model isn't the correct one to be using in the first place
Do you mean "this particular scientific model" (which lacks the analysis of byproducts) or the scientific method? If the latter, what other method would you use instead?
Do you mean "this particular scientific model" (which lacks the analysis of byproducts) or the scientific method? If the latter, what other method would you use instead?
The issue is that you can't prove a negative, not even the scientific method can achieve this. So you can prove harm, or benefits, but you can't prove an absence of harm.
So while the scientific method is fine, applying it without an abundance of caution commensurate to the potential negative impacts leads to poor outcomes in the long run.
So while the scientific method is fine, applying it without an abundance of caution commensurate to the potential negative impacts leads to poor outcomes in the long run.
You can't truly "prove" harm or benefits either they just happen to be things you can very easily make the error bounds minuscule on. Likewise the problem with "absence of harm" is making the error bounds small is extremely slow and costly so we avoid it. The scientific method (or any method to this point) never ends up "proving" anything, you always have to set what error bounds are acceptable.
Which leads to the real overall point I suppose - is there something better we could be using as "just never make anything new" isn't free of problems either so it's a question of "what's the best method" not "what method can guarantee something" (none so far can).
Which leads to the real overall point I suppose - is there something better we could be using as "just never make anything new" isn't free of problems either so it's a question of "what's the best method" not "what method can guarantee something" (none so far can).
In the EU new substances seem to need registration at least. It's called REACH regulation:
https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach
https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach
This has lots of practicality problems, obviously.
The individual accountability is certainly tough, particularly since we learn about impacts only over time. And discoveries like these are studied, applied and distributed by ultimately hundreds to thousands of people.
The individual accountability is certainly tough, particularly since we learn about impacts only over time. And discoveries like these are studied, applied and distributed by ultimately hundreds to thousands of people.
Exactly why the covid vaccine is so risky... we won't know long term effects for years.
> eg. putting teflon or PFAS in literally everything because why not.
But it wasn't because "why not" it was because there were very concrete benefits. This is why the fundamental issue is policy, not science - the science can only help you understand a situation better, it can't answer "what is the right amount of risk to take".
The precautionary approach you suggest isn't a new idea, but it has very real negative economic effect at minimum, and a complex relationship with other issues. Collectively, somehow (e.g. legislative bodies) we have to attempt the impossible task of finding the "right" position on the scale between don't-trust-anything-new to anything goes. Clearly both these extremes are problematic, but balancing them is really hard.
But it wasn't because "why not" it was because there were very concrete benefits. This is why the fundamental issue is policy, not science - the science can only help you understand a situation better, it can't answer "what is the right amount of risk to take".
The precautionary approach you suggest isn't a new idea, but it has very real negative economic effect at minimum, and a complex relationship with other issues. Collectively, somehow (e.g. legislative bodies) we have to attempt the impossible task of finding the "right" position on the scale between don't-trust-anything-new to anything goes. Clearly both these extremes are problematic, but balancing them is really hard.
How does one individual remedy this for themselves?
> chemical engineers who facilitate this insanity should be held responsible.
It took decades for a lot of people working on this problem to identify the cause of the salmon deaths.
Do not expect the individual chemical engineer to be able to come close to knowing how safe a chemical is.
It took decades for a lot of people working on this problem to identify the cause of the salmon deaths.
Do not expect the individual chemical engineer to be able to come close to knowing how safe a chemical is.
[deleted]
There's millions, maybe billions of different chemicals created by biological processes too.
But I get your point and I think there's something to be done advising caution with certain classes of chemicals. For example, ones containing Bromine and Fluorine have a much higher chance of being dangerous because their bonds are so strong
But I get your point and I think there's something to be done advising caution with certain classes of chemicals. For example, ones containing Bromine and Fluorine have a much higher chance of being dangerous because their bonds are so strong
The paper A ubiquitous tire rubber–derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon [1]:
> In U.S. Pacific Northwest coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), stormwater exposure annually causes unexplained acute mortality when adult salmon migrate to urban creeks to reproduce. By investigating this phenomenon, we identified a highly toxic quinone transformation product of N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine) (6PPD), a globally ubiquitous tire rubber antioxidant.
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/12/09/scie...
> In U.S. Pacific Northwest coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), stormwater exposure annually causes unexplained acute mortality when adult salmon migrate to urban creeks to reproduce. By investigating this phenomenon, we identified a highly toxic quinone transformation product of N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine) (6PPD), a globally ubiquitous tire rubber antioxidant.
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/12/09/scie...
"The team is in conversations with the tire industry and hopes manufacturers will be willing to look for a replacement preservative" - Is this how it usually works? I'd think they should contact some regulator that makes sure tires containing this cannot be sold. Companies don't do things to be nice.
Right now, the question to answer is "how much would it cost to use a different chemical?" and the answer could be "Oh, we just have to use one of the 100 different ones from our catalog, that's barely a tenth of a cent of difference" or it could be "no can do, this is a crucial molecule that prevents tires from rotting in winter."
Once you know that, you can approach regulators who will have to weight between the interests of the fish industry and the interests of the tires industry.
Once you know that, you can approach regulators who will have to weight between the interests of the fish industry and the interests of the tires industry.
>who will have to weight between the interests of the fish industry and the interests of the tires industry.
This bothers me. It's not about the 'fish industry' it's about weighting the interests of the tire industry against the life in the Puget sound ecosystem.
https://wildsalmoncenter.org/why-protect-salmon/
>Few animals have been as central to the Pacific human experience as salmon. Their annual migrations are a miracle of nature. They feed us and their presence tells us that our rivers are still healthy. From grizzly bears to orca whales, at least 137 different species depend on the marine-rich nutrients that wild salmon provide
>Salmon and freshwater ecosystems are inextricably linked by feedbacks between salmon runs, food webs, and riparian forests. Salmon runs function as enormous pumps that push vast amounts of marine nutrients from the ocean to the headwaters of otherwise low productivity rivers. For example, sockeye salmon runs in southwest Alaska contribute up to 170 tons of phosphorous per year to Lake Illiamna. These nutrients are incorporated into food webs in rivers and surrounding landscapes by a host of over 50 species of mammals, birds, and fish that forage on salmon eggs, juveniles, and adults in freshwater. Predators, such as brown bears, disperse these marine nutrients into surrounding forests, enhancing the growth of stream-side trees that shade and protect stream banks from excessive erosion
This bothers me. It's not about the 'fish industry' it's about weighting the interests of the tire industry against the life in the Puget sound ecosystem.
https://wildsalmoncenter.org/why-protect-salmon/
>Few animals have been as central to the Pacific human experience as salmon. Their annual migrations are a miracle of nature. They feed us and their presence tells us that our rivers are still healthy. From grizzly bears to orca whales, at least 137 different species depend on the marine-rich nutrients that wild salmon provide
>Salmon and freshwater ecosystems are inextricably linked by feedbacks between salmon runs, food webs, and riparian forests. Salmon runs function as enormous pumps that push vast amounts of marine nutrients from the ocean to the headwaters of otherwise low productivity rivers. For example, sockeye salmon runs in southwest Alaska contribute up to 170 tons of phosphorous per year to Lake Illiamna. These nutrients are incorporated into food webs in rivers and surrounding landscapes by a host of over 50 species of mammals, birds, and fish that forage on salmon eggs, juveniles, and adults in freshwater. Predators, such as brown bears, disperse these marine nutrients into surrounding forests, enhancing the growth of stream-side trees that shade and protect stream banks from excessive erosion
I am stating it how it is, not as I think it should be.
If its really that localized, why doesn't the state of Washington just ban the chemical? Not unprecidented for a state to have its own environmental regs that are stricter than national regs. And since there are no salmon migrating up rivers in Kentucky, it should be less of a concern there and you don't need to spend effort/political favors getting the support from the Kentucky delegation in congress.
Sure it would not be perfect, because you would still have out-of-state vehicles using the roads, but it would be an improvement that could probably get done a lot faster and it might be enough.
Sure it would not be perfect, because you would still have out-of-state vehicles using the roads, but it would be an improvement that could probably get done a lot faster and it might be enough.
>why doesn't the state of Washington just ban the chemical?
Is it just salmon affected by this chemical?
It looks like Kentucky has both cutthroat and rainbow trout. Both of which are actually species of salmon in the genus Oncorhynchus, which are true salmon.
Would they be affected by the chemical?
How about other species of fish?
That's the thing about this kind of stuff, it's not necessarily localized. There's a lot we don't know about ecosystems and the long term effects of chemicals like this. Chances are though, if it affects one area in such a negative way, it'll have other negative effects.
Is it just salmon affected by this chemical?
It looks like Kentucky has both cutthroat and rainbow trout. Both of which are actually species of salmon in the genus Oncorhynchus, which are true salmon.
Would they be affected by the chemical?
How about other species of fish?
That's the thing about this kind of stuff, it's not necessarily localized. There's a lot we don't know about ecosystems and the long term effects of chemicals like this. Chances are though, if it affects one area in such a negative way, it'll have other negative effects.
This research was motivated by the runoff effect being especially acute in coho salmon.
It probably affects other species, too. Now that we know the chemical responsible it will be easier to test that.
It probably affects other species, too. Now that we know the chemical responsible it will be easier to test that.
Well start with what we know. We have a problem in the Puget Sound area. I'm not hearing anything about trout in Kentucky.
A lot of environmnental regulation got its start with regulation in California that spread from there. It's easier to get something passed locally than to get national support from day one.
A lot of environmnental regulation got its start with regulation in California that spread from there. It's easier to get something passed locally than to get national support from day one.
> I'm not hearing anything about trout in Kentucky.
That probably says more about environment research funding in Kentucky than it does their fish.
Washington is one of the most pro-science states in the US, the Puget Sound area has one of the greatest concentration of environmentally focused people, and salmon are historically deeply ingrained in Washington culture. If it took all of that to garner enough resources to discover this problem, imagine all of the other environmental disasters out there that we're simply oblivious to.
That probably says more about environment research funding in Kentucky than it does their fish.
Washington is one of the most pro-science states in the US, the Puget Sound area has one of the greatest concentration of environmentally focused people, and salmon are historically deeply ingrained in Washington culture. If it took all of that to garner enough resources to discover this problem, imagine all of the other environmental disasters out there that we're simply oblivious to.
It's probably in the tires because of regulation, and it cannot be taken out without a suitable replacement and without relaxing some other requirement on the tires.
Apparently, 6-PPD is there to scavenge ozone. If that ozone doesn't have anything harmless to react with, it reacts with the rubber, which makes it brittle. Ozone scavengers prolong the life of the tire, and make it safer.
Companies don't do things because they are James Bond villains, either.
Apparently, 6-PPD is there to scavenge ozone. If that ozone doesn't have anything harmless to react with, it reacts with the rubber, which makes it brittle. Ozone scavengers prolong the life of the tire, and make it safer.
Companies don't do things because they are James Bond villains, either.
Right, companies are amoral rather than immoral actors.
Shareholder value is the sole driver of corporate decision making. Civic duty in particular has no role.
Shareholder value is the sole driver of corporate decision making. Civic duty in particular has no role.
I'm surprised, too. And the companies in question should be fined quite substantially, in my opinion. We need to create incentive for them to actually research the possible detrimental environmental impact of their products -- scientists shouldn't have to beg them to use substitutes and the matter shouldn't be settled with the companies responding something along the lines of "whoops, we didn't know that."
Yeah, the tire companies deserve some fines, but I think the drivers who smeared these tires all over the roads are even more responsible for the environmental impact. The drivers should be allowed to get away with "whoops, we didn't know that.".
I disagree with that sentiment. I do not consider the consumer to be the one responsible of researching the safety of a product, the responsible party is clearly the one that produced and marketed the product.
I don't suppose that any products that you use have unexpected impacts? Have you done the research?
It's silly to expect consumers to verify safety upfront. if products are shown to be toxic and alternatives exist, then you can start expecting consumers to choose the less toxic version.
It's silly to expect consumers to verify safety upfront. if products are shown to be toxic and alternatives exist, then you can start expecting consumers to choose the less toxic version.
I suppose tire companies might be willing to find a replacement in order to skip the potential regulations and bad PR.
It makes sense to start with the companies: if they view this as something that will inevitably be regulated there is a reasonable chance they’ll just comply voluntarily to save the bad PR. They might even see an opportunity for good PR.
This approach, if successful, will be way faster than starting with regulation.
This approach, if successful, will be way faster than starting with regulation.
I think this is incredibly naive. If bad PR worked, there would be a lot more companies going bankrupt.
The manufacturers are not stupid, they know the next stop will be legislators. Companies prefer to get ahead of things and self-regulate if they know that the alternative is almost certainly going to be government bureaucrats stepping in (which they will anyway - this is going to be like BPA). The results are damning enough that they probably don’t want to waste any time, and finding an alternative will probably take some research.
Note that they said this affects every tire on the market, so this isn’t a case of reporting a few manufacturers. This is going to result in an industry-wide change.
Note that they said this affects every tire on the market, so this isn’t a case of reporting a few manufacturers. This is going to result in an industry-wide change.
My concern with this is that it will likely take at a minimum 1-2 years for tire manufacturers to research new compounds that eliminate this chemical. Then it will take probably another year, at best, before manufacturing plants are transitioned over to build this new compound and we start to see the new compound trickle down into new tires. Then it will take 2-4 years to propagate that compound across the entire product line and/or industry.
Once the compound is readily available across the industry, then we can rest assured that new tires will be "safe". But tires have a usable life of 2-5 years depending on the type of tire. So it will take many more years before people with "non-safe" tires purchase new ones that are "salmon-safe". Remember also that some people (generally as a result of financial concern) may drag tire use out to 8 or even 10 years.
This puts a timeline for "safe tires" at 10-20 years from now! I hate to shout "doomsday", but the Salmon may not have that long. Salmon only live 2-3 years on average before spawning. According to this article, 90% of them are dying due to this chemical during their trip up Puget Sound urban rivers to spawn. Salmon are already operating at low population rates. So we may not have decades to sit and figure this out.
As a more immediate alternative, I would like to see if there is a way to neutralize or catch this 6PPD chemical with some type of "filter" in the road runoff pipes or a road-coating that could be installed in critical areas. This would seem like a more immediate solution that wouldn't require global or national "buy-in" from tire manufacturers.
And of course all this assumes that tire manufacturers care enough to save the salmon. This is the type of thing that regulation is useful for instead of relying on tire manufacturers to "do the right thing".
Once the compound is readily available across the industry, then we can rest assured that new tires will be "safe". But tires have a usable life of 2-5 years depending on the type of tire. So it will take many more years before people with "non-safe" tires purchase new ones that are "salmon-safe". Remember also that some people (generally as a result of financial concern) may drag tire use out to 8 or even 10 years.
This puts a timeline for "safe tires" at 10-20 years from now! I hate to shout "doomsday", but the Salmon may not have that long. Salmon only live 2-3 years on average before spawning. According to this article, 90% of them are dying due to this chemical during their trip up Puget Sound urban rivers to spawn. Salmon are already operating at low population rates. So we may not have decades to sit and figure this out.
As a more immediate alternative, I would like to see if there is a way to neutralize or catch this 6PPD chemical with some type of "filter" in the road runoff pipes or a road-coating that could be installed in critical areas. This would seem like a more immediate solution that wouldn't require global or national "buy-in" from tire manufacturers.
And of course all this assumes that tire manufacturers care enough to save the salmon. This is the type of thing that regulation is useful for instead of relying on tire manufacturers to "do the right thing".
> This puts a timeline for "safe tires" at 10-20 years from now!
No, it puts a maximum end date for 100% removal at 10-20 years. Incremental progress can happen much sooner. What you describe is basically the speed that most large-scale changes occur at. It's just how it goes.
> I hate to shout "doomsday", but the Salmon may not have that long. Salmon only live 2-3 years on average before spawning.
The salmon will bounce back. It is a real concern and problem that we need to fix, but we are not on the brink of extinction and don't need to panic.
> According to this article, 90% of them are dying due to this chemical during their trip up Puget Sound urban rivers to spawn.
90% in some streams. That's the worst case number, but there are many streams in Washington, many of which are not in urban areas.
No, it puts a maximum end date for 100% removal at 10-20 years. Incremental progress can happen much sooner. What you describe is basically the speed that most large-scale changes occur at. It's just how it goes.
> I hate to shout "doomsday", but the Salmon may not have that long. Salmon only live 2-3 years on average before spawning.
The salmon will bounce back. It is a real concern and problem that we need to fix, but we are not on the brink of extinction and don't need to panic.
> According to this article, 90% of them are dying due to this chemical during their trip up Puget Sound urban rivers to spawn.
90% in some streams. That's the worst case number, but there are many streams in Washington, many of which are not in urban areas.
I think it would be acceptable to regulate more harshly where the salmon live. Make regulations that force getting the new tires as soon as possible if you live within 100 miles of a river with salmon or your commute touches this zone.
That way you could get the results in 2-3 years with a minimal extra cost because only a small part of the US and Canada have to renew their tires earlier.
That way you could get the results in 2-3 years with a minimal extra cost because only a small part of the US and Canada have to renew their tires earlier.
What's your proposed enforcement mechanism? Where I live in the puget sound region, there's no regular inspections on vehicles, because my county doesn't require emission checks, and WA doesn't have a periodic safety inspection, so a tire check program would be a totally new thing.
It seems to me that trying to figure out if that chemical can be replaced with something else, and if that something else is safe would be priority one. Priority two would be trying to filter the urban runoff somehow (which is probably a positive for many other pollutants). Getting people to switch their tires a little sooner seems like too much effort for too little gain; tires are going to wear out or get too old and be replaced anyway, and there's a lot of cars from out of the area.
Maybe, you could do a rebate program to encourage people in the area to update a little sooner.
It seems to me that trying to figure out if that chemical can be replaced with something else, and if that something else is safe would be priority one. Priority two would be trying to filter the urban runoff somehow (which is probably a positive for many other pollutants). Getting people to switch their tires a little sooner seems like too much effort for too little gain; tires are going to wear out or get too old and be replaced anyway, and there's a lot of cars from out of the area.
Maybe, you could do a rebate program to encourage people in the area to update a little sooner.
>WA doesn't have a periodic safety inspection, so a tire check program would be a totally new thing.
Ok, wow, that's so unexpected. In Germany we have mandatory safety and emissions inspections every two years.
That also explains why there were so many parts of tires on roads in WA, last time I was there.
>Maybe, you could do a rebate program to encourage people in the area to update a little sooner.
That would probably get us 80% of the way there, especially if you tell people why they should switch.
Ok, wow, that's so unexpected. In Germany we have mandatory safety and emissions inspections every two years.
That also explains why there were so many parts of tires on roads in WA, last time I was there.
>Maybe, you could do a rebate program to encourage people in the area to update a little sooner.
That would probably get us 80% of the way there, especially if you tell people why they should switch.
Several Pacific Northwest US salmon species are on the brink of extinction. Tire pollution is one of several independent attacks on them. When they're gone, we won't quarrel over which really did them in.
There is not likely to be a way to catch enough runoff to prevent this.
> Companies don't do things to be nice.
They do if it gives them a market advantage. If Goodyear can market tires that are more "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" than their rivals that will resonate with consumers who focus on such things (many of them, particularly millenials and younger).
We saw this with trans-fats in food. They aren't prohibited by the FDA, but most producers have eliminated them and have "Zero Trans Fats" emblazoned across the package labeling, because it sells better. Seeing this effect also with high-fructose corn syrup.
They do if it gives them a market advantage. If Goodyear can market tires that are more "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" than their rivals that will resonate with consumers who focus on such things (many of them, particularly millenials and younger).
We saw this with trans-fats in food. They aren't prohibited by the FDA, but most producers have eliminated them and have "Zero Trans Fats" emblazoned across the package labeling, because it sells better. Seeing this effect also with high-fructose corn syrup.
That's the point. They don't do it to be nice, they do it because it helps the bottom line. I don't think it's helpful nor accurate to conflate the two, as it only serves corporations who want to ride on paper-thin "social responsibility" PR.
I guess I don't see the difference.
People running the corporations who decide to be "socially responsible" are "being nice." The reason they do it is because their customers want/will pay for "social responsibility." If nobody wants social responsibility, why would it fall on corporations to do it anyway? Why do they get demonized and everyone else gets off the hook?
People running the corporations who decide to be "socially responsible" are "being nice." The reason they do it is because their customers want/will pay for "social responsibility." If nobody wants social responsibility, why would it fall on corporations to do it anyway? Why do they get demonized and everyone else gets off the hook?
You don't see the difference likely because your moral value system prioritizes outcomes instead of intent. This is not a bad way of looking at it and I'm not criticizing that perspective.
They get demonized because there is nothing stopping them from simply undoing all those policies once the bottom line dictates otherwise. The public cannot trust corporations who act in that way, and when they inevitably do, they get valid criticism for it. They are using language in sinister and misleading ways, and for most people that is equivalent to lying.
They get demonized because there is nothing stopping them from simply undoing all those policies once the bottom line dictates otherwise. The public cannot trust corporations who act in that way, and when they inevitably do, they get valid criticism for it. They are using language in sinister and misleading ways, and for most people that is equivalent to lying.
Trans fats were banned by the FDA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/18/artif...
Great that they were able to identify a clear candidate. This type of testing of course can't be done on humans to eg identify hormone disruptors. Are there other methods to verify such damaging chemicals, or are we condemned to live with permanent small-scale damage?
Big datasets matching health outcomes to blood sample spectroscopy seems like a good candidate for identifying chemicals which detrimentally affect human health by small amounts.
Obviously you won't be able to separate cause and effect, but in my view if "X chemical in people's blood leads to a higher likelihood of dropping out of school", thats a good enough reason to restrict the use of X, even if it sometimes turns out there is no causal effect.
Obviously you won't be able to separate cause and effect, but in my view if "X chemical in people's blood leads to a higher likelihood of dropping out of school", thats a good enough reason to restrict the use of X, even if it sometimes turns out there is no causal effect.
It is a statistical nightmare to do what you suggest.
1. False correlations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
2. True correlations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
3. The number of normal compounds in our body from cell processes or digestion is large. Measuring tiny amounts of unknown compounds is extremely hard in that environment.
A better way is to proscribe more in-depth testing of compounds on animals. Removing all other factors gives statistical power to observations.
1. False correlations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
2. True correlations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
3. The number of normal compounds in our body from cell processes or digestion is large. Measuring tiny amounts of unknown compounds is extremely hard in that environment.
A better way is to proscribe more in-depth testing of compounds on animals. Removing all other factors gives statistical power to observations.
We could. I mean lead is commonly identified by blood test.
Black box modelling by trying different thing on humans is hopeless. We will have to figure out the mechanisms.
They use shredded tires in children’s playgrounds as artificial turf. A few years ago a soccer coach made the connection between that turf and children getting weird cancers and has been campaigning against them ever since.
It looks like tires are much more toxic than we thought and we should reconsider their composition quickly.
It looks like tires are much more toxic than we thought and we should reconsider their composition quickly.
Yeah a couple of professional goalies got lymphoma too.
That's terrible! All the salmon in the playground will die!
Do you have a link for this?
As a kid, I remember playing at playgrounds made entirely of old tires. Shedded tires on the ground, big farm tractor tires to climb on. Car tires stacked up to form towers. I wonder what impact that had on the thousands of kids that passed through there.
I feel like the best option is to recycle the tires into tarmac and reuse as much into new tires as well. The other thing is to live far away from major roads.
Recycling into roads sort of sucks for people who live near roads already (among all the other stuff they have to breathe in from car exhaust).
Most of it is already tire particulate matter. The only upside is that it makes the roads quieter... but I think the main problem with noise is that most vehicles are misaligned and out of balance.
It would be interesting why this hasn't been observerd at other places.
I guess there are many places where road dirt is swept Info rivers.
I've seen studies where they tracked wild Norwegian salmon, and found that 90% died before spawning. As far as I understood it, this was interpreted as "natural death", but it's the same figure as the one in the article. It seems like a very plausible explanation that those deaths also largely occurred due to the same poisoning from tires.
It's surprising they did not check toxicity on other salmon species. Either it's specific to the coho salmon, which is maybe unlikely, or other salmon species are not stocked in streams near cities?
Fish in general have been undergoing a mass extinction event in recent decades. We normally blame it on overfishing, but effects like this could have been right under nose the entire time and simply missed because nobody was looking for it.
They have to start somewhere. I'm sure we'll see more papers in the future.
The salmon swim up Cedar River in Renton, WA which a heavily used road follows and crosses the river few times. That gives plenty of opportunity for runoff to get into the river.
BTW - the Cedar River also flows past Renton Airport which serves small aircraft which use aviation gasoline. That fuel is still allowed to contain tetra-ethyl lead. This is another environmental issue that should be addressed.
I'd theorize it has, but nobody has been able to coordinate such a focused investigation.
It rains a lot there, not in other places.
The paper also has data for Los Angeles, with concentrations begin similar.
I hope that the industry puts the required changes in place really soon and that it has the expected effect on Puget Sound. Are there any guesses whether a healthier salmon population would help the local Orcas as well?
So, are there any tire manufacturers that advertise their tires as being 6ppd free? I'd buy them.
It will end up like "BPA-free" beverage cans. Manufacturers just slightly change the chemical structure or use another plastic with not yet known adverse effects.
Which is why it's a tragedy that the EU chemical regulations weren't allowed to be based on a "you can use it if you can show it's safe" instead of "you can use it until someone else shows it's unsafe" principle. That would have been good.
Also impossible. Proving something safe is like proving a negative - proving a lack of something (harm).
I am not sure how this would work. For instance, what animals would it have to be tested on? This time it was Salmon in puget sound, but next time it could be geese in Alberta, or lizards in Argentina. It just seems like too big of a problem space.
The mode of transfer is urban stormwater runoff. Proving the replacement chemical is safe for the salmon is good enough.
Define 'safe' and 'unsafe'. That's not as easy as it seems, and it would be the source of endless bickering between business and the regulators.
It would be impossible to prove that a new chemical is safe until after decades of widespread use. Lab tests can only go so far
It's probably too early since this just came out.
But I suspect they can find an alternative to 6ppd and we just need a bit of publicity, and then maybe a year to reformulate tires.
But I suspect they can find an alternative to 6ppd and we just need a bit of publicity, and then maybe a year to reformulate tires.
[deleted]
Runoff carries all sorts of things into waters, and I think the issue is particularly bad when you have large denser areas like Seattle, since the concentration of unwanted chemicals in local waters can be huge. For example opioids from Seattle’s street level drug abuse can be found in local marine life: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/25/614593382...
tldr: “ The killer was the 6PPD-quinone from the tires in the roadway runoff.”
6PPD is an antioxidant added to tires, and the -quinone is the oxidized form (not sure if it oxidizes before/during/after manufacturing or after escaping the tire).
6PPD is an antioxidant added to tires, and the -quinone is the oxidized form (not sure if it oxidizes before/during/after manufacturing or after escaping the tire).
Based on the Wikipedia entry [0], it looks like 6PPD binds to the extra oxygen atom in ozone to convert it to regular O2, so it would be used during the life of the tire to prevent cracking.
I just read that ozone will cause cracks in regular rubber bands over time, I never knew that was the cause [1]. Interesting.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_cracking
I just read that ozone will cause cracks in regular rubber bands over time, I never knew that was the cause [1]. Interesting.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_cracking
I wonder how long the industry has been adding 6PPD to tires? For better or worse we got along without adding this to tires in the past.
Cracked tires: dangerous? Cosmetic? Or early warning that tires are getting old?
Cracked tires: dangerous? Cosmetic? Or early warning that tires are getting old?
Your tire is a pressure vessel. Cracks in in will be weak points. Your tire is thinner on the sides then the working face.
Ozone in the atmosphere react with the tire compound and weakens it, leading to cracks forming which exposes more and more area deeper in the tire body to ozone. increased area increases chance of reaction.
A tire that has recently been inflated to the upper limit of it's pressure range making stiff is traveling at 70 miles an hour, suddenly there is a spike in pressure as if hits a bump. The sidewall is weak.... How will this failure end?
Tire are not a fixed technology, the companies are always having to create and reformulate to drive the price lower, last longer, have better traction.
Ozone in the atmosphere react with the tire compound and weakens it, leading to cracks forming which exposes more and more area deeper in the tire body to ozone. increased area increases chance of reaction.
A tire that has recently been inflated to the upper limit of it's pressure range making stiff is traveling at 70 miles an hour, suddenly there is a spike in pressure as if hits a bump. The sidewall is weak.... How will this failure end?
Tire are not a fixed technology, the companies are always having to create and reformulate to drive the price lower, last longer, have better traction.
Good question. Of course, like many things, the answer usually is: the moment they discovered the 6PPD was a cheap substitute for xyz.
An article I read last week said from micro plastic from tire wear entering the water as runoff from the land.
Same thing? Its the chemical leaching from the rubber particles in the river.
Yes its chemical leaching.
"The researchers determined that the chemical is formed when a preservative known as 6PPD reacts with ozone. 6PPD is designed to extend the lifespan of tires by reacting with ozone in the surrounding air before it has a chance to interact with the rubber and weaken it, Kolodziej said."
https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/coho-salmon-toxic-c...
"The researchers determined that the chemical is formed when a preservative known as 6PPD reacts with ozone. 6PPD is designed to extend the lifespan of tires by reacting with ozone in the surrounding air before it has a chance to interact with the rubber and weaken it, Kolodziej said."
https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/coho-salmon-toxic-c...
To the person [1] who said tires don’t matter I guess we can have this discussion again? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23613705
Non-paywall link: https://archive.is/VvOTH
It's ironic that the toxicologist's name is McIntyre!
TLDR;
The killer was the 6PPD-quinone from the tires in the roadway runoff.
The killer was the 6PPD-quinone from the tires in the roadway runoff.
jeffrallen(1)
Putin?
Humans. Was it humans?
We keep churning out new compounds (~2000 every year??!) or new use cases for existing ones at insane scale or speed because "most of them are safe". Except the ones that aren't cause a wide range of damage, take 15 years to identify as causes, 15 more years to ban, 15 more to leave the ecosystem if they do at all, and are often replaced by minor variations that haven't been yet proven dangerous.
It seems to me these things should be considered unsafe by default, tested at small scale for years, proven to be bio-degradable and if used at scale introduced very slowly... which in many cases won't be possible, which will readjust our stance so we only use them when absolutely critical and necessary vs. eg. putting teflon or PFAS in literally everything because why not.
The other thing is individual accountability: chemical engineers who facilitate this insanity should be held responsible. Putting lead in gasoline and CFCs in the atmosphere used to get you medals, now similar "inventions" should get you a jail term proportionate to the damage caused.