[gfykvfyxgc]

Seems obviously BMAA but clearly the government don’t want to say so because it will destroy the lobster industry.

We should all be terrified of BMAA and it’s here because of climate change.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190124110834.h...

Climate change is making the oceans and fresh water toxic and very deadly. We’ve seriously fucked the earth.

Have you ever heard weasel words more reminiscent of a cover up:

“ But experts nonetheless warn that testing itself is also more difficult than the public realizes.

While some medical tests can provide quick and definite results other types of investigation require far more work.

“What people are talking about really amounts to a full research investigation, because then we know what we’re looking for precisely,” said the federal scientist who was familiar with both the cluster and the testing process. “Right now we don’t have a way to interpret simple data that you might get when testing a person’s brain tissue for a particular toxin. For example, how much are ‘elevated’ levels of a neurotoxin compared to the rest of the public? And when does that become a cause for concern?”

The scientist said teams are ready to begin the research, but “New Brunswick has specifically told us not to go forward with that work”.”

[relax88]

Seems more likely the old mines in the area are causing the contamination with BMAA and that it is being consumed in shellfish. BMAA contamination is often associated with old flooded mine shafts, and there are several in the area where these people are getting sick, most of them upstream.

Not sure why you're assuming this has anything to do with climate change. What could be the link there?

[andrewclunn]

I do wish that "climate change" was not lumped into every environmental concern. For example, if painting one of the blades black on a windmill means the birds don't fly into it and die, then let's do it! Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem.

[sudosysgen]

Cyanobacteria blooms are a cause of BMAA accumulation, and are very much linked to global warming.

Solving the immediate problem is nice but knowing about the root cause is absolutely important.

[fao_]

> Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem.

Personally I feel that splitting up interests that are inherently to do with climate change and ecology into individual issues is detrimental. However, you're probably right that capitalism is inefficient and utterly ineffective at large scale projects, and that splitting everything into isolated issues that cannot be seen to lead to anything bigger is a more "efficient" way to solve the general problem under capitalism, sure.

[marcosdumay]

This is not artificially splitting anything up.

Mines contamination has no relation at all with climate change. Birds death due to impact with windmills have nothing to do with climate change.

It's lumping those things up that is artificial. And if you add noise to your goal, don't be surprised when people start to question if your actions actually lead to your stated goals or if you have a hidden agenda... because you do have a hidden agenda. It's hidden because of bad communication, but people can't tell the difference.

[boppo1]

The guy you're talking to views the world through a lens of 'capitalism vs [utopian vision]', capitalism being everything wrong with status-quo economics. Don't waste your time suggesting practicalities.

[maxbond]

I'd point out that the mechanism you're proposing is itself an anthropogenic change in the environment. We've altered more than just the atmosphere of this planet. Their overall point, "we've effed this planet, and I believe that's caused this specific problem," would still hold, whether or not they were sufficiently precise with their language.

The ways we've "effed" the planet are so numerous and interconnected that it makes sense, at least to me, to lump them together into an umbrella term everyone is familiar with. There is no clean separation between our mining practices and what has happened to the water and what has happened to the atmosphere - they are intimately related.

[JohnJamesRambo]

This compound was new to me. Here's more info on it.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/2/83/htm

Seems to accumulate in bivalves and crustaceans but not fish.

[ratsmack]

More info from 2012 on the NIH site:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3295368/

This has been known for quite a while.

[chiefalchemist]

Not nitpicking but to clarify a bit, that study says

"Such blooms are a regular feature of Australian inland waterways and are increasing due to nutrient run-off, reduced river flows and climate change."

So while climate change (i.e., warming in targeted areas) doesn't help, it's more of the final nail in a series of nails we've been driving into Mother Nature's heart.

The idea we could be so negligent and abusive of our own home without repercussions is a great narrative for profits, but not so good for our home.

[jvanderbot]

The leading cause of toxic algae blooms like this is nutrient runoff.

The leading cause of nutrient runoff is over-fertilization of industrialized farmland.

I've never heard of climate change associated with these until now, but I've only worked tangentially with these phenomenon, and am not an expert.

[drjasonharrison]

You also get algae blooms when the water is warmer, because algae grow faster in warmer water. This leads to less oxygen in the water and less mixing of water layers. Warmer water bodies often occur during drought and that often means more artificial irrigation... https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-har...

[paganel]

> runoff is over-fertilization of industrialized farmland.

And I'd say that the leading cause of that is the increase of world population which necessitates the "industrialized farmland". In other words there's always a balance between more people on this planet vs more wild-life.

[jvanderbot]

partially. Over fertilization, which causes nutrient runoff (by definition wasteful and not cost effective) is not required to grow the amount of food that we grow.

Targeted fertilization or erosion control can both mitigate it by reducing waste, saving money and reducing occurance of side effects at the expense of a reduction fertilizer sales worldwide.

Tech can help here. See precision agriculture and other related topics

[paganel]

Don't think precision agriculture would scale. And even if it would scale, meaning we would theoretically be able to grow a lot more food on a lot less land, it would only mean that we'd grow more food and especially that we'd have even cheaper food. The Jevons paradox is real.

[jvanderbot]

Sure, maybe PA will not scale. But re: over-production and runoff of nutrients, tech can help, as evidenced by small-scale experiments in PA.

There's nothing about PA that guarantees more food from less land. It may. The goal I've seen is same food with less waste.

Like insulating your coffee machine. it doesn't produce more coffee, but it uses less electricity.

[specialist]

Compounding factors.

[WalterBright]

> a great narrative for profits

Pollution from Soviet collective farms isn't any better.

[lostlogin]

Does that not still boil down to profits? Political, financial or something else the system demanded?

[nate_meurer]

No, "something the system demands" is not a useful definition of anything. "The system" demands people have food to eat. Survival is not profit in any meaningful sense.

The parent used the term profits to distinguish free-market and state-controlled activities, and to assert that state-controlled food production has historically been just as environmentally damaging.

[WalterBright]

Consider what I was replying to, which laid pollution at the doorstep of profits.

[frogger8]

Thanks for this clarification.