Two different scientific papers caught my eye this past week. Neither involve research conducted in the Pacific Northwest, but both are worth reviewing in light of the fish consumption debate raging in Washington right now. The first is an upcoming article by a group of Spanish researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the amount of plastic pollution in the world’s oceans. The second is research by USGS scientists on mercury concentrations in fish in four lakes in Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota.

How do these two studies relate to Washington’s efforts to revise its water quality standards to account for greater fish consumption rates of various populations in the state? Both studies highlight the difficulty of reducing toxics in fish using the regulatory scheme of the Clean Water Act. As I’ve written in the past, I am skeptical that lowering water quality standards for toxics by increasing the fish consumption rate used in deriving those standards will result in any measurable change or environmental benefit. This is because, for many of the contaminants that are of concern, we’ve reached the point in regulating end-of-pipe and non point sources of those contaminants where revising water quality standards downward won’t reduce toxics in fish because many of those toxics are no longer coming from regulated sources.

The study on plastics in the Pacific emphasizes this point for organic contaminants in salmon, one of the species of fish often referred to as “contaminated” in the rhetoric that is flying around the fish consumption debate (but the one species that most clearly is not impacted by local water quality conditions because of the time spent growing in the open ocean). The researchers modeled fluxes of plastics to the world’s oceans and then compared the amount of plastics thought to be entering the world’s oceans to the amount observed in five subtropical gyres or convergence zones where the plastic accumulates. What the researchers documented is a large amount of  “missing” plastic, i.e., what was calculated to be entering the oceans did not match what was observed. The researchers concluded that the fate of this plastic is unknown, but one hypothesis the researchers put forth in the paper is the possibility that plastics are rapidly nan0-fragmented in the oceans, where those nano-fragments are then integrated into the ocean’s foodweb.

How does this relate to toxics in salmon in the Pacific Northwest?Continue Reading What Can Washington Learn from Plastics in the Pacific and Mercury in the Midwest?

Note: This is the second guest post by Integral on this subject, it is also worth reviewing their prior post from February on this topic.

In addition to the updated national recommended water quality criteria discussed by Doug on May 20, EPA has recently released another document with implications for selection of an appropriate

I watched Commander Chis Hadfield’s TED talk this weekend. He is an astronaut that gave a very compelling talk on perception of risk and how humans respond to that risk, and how we can condition ourselves to change that response. If you haven’t seen it, it is absolutely worth 18 minutes of your life. He talks about going blind during a shuttle mission, and relates that experience to how humans assess risk generally and how we can condition ourselves to responding to situations we perceive as dangerous or scary. Take the time to watch, or read my quick summary below (but if you can, watch his talk—it really is fantastic) and come back for my thoughts on how this relates to communication of risk, the resulting public understanding of that risk, and how that understanding drives policy decisions in environmental regulation:

I started thinking about risk assessment and communication during his discussion of common fears using the example of the fear of spiders. This resonated with me because I share that fear with the majority of people I know, and particularly don’t like walking through spider webs. However, understanding context is important in understanding whether a fear is rational. Commander Hadfield points out that there are approximately 50,000 species of spiders in the world, and only two dozen or so that are truly venomous. In Canada, where the talk was being given, there are 729 species of spiders and only one (the black widow) that is mildly venomous. Black widows won’t kill you; at most they’ll cause discomfort.

Commander Hadfield’s point with the spider web example is that you can change your response to walking through spider webs by understanding these statistics: if you know that black widows are the only venomous spider in your area, and know that black widows don’t build the type of web you walk through, and also know that black widows won’t kill you, then you can condition yourself to not get the heeby jeebies when you walk through a web. It might take you 100 trips through spider webs, but you can do it.

His bigger point is that astronauts take advantage of the ability of humans to condition themselves when training for the unexpected in space. As a result, he didn’t freak out or panic when he found himself temporarily blinded in a spacesuit during a spacewalk. Panic would have made the situation much worse, so conditioning yourself to not panic is key to survival in such situations. This concept was something I have personal experience with, as we took advantage of the ability to condition ourselves to not panic back when I still did deep scuba dives (before I had kids).

What does this have to do with science, law, policy, and the environment?Continue Reading What an Astronaut Can Teach Us about Risk Communication: Chris Hadfield’s TED Talk and Lessons for Assessing Environmental Risk

We’re just over a week into the 2014 legislative session, and there are already some interesting developments. In no particular order, here is what is catching my eye:

First, the Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee held a work session on the fish consumption issue last week. The Association of Washington Business just posted