Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Science

Cleaning up the Most Toxic Pollution in the World 212

Hugh Pickens writes "Blacksmith Institute has published their list of the most polluted sites in the world compiled by comparing the toxicity of the contamination, the likelihood of it getting into humans and the number of people affected. For example, ninety-nine percent of the children living in and around the poly-metallic smelter at La Oroya in Peru, owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, have blood lead levels that exceed acceptable limits. Scientific American says that despite the massive pollution, it would be relatively cheap and easy to clean up the most dangerous hazards. For $15,000, the radioactive contaminated soil from the Mayak plutonium facility on the shore of the Techa River in the Russian town of Muslyomova could be dug up, saving an estimated 350 lives. 'For about $200, the cost of a refrigerator, we are able to save someone's life,' says Richard Fuller, founder of Blacksmith."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cleaning up the Most Toxic Pollution in the World

Comments Filter:
  • by chromozone ( 847904 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @01:35AM (#20622509)
    I didn't see MySpace on the list
  • WTB!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Berenger ( 177367 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @01:42AM (#20622545)
    Please tell me more about this $200 fridge.
    • Re:WTB!! (Score:5, Funny)

      by datapharmer ( 1099455 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @02:05AM (#20622655) Homepage
      It has two wire shelves that are not adjustable. There is no light when you open the door. It doesn't get particularly cold and there is no ice-maker, but if you fill the ice tray it might actually freeze if you turn it to coldest and keep it closed for 24 hours. The door has no built in shelving, and it has a place on the handle where you can put a lock. It is 4.1 Cubic Feet and commonly found in hotel rooms with little itsy bitsy alice-in-wonderland size bottles of things to drink in it that will quadruple your hotel bill in one night.

      Now you know.
  • Borders. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @01:44AM (#20622555) Journal
    I need a map with country border on it. I couldn't find any in the US or Canada. But Europe, I couldn't tell which country was which or if it is old soviet union countries.

    Actually, I'm kind of wondering why there isn't any marks in the US. Are we supposed to be the polluters of the world? Is there a mistake that the US is clean enough not to be on the list?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Along with manufacturing (due to higher labor costs), U.S. businesses have also outsourced their dangerous and high pollution (due to EPA and OSHA). So in a way "U.S." (although technically global, and you may toss in European and Japanese) companies may be polluting as bad as ever. Just not so much on U.S., (western european, or Japanese) soil.

      Basically "first worlders" have finally developed a strong NIMBYism learned from past mistakes, and are now getting around to cleaning up the mess at home. Unfortuna
      • by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) * <slashdot.kadinNO@SPAMxoxy.net> on Sunday September 16, 2007 @03:37AM (#20623209) Homepage Journal
        I agree with the rest of your post, but you shouldn't just blithely toss in "DDT" with your list of toxins. There's nothing particularly wrong with DDT, used correctly, particularly in malaria-prone areas. In fact it was/is one of our best weapons against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. That the developed world has choked off supplies of DDT to the developing world, without providing much in the way of a replacement (ironically, many of the replacements for DDT are much more toxic than DDT is) is a travesty.

        DDT was a casualty of Western gluttony and reactionism. We took something that worked well and sprayed it absolutely everywhere, far in excess of any defensible use, until it created a problem. Then, when we realized it was a problem, we went totally arse over teakettle: banned the stuff completely and pressured other countries to do the same, rather than realizing that it was the irresponsible use that was really to blame, and that there were parts of the world where any rational cost/benefit analysis still called for it.
        • by kcelery ( 410487 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @07:47AM (#20624373)
          I think pesticide that does not decompose as DDT is not a good idea. In around the 60s, there was once a virgin forest in northern China, the trees were infected with some bugs. Some guys brought in 6-6-6 to spray the area by plane. The bug issue was then under control. 30 years later, farmers deforest some of the area and grow crops because it is supposed to be a pristine virgin land. Crops sent to Japan were rejected because of pesticide overdose. Those farmers sworn that they have never used pesticide on those farm land. Then some one skeptic went to investigate and found the pesticide were remained by the spray 30 years ago.

          I know people have to use chemicals to control insects. The ones that does not disintegrate is not a good idea.

        • DDT over the top (Score:4, Informative)

          by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @11:20AM (#20625667)
          Then, when we realized it was a problem, we went totally arse over teakettle: banned the stuff completely and pressured other countries to do the same, rather than realizing that it was the irresponsible use that was really to blame, and that there were parts of the world where any rational cost/benefit analysis still called for it.



          DDT is not banned in most of the developing world; it can be obtained, and rather cheaply. Nobody has cut off supplies. What has actually happened is that--- due to massive overuse for agricultural spraying--- many species of Malaria-carrying mosquito have developed immunity. Simultaneously, other more effective pesticides have dropped in price to the point where DDT is just one of many tools in the arsenal (and an ineffective one in most cases). To counter the notion that DDT has been banned everywhere, it's informative to note that a number of countries still use some quantity of DDT in their anti-malaria programs, but these efforts have only limited success and only in certain regions where DDT immunity has not been fully established.

          The argument "for" DDT is mostly political, and carried along by people who aren't familiar with the facts. Some people are tempted by the notion that DDT is some kind of panacea for Malaria, but that evil environmentalist hippies are using their awesome power to prevent it. Of course, there's usually very little evidence supporting the latter notion, but it's tempting to believe because it sounds like a "free lunch" solution to a hard problem (one that happens to reinforce some folks' pre-conceived political notions). Unfortunately, the idea founders on, well, just about every basic fact of the story--- including the very important one that many of the nations that would ostensibly be "saved" by DDT use have chosen not to use it because it doesn't work anymore.

          http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm [info-pollution.com]
          http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/who_put_out_the_contract_on_ra.php#more [scienceblogs.com]

  • Outsourcing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bios_Hakr ( 68586 ) <xptical@@@gmail...com> on Sunday September 16, 2007 @01:47AM (#20622571)
    Every time I see a company go overseas to do this kind of thing, it breaks my heart.

    We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.
    • Re:Outsourcing (Score:5, Informative)

      by Breakfast Pants ( 323698 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @01:54AM (#20622595) Journal
      Yep, because when Nike doesn't go in somewhere to charge $.50 an hour to make shoes, alternative jobs will magically spring up that pay the people $7.25. What's more likely is the competition from Nike would have driven up the cost above what they could get without Nike.
      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        No offense, but where is your data?

        Multinationals use international trade regulations to their advantage. By aligning with lending groups like the IMF, multinationals use national debt recovery to force laws through that require full employment and cuts to social welfare systems so that taxes can be levied and surplus budgets can be made to repay international debt. The result: the poor are forced into indentured servitude because they can no longer get social services and those that had higher wages and
        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by CodeBuster ( 516420 )
          Multinationals use international trade regulations to their advantage.

          They play the game according to the rules that the governments of the world set. If you dont like the rules then blame some of those governments for allowing themselves to be duped. In the case of those governments that are totalitarian the people are going to screwed in any case so what is the difference? There are some countries that we the United States won't do business with after all for that reason, although certain European nat
          • by kmac06 ( 608921 )
            Very good points, what I would have posted if I weren't too lazy :)
          • They play the game according to the rules that the governments of the world set. If you dont like the rules then blame some of those governments for allowing themselves to be duped.

            The problem is those in power keep changing the rules, and I have no problem blaming those governments who are allowed to be duped; often the people do too. Apparently the people of Argentina did. Although the government signed them up, the people revolted. They knew a scam when they saw one. Unfortunately not all countries educate their citizens about politics and economics.

            If those countries choose to borrow from the IMF and or its member nations and by extension us then is it unreasonable for us their creditors to insist upon the adoption or abandonment of certain policies which caused the borrows to be in a position where a loan was needed in the first place?

            There is a difference between "choose" and coerced. Basically these countries were told to fix their economy or no more t

            • Just few notices...

              There is a difference between "choose" and coerced. Basically these countries were told to fix their economy or no more trade. If China did to us what we have done to many developing nations we would be worse than Russia after the Soviet collapse. The only reason they don't is it would hurt their economy as well. Super powers have a different standing because of their exceptional production and consumption. Developing nations are easier to replace.

              Argentina and other countries who ha

          • >> Multinationals use international trade regulations to their advantage.

            >They play the game according to the rules that the governments of the world set.

            So essentially you agree with parent, since governments of the world mostly behave as big capital lapdogs. Witness the battle for patentable software in the EU. If governments were expression of the people, RIAA allegations that piracy causes the damage equivalent to the price of the CD would get laughed out of court. And so on.

            > He who pays th
            • So essentially you agree with parent, since governments of the world mostly behave as big capital lapdogs.

              The difference is that he blames the corporations for intelligent play while I blame the governments for the bad policies which allow the exploitation in the first place. This is why it is important to educate our children in economics so that they, and by extension their governments, will have the ability to make better economic policy and financial judgments at both the personal (i.e. not taking o
        • "The Nation" are further to the left than the wall... Quoting them is not "data".

          Argentina's problems came entirely from major mismanagement and rejection of the free market principles. The privatized their state-owned enterprises, which was the right thing to do. But then the state spent the proceeds from privatization on propping up the local currency... Voters loved the short-term gains (something stock-holders are frequently accused of preferring, BTw), and when the money ran out, the government began

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I don't think this post was a troll. In fact it makes a parallel that is there to make: the American slave owners and modern industrialists have some things in common, not the least of which is the total willingness to make a buck at the expense of their fellow man. Even if sweatshops, etc aren't quite like American slavery, it's still a situation where the rich are exploiting those who can be exploited.

          Can't exploit people here on American soil? Fine, we'll go somewhere else. Case in point, from TFA: "
      • You make a good point that alternative employment is lacking in these foreign countries, and that's why I've always been critical to anti-globalization activists. But there should be no competition on who is most willing to get maimed for a buck.

        There has to be some basic standards of humanity we have to afford the rest of the world. If we're saving money by sending work abroad by decreasing the safety standards, or by polluting more and costing lives that way, then we're basically buying human lives. In ot
    • We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.

      And conversely, when an American company does business in Europe, they have to pay their American workers European minimum wages, and give them European holidays, benefits etc. So if Microsoft want to sell Windows in France, Microsoft workers can't work more than 35 hours a week, with six weeks holidays a year. Otherwise they'd ju

      • Sounds fair to me. You want access to the market you follow the rules of that market's culture. Don't like it, do business elsewhere and we will either ignore your product or make it domestically instead. it is called protectionism, and despite it having a bad rap it is done everywhere to dome extent.
    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Every time I see a company go overseas to do this kind of thing, it breaks my heart.

      Seeing US Management arrive in a country with less regulation is like seeing Scandinavians in a bottle shop. Some can not believe what they can get away with so they have to try a bit of everything until the locals have a few stern words. Actual slavery in Micronesia would come close to the top of the abuses, but Bhopal was the worst in my opinion. Can't you guys give them an education or cut off their cocaine supply or

      • My understanding was that Bhopal happened becaused the Indians insisted on local talent to run the place, but didn't hire competent people.
        • by dbIII ( 701233 )
          Interesting copout - a suggestion that the management is not competent enough to select staff from those available is no excuse. If you can't find competant people in a country that size you really are not looking very hard, plus there is always the option of Indian expats in the USA if you want to find people with US qualifications and experience.

          The tendancy of paticularly incompetant managers that suddenly find themselves in a low wage country to see if they can squeeze it furthur again is more likely -

          • No, more a suggestion that the local politicos stocked key positions with people that they owed favors too rather than selecting for competence. Also, at the time, there wasn't much of a high tech worker base - a billion people won't help you of half or more are illiterate and 80% haven't been to college.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by dbIII ( 701233 )
              Managers are paid to manage. If they cannot get staff because they can not deal with the corrupt outside agencies effectly then they should not have those jobs. Other companies cope under far more extreme conditions - consider the oil companies working in Nigeria now.

              As for the statement about the shortage of suitable canditates at the time, I know a few Indian engineers over 50 and I don't live in India. Anybody on this forum that studied engineering has probably had an Indian lecturer no matter where i

    • by Bartab ( 233395 )
      Good idea! That way it won't be Nike, the Beaverton OR company that builds plants in third world countries, it will be Nike, the Isle of Mann company instead.

      Good show!
    • Every time I see a company go overseas to do this kind of thing, it breaks my heart.

      We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.

      If such a law was passed it would result in one of three things. 1. Nike (or other US company) would follow said law, foreign competitor, not bound by such a law, would put them out of business by selling better product for less. 2. Nike (and other US companies) would relocate out of the US and no longer be bound by said law. 3. Nike (and other US companies) would create foreign based companies that would do the manufacturing for them and not be bound by US law. (Actuall

    • by rhizome ( 115711 )
      We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.

      Great idea, let's start with the Geneva Conventions.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 16, 2007 @01:55AM (#20622601)
    Companies do accounting to determine the value of everything, including the cost of lawsuits due to deaths caused by their products. Maybe the companies determined that, to them, a human life costs less than $200 dollars. This is not a joke. This really happens.
    • by mosb1000 ( 710161 ) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Sunday September 16, 2007 @03:27AM (#20623145)
      Many of the "companies" you are citing are or were principally owned by government organizations, and are/were immune from litigation. In the cases where they weren't, they were situated in countries where the law does not provide any kind of protection or possible recourse for the poor.

      For all you people who complain about litigation, this is why we have it. If your actions adversely affect others, they can seek financial compensation and punitive damages. This has the effect of correcting negative eternalitys if and when they are discovered, and giving people good reason to be careful in determining all the effects of their actions.
  • by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @01:55AM (#20622605) Journal
    certain weeds of the Astragalus and Stanleya Genus can clean up areas high in selenium and plants that have high levels of glutathione can help mop up cadmium and other toxic metals. the Astragalus especially can take up oxyanions of the chromium group [molybdenum and tungsten, likely chromium as well] not only that but bacteria like deinococcus radiodurans can withstand high radiation levels can interestingly they bind metals to certain chemical groups, specifically sulfur and selenium compounds. they can also reduce metal ions common to toxic waste sites and in effect lock them up as mineral deposits so that they are not leaching into water supplies. If the metals are not mobile, they are not nearly as poisonous or dangerous as they are leaching into the local water supplies.
    • That's a very interesting post, the only question that I have is how viral are these plants? If they were to be introduced into an ecosystem what kind of impact would they have after they served their intended purpose?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        they have a relatively long germination time and require animals to take the seeds through the digestive tract, it's called scarification which involves weakening the seed coat enough for germination to take place. the acids in animal's stomachs do the work and the plants themselves are not very "viral" we have ways of killing them and they already exist in many fields. the only thing about them is that you need to keep cattle and other livestock away from them otherwise the high levels of selenium the p
        • Thank you, that was what I was interested in knowing. Unlike the poster above who contributes nothing, not even humor to the discussion.
        • what do you do with the plants once they are full of selenium? This has always been a problem for me. I know cattail can breakdown roadway chems, but that was the problem. Then they found some fungi can actually break down waste. What do these plants do - just trap the selenium or actually turn it into something else?
          • oops.. I meant cattail can absorb but not breakdown roadway chems which meant that when they died the problem was there again.
            • the plants convert selenium oxyanions like selenite and selenate into much less toxic compounds. mainly selenocysteine and dimethyl selenide, both are far far less toxic and in the case of selenocysteine have been shown to prevent certain cancers. so basically not only can you deal with selenium you can also turn it into something that can help save lives. here in the western united states we have a problem with there being far too much selenium in the soil while the east has far too little. these plant
  • by sethstorm ( 512897 ) * on Sunday September 16, 2007 @02:13AM (#20622693) Homepage
    Now why do we keep on wanting to sell ourselves out to these places again? Oh, wait- it's to escape regulation.
    • No, it is not (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 )
      It is to increase short-term profits. I have been working towards doing manufacturing in the USA and it has been suggested more than once that it should be moved to China. And EVERYBODY says to go their because it is cheaper. It is never to escape regulations. Why is it cheaper? Because China cuts corners on manufacturing and has their yuan fixed to the dollar( via basket, but still fixed). The ppl that I talked to wanted me to lower the weight of the item that I was looking to build. In particular, thin ma
  • Oil Sands (Score:5, Funny)

    by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @02:42AM (#20622865)
    Bah, the worst pollution is the oil sands in Northern Alberta - billions of tons of polluted sand - now being meticulously washed clean by the big oil companies. The oily gunk so removed is then distributed for disposal in millions of privately owned mobile incinerators, leaving behind nice clean sand for future (post global warming) children to play in and build sand castles on the pristine arctic beaches...
  • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @02:51AM (#20622935) Journal
    Yes it does get much worse.
    Not just toxic sites, but you must stay so the gov can study you!
    From birth to death, generation after generation.


    Small clip about the people around Mayak, a 1950's nuclear fuel reprocessing plant on the River Techa, Russia.
    It "leaked". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR1wo5s3Ua4 [youtube.com]

  • More toxic pollution in poor/developing countries. Right there where it is an issue to spending the money to prevent it.

    Seems a bit like a feel-good list to me though, given the (surprisingly low) impact. A few hundred thousand people? That's not a lot compared to the impact of pollution by greenhouse-gases, mostly by industrial nations.
    </treehugginghippy>

  • "For $15,000, the radioactive contaminated soil from the Mayak plutonium facility on the shore of the Techa River in the Russian town of Muslyomova could be dug up..."

    Then the pollution must be really small, because for $15,000, how much soil can you dig up, clean/store in a bunker, pay people to do it.

    I wonder. 1 m3? 2?
    • by jamesh ( 87723 )

      for $15,000, how much soil can you dig up

      100 guys with shovels and wheelbarrows working for 500 hours at $2/hour = $10000. The same sort of thinking could probably 'dispose' of the dirt for the remaining $5000.
  • Right: $15,000 doesn't buy much in the way of soil removal... and when you've removed the soil what do they plan to do with for the longer term? Dump it somewhere else? ('ere govn'r fancy buying some top soil, guaranteed to make your plants grow greener than ever before?)

    So just what are these clowns on about?
  • Slightly off-topic: I'm interested in reading more about these sorts of sites, including engineering disasters like the Bhopal-Union Carbide release. I remember reading a book about this disaster and others when I was younger--it included a few bridge collapses as well as a few descriptions of Superfund sites like Hanford. It was, for some reason, completely fascinating. Accidents like the criticality accidents in the Soviet Union (I forget the name of the reactors--Mayak?) are fine as well. Wikipedia appea
  • What the Wolrd Wants [unesco.org]

    Now what sort of argument would terrorist come up with, so to promote a following and motivate some to self destruct in performing acts of terrorism, that would be effective against genuine efforts to improve the livings conditions the six billion + people of the world, including them?

    Know anyone who wants to stop a good them for themselves?
    • by khallow ( 566160 )
      Hmmm, if the world "wants" it, then world should just buy it. It's not that much money even for a hard-hit third world dive. I don't see the money for eliminating corruption from government and give all people everywhere the same basic property and legal rights. I guess you can't spend enough to do that.
  • by BlueParrot ( 965239 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @10:32AM (#20625357)
    Have a look at the page for Chernobyl. The same old... Pictures of children with diseases that are not related to radiation. A huge focus on Uranium and Plutonium, despite these metals being far less of a concern than the fission products and minor actinides. They mention deaths from Thyroid cancer, which is caused by Iodine-131 (half-life of 8 days). Somehow I suspect that not much of this will be left more than 30 years latter... Then there is this lovely quote:

    Skin lesions, respiratory ailments, infertility and birth defects were the norm for years following the accident.

    Really? I don't think the word "norm" means what they think it means...

    I'm not trying to say the Chernobyl accident wasn't a very bad accident or that the area isn't heavily polluted. It just gets a bit tiresome to see the same mistakes over and over again. For a list which focuses on the polluted status of various regions you would have expected to see he studies that have been done on how birds have been hard hit by the contamination, instead you get pictures of mentally handicapped children being abandoned, which is of course more a consequence of the failure to provide care for them than it is a result of the accident.

    There are problems in the Chernobyl area, but this article fails quite badly at describing them.
  • I wondered have any other slashdot readers had the misfortune of actually going to any of these places?

    I myself live and work in Azerbaijan and have driven through Sumgayit [blacksmithinstitute.org]. It's a horrific industrial wasteland. We spent 30+ minutes driving at highway speed through abandoned factory complexes. Our driver even pointed out the chlorine processing plant, and inforrmed us that if you walk on the ground around the plant puddles of mercury form in the holes left by your boot prints.

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison

Working...