DDT dump site off L.A. coast much bigger than scientists expected

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-04-26/ddt-waste-barrels-off-la-coast-shock-california-scientists

by usaphp • 5 years ago

355 137 5 years ago

usaphp4• 5 years ago

It’s sickening how people though it’s totally ok to dump tens of thousands of toxic waste into the ocean, I really hope they get prosecuted for that.

techrat3• 5 years ago

Considering DDT was banned in 1972... any suits who were alive during its production and would be behind the decision to dump all of this stuff out into the sea, assuming a median age of 40, would be 89 years old today.

TLDR: Those responsible are probably all dead now.

usaphp4• 5 years ago

"In December 2000, the Montrose Chemical Corporation of California and three other corporations settled their lawsuits for a collective $73 million."

KMag2• 5 years ago

Considering DDT was banned in 1972...

DDT was not banned in the US in 1972. The use of DDT in agricultural applications was banned in the US in 1972. As far as I know, it's still legal to manufacture and still legal to use for mosquito control.

vosper• 5 years ago

It’s not just waste barrels. The same sort of thing happens with oil tankers when the front falls off

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

spitfire• 5 years ago

Does that usually happen/

jes• 5 years ago

That's why they tow them out of the environment.

DiNovi2• 5 years ago

This is how industrial capitalism is profitable: by socializing the cost of its pollution. If chemical companies had to pay for their damage they wouldn’t exist

thereisnospork• 5 years ago

You say that like ridding the continent of malaria was a bad thing. Lots of people owe their lives to DDT.

DuskStar• 5 years ago

You say that like socialized industries haven't had just as large of disasters, or that on net DDT has been bad for the US/world. Everything is a tradeoff - how many kids with malaria is a bald eagle worth?

wyager• 5 years ago

The Chernobyl disaster is a classic example of capitalism socializing pollution costs.

missedthecue• 5 years ago

The Aral Sea is a perfect example of this

fighterpilot2• 5 years ago

Chemical companies would still exist, they would just be less profitable and their produce would be more expensive if the social costs were fully internalized (as they should be and currently aren't).

pomian3• 5 years ago

And this is in a country that has learned it's lessons, and gradually, actually cares. Think of all the other places in the world with sites like this.

paulmd• 5 years ago

We haven’t learned our lesson though. We went on and kept doing the same thing with Teflon, PFAS/firefighting foams, and endocrine-disrupting plasticizers like BPA.

And it’s still not like we’ve learned any lesson from that, either. They don’t have to prove what they’re replacing it with is safe, or presumptively handle it like it’s unsafe. In 50 years we will find out that the next PFOA-like or BPA-like compound does the same thing, because it was selected for the same properties that posed the problems in humans in the first place. Until you flip the model on its head and require companies to establish safe handling protocols, biological limits, and appropriate disposal methods in advance, it’s just going to keep happening. But god forbid we tell industry “no”.

brettermeier• 5 years ago

America learned its lesson and cares now? Just LOOOOL

sschueller• 5 years ago

Sadly they wont be prosecuted as most of them will be dead from age. Same goes for what Monsanto has done and others are doing right now knowingly poisoning future generations.

fighterpilot2• 5 years ago

Tragedy of the commons :(

driverdan• 5 years ago

Prosecuted for what? Not only was it legal back then it was generally recognized as the best method of disposal. Plus as others have pointed out nearly everyone involved is dead by now.

rasz2• 5 years ago

Wait till you learn where trash was going up to 1992 https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/nyregion/ocean-dumping-en...

ACAVJW4H• 5 years ago

I tried to find if there are any concrete ideas how to clean this mess. Can anyone point me to research on how these deep sea barrels can be lifted back and properly handled?

How does one destroy DDT? Is there any way it can be burned safely?

usaphp4• 5 years ago

I think it's DDT waste, not DDT itself. I think at this stage they are trying to figure out what exactly is there and how many barrels, once they do - they will decide what to do with them.

stjohnswarts• 5 years ago

My guess is they won't do anything with them, and just throw their hands up because it's too expensive.

pomian3• 5 years ago

Yes. Can burn. Need an approved controlled hazardous waste incinerator. Need a temperature of at least 1850°C ! There are facilities, search on EPA. But that's a huge amount of barrels down there. And still counting. And it is extremely deep. Best to leave it there, don't disturb, until a complete plan in place. Even then , complete burial is likely a valid solution . Unfortunately.

throwawayboise• 5 years ago

Probably depends on how many of the barrels are intact enough to move. If they have all rusted open, there may not be anything to clean up, as the waste will have diffused into the water. Steel barrels, even if painted, will rust quickly in salt water. At that depth though, I don't know.

DoreenMichele2• 5 years ago

They don't know how much of this is DDT but they have reason to believe there is a lot of DDT out there and the stability of the chemical is a big issue for cleanup efforts. From the article:

The U.S. banned its use in 1972, but the chemical, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is so stable it continues to poison the environment and move up the food chain.

One thing we do for petrochemical spills is release microbes that digest petrochemicals so the spill can be broken down. I wonder if we could develop a similar means to clean up DDT.

girvo• 5 years ago

https://sci-hub.se/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10...

This seems relevant to that thought, I think.

Microbial degradation of DDT and its residues—A review

DoreenMichele2• 5 years ago

Thank you.

Excerpt:

Early investigations on the fate of DDT in rodents demonstrated that the indigenous microflora of animals were responsible for the conversion of DDT to DDD (Barker et al. 1965; Mendel & Walton 1966). Since then a number of microbes have been shown to be capable of converting DDT to DDD in pure culture. These include the bacteria Escherichia coli, Enterobacter aerogenes, Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas putida. Bacillus sp., "Hydrogenomonas", and the fungi Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, and Trichoderma viridae...

XorNot• 5 years ago

This isn't a spill though: it's in containers. So it needs to be dredged up and destroyed by high temperature incineration.

loeg• 5 years ago

Several of the containers are leaking.

dzhiurgis• 5 years ago

Is it actually DDT tho, or by the way it's worded - waste from DDT manufacturing.

p.s. here's a great lecture on DDT and history of nerve agents https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7WunS8qCz0

pomian3• 5 years ago

Yes, bacterial degradation is a thing, and a great idea.The problem with any degradation process: ozone, hydrogen peroxide, bacteria, can lead to intermediate or final forms of chemicals that are even worse (more toxic.) Organochlorine chemistry is complicated. The by products are even more complex. And then each of those reactions) effects on the environment are complex. One of the best places to put something at risk is deep in the water, hence deep tailing ponds for acid mine waste, to stop there Oxidation processes. For example surface rust on a car can prevent deeper rust, by creating a non reactive layer. But this is a huge problem! Thousands of barrels, probably other compounds equally or more vicious. The only known way of complete destruction is controlled high temperature incineration - which is expensive, and only certain sites certified to do it.(>1850°C) And of course transport risky. (And if you don't keep control of combustion, then more dangerous side products in the air.) So, for now, best to keep it there, until a complete plan is made. Moving it, touching it, without a that plan, could make it much worse, by mobilising it, exposing to water flows, disseminating it, making it accessible to animals. Quite possibly might be best to bury everything. A horrible thought, but may be the best. It's 3000 meters down! (And this isn't even radioactive!) Just for clarity: not a chemist, but an environmental engineer.

TeMPOraL3• 5 years ago

(And this isn't even radioactive!)

That's sad, though. "Radioactive" is a synonym to "the problem solves itself given enough time". Non-radioactive toxic waste stays dangerous forever.

throwawaysea• 5 years ago

Related prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26776086

philips• 5 years ago

https://archive.is/aUkmm

tims33• 5 years ago

This is incredibly depressing. It sounds like the chemicals may have been impacting some sea life, but who knows how many humans have been impacted in that area of LA. I can't even imagine how much the clean up will cost.

WillPostForFood• 5 years ago

It is 12 miles out, and 3,000 feet deep. It isn't going to affect humans directly. Maybe it could work its way into the food chain.

bch• 5 years ago

Probably what the OP was thinking of, and significant enough to consider. The days of mass direct-contact with DDT[0] are over in America.

[0] https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/in-1945-a-truck...

TedDoesntTalk2• 5 years ago

1. Many of the containers were punctured just before disposal so they would sink

2. These containers oxidize and eventually fail, leaking their contents. Some of them are from the 1940s.

3. All sorts of wildlife and humans have been affected. It has most definitely worked its way into the food chain.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground...

adreamingsoul• 5 years ago

Right... do you have any evidence to support your assumption?

hetspookjee• 5 years ago

Your statement reminds me of this quote from the sketch from Dave & Clarke about "The Front Fell Off.": "We towed it beyond the environment. There's nothing out there; but sea and birds and fish, and 20 thousand tons of crude oil, and the front off the ship that fell off."

scibotics6• 5 years ago

If you are interested in working in ocean research to explore, understand, and protect the ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is hiring. https://careers.whoi.edu

We built and operate the ROV Jason and AUV Sentry, which were previously used to map these dumpsites[1]. We are always working on innovative vehicle capabilities and are currently looking for data scientists, software/mechanical/electrical engineers, machine learning specialists, etc. to help us. It's also a great opportunity to take a sabbatical by the beach :)

1: http://4dgeo.whoi.edu/geo-bin/GB_cmd?cmd=SlideShow&Match=201...

hanniabu• 5 years ago

Are volunteers welcome?

scibotics6• 5 years ago

We're not very well-equipped to handle volunteers right now, but we are releasing more data and open source software every day, and would be happy to see contributions from the community.

pvaldes6• 5 years ago

You would need to add some insurance in that volunteering plan. Doing field work in the ocean is hard and dangerous. For they would be a risk to be sued.

... And the ship job is not so glamourous as you think.

Oceanography is fantastic, I enjoyed it a lot, but people shouldn't build a wrong image in their mind. This is hard work.

pryelluw• 5 years ago

Thanks for posting. Any remote opportunities? I’m located in ATL and not able to relocate.

scibotics6• 5 years ago

The opportunities are occasionally remote as in "on a research vessel somewhere in the middle of the ocean for several weeks." But virtually everyone has a home base near the campus. The nature of the work is very hands-on, even for software.

Edit: As pointed out below, there are some remote software developer roles right now.

ozzyoli• 5 years ago

Plus, Woods Hole is a charming place to live/work/visit if anyone gets the chance

jborichevskiy2• 5 years ago

Would a curious, wannabe scientist be welcome at the Research Center as a visitor? Is there anything I could actually help with/volunteer on while there?

throwaway0a5e4• 5 years ago

The cape is a fine place to visit and a terrible place to live. The whole place is a "quaintness facade" put on to part tourists from their money. It's fine for a week or for a summer but living it grates on you.

Your dollars are worth ~20% less (nothing pays even close to 20% higher) and unless you have big dreams of running a tourist facing business (or fleecing the people who fleece the tourists) there is squat for opportunity there.

I would only accept a job at Woods Hole if it will specifically further your career.

a-dub• 5 years ago

ddt you say... psh...

https://www.sfweekly.com/news/fallout/

jeffgreco• 5 years ago

Very strange to me that the name of the responsible company (Montrose Chemical Corporation) is nowhere to be found in this article.

throwawayfrauds2• 5 years ago

Also the very vocal anti-environmentalist company CEO Samuel Rotrosen is barely mentioned. Montrose executives were basically exaggerated movie villains in their defense of dumping DDT. Unapologetic doesn’t begin to cover it.

querez• 5 years ago

I've tried googling for Samuel Rotrosen, but came up with almost nothing. If I had to guess, then someone payed (a lot of) money to scrub this name off the internet. It's pretty creepy, but also impressive what you can do if you're determined.

stinos• 5 years ago

Excatly. And that there's no mention of possible legal consequences. Or perhaps even a plan to do something about it (if that is even possible).

sva_• 5 years ago

Well there is some:

“This mission confirms my worst fear: that possibly hundreds of thousands of barrels and DDT-laced sediment were dumped just 12 miles off our coast,” said Feinstein, who said she plans to ask the U.S. Justice Department to look into companies that may have illegally dumped waste into the ocean and whether they can be held accountable

Sounds pretty hand-wavey though.

usaphp4• 5 years ago

On the company wiki page it says: "In December 2000, the Montrose Chemical Corporation of California and three other corporations settled their lawsuits for a collective $73 million."

rasz2• 5 years ago

I bet they will work out a plan for another "20 years of meetings and extensive studies"

nixpulvis• 5 years ago

I read the referenced LA Times article, which seemed to do a good job going over the history.

glenneroo• 5 years ago

The referenced article has 13 mentions of Montrose: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground...

darksaints• 5 years ago

We've known about this environmental catastrophe for decades now. Mind boggling that not a single person from the Montrose Chemical Corporation ever saw prison time.

8bitsrule• 5 years ago

Good work. When they're done mapping the DDT, they should hunt down the barrels of nuclear waste. Ocean-dumped by 13 countries, from 1946 through 1993. A total of 85,000 TBq (85x10^15 Bq) at over 100 ocean sites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...

pottertheotter• 5 years ago

Interesting. 87% of the 85,000 TBq is from two countries: the Soviet Union (46%) and the UK (41%).

refurb4• 5 years ago

How about the barrels and shells filled with chemical weapons dumped off the coast of California and the English Channel?

TeMPOraL3• 5 years ago

How about the barrels and shells filled with chemical weapons dumped in the Baltic Sea? This being a sea, all that munition has a good chance of making a big chunk of Europe very sad at some point in the near future.

RealityVoid4• 5 years ago

Ready to get crucified for this but... what is the problem with dumping nuclear waste in the ocean? If you just throw, for example, radioactive hunks of metal in the ocean, they are inert, stay in relatively dead zones of the world, they do not leech too much and the parts that _would_ leech would just be really insignificant when diluted in the vast vast amount of water of the oceans.

staticelf• 5 years ago

Because what you think is true today may not be true tomorrow. You don't know how it affects the ocean or the life there and the ripple effect it may have on the ecosystem.

This is effectively the same mistake as the people back in the day made, thinking that the ocean is so big we cannot impact it.

The half life of many of these materials are very long time and it is extremely ignorant to think that highly radioactive materials won't affect ocean life during that time.

Also, the material may be used as fuel for modern reactors in the future. Now you have dumped a lot of shit that is poision to basically all life which could be used to power society.

black_puppydog• 5 years ago

barrels have a habit of dissolving in salt water, and in germany, where barrels were dumped underwater in an old salt mine, the radioactive material ended up in the ground water.

Quai• 5 years ago

I'm not a chemist nor physicist nor biologist, but..

What do you mean with "inert"? I'm pretty sure most radioactive elements are quite happy to react with other chemicals, like salt water.

Some of the new compounds will be water or fat solvable, and can find it's way in to our food chain. The gasses and particles from the nuclear tests around the world was also fairly localized, and if something was spread, it was diluted in a vast vast amount of air. Still, there was long lasting effects on humans and animals, some of which we are still discovering.

pvaldes6• 5 years ago

Fish and Chips

decasteve2• 5 years ago

The was exactly the argument for dumping nuclear waste in the ocean originally. That was until the places they once thought were dead zones are teeming with life.

himinlomax• 5 years ago

What's the actual risk posed by such nuclear waste?

throwaway189262• 5 years ago

Random ocean dumping is not cool, but oceanic subduction zones are perhaps the best way to deal with long lived nuclear waste.

thread_id• 5 years ago

There is no mention of the companies involved. That would be almost impossible to track because those companies no longer exist and their operations ceased a long time ago as they have been bought and sold many times. https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2000/12/20/12916...

rdevsrex• 5 years ago

Yet another reason why we have to be very careful about eating seafood. It's at the place now where the sensible thing to do is to avoid it all together.

decasteve2• 5 years ago

Not just seafood but fish from remote lakes across the US and Canada which were heavily sprayed with DDT to kill the spruce budworm. This was done up until the early 1980s and now accumulated in lake beds with concerning levels still showing up in fish.

We're also seeing blooms of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) in remote lakes that are now being linked to widespread glyphosate spraying over young forests.

basicplus2• 5 years ago

Truck load after truck load of 44gal drums of PCB based transformer oil was dumped off a jetty in South Fremantle Western Australia, not even offshore..

fxtentacle• 5 years ago

I always hate reading this kind of news, because it severely undermines our ability to scold and punish others for dropping their trash into the oceans.

We should clean this up ASAP, if nothing else, then just to regain moral superiority. I'm sure that broken window theory also applies to dirty water. But I don't want my kids to inherit polluted drinking water.

jahller2• 5 years ago

i totally agree, but realistically it will be very difficult and expensive to retrieve an estimated 500.000 barrels from ~3.000 feet depth. most likely there will be years if not decades of discussion who and how this will be cleaned.

yeahnah• 5 years ago

regain moral superiority

hahahaha, great stuff

DDT dump site off L.A. coast much bigger than scientists expected

Related Stories