Although we still have much progress to make on reducing emissions, new research suggests the situation could be worse.
According to a study by the Desert Research Institute, pollutant levels at the beginning of the 20th century were two to five times higher than current levels of pollution. Researchers attribute the decrease in pollution levels to the advent of more efficient coal-burning technologies, as well as legislation aimed at reducing emissions.
The results of the study were determined by ice core samples taken from Greenland. Using the samples, researchers gathered continuous monthly and annually averaged pollution levels dating from 1772 to 2003. The data showed that toxic heavy metal pollution -- not the Slayer variety -- from cadmium, thallium and lead was much higher in the early 1900s than today. According to the researchers, pollution levels for the early 20th century represented a tenfold increase over preindustrial levels.
Coal burning, primarily from North America and Europe, has long affected the Arctic region, by contaminating the area with soot, or black carbon. Last year, the same team of researchers determined that accumulated soot in the Arctic region reduced the earth's ability to reflect sunlight, therefore contributing to global warming.
While researchers have an understanding of the impact to the environment, the full impact on human health has not yet been determined. Currently, researchers believe food chain contamination may eventually make its way to humans. Furthermore, the researchers speculate that the risk of more contamination in other areas may be compounded by rapid growth of coal-burning technologies in Asian economies. Implementation of cleaner burning coal technologies or reducing the reliance on coal may reduce potential problems, say the researchers.
[Via ScienceDaily]
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
Inside NASA's astronaut bootcamp and the grueling new training regimen for deep space. Plus, ten young geniuses shaking up science today, one writer's quest to analyze every man-made chemical in her body and more.
Check out the issue's full contents online here
well that isnt hard now is it with the steam technolegy in full force and the atom bombs testings and wars there were in that time..
It seems counterintuitive, with so much coal being burned today, that the pollution could be less. But keep in mind two points. First, power plants -- even in places like China -- are much more efficient at nearly complete coal combustion than are industrial uses of coal. That would explain why there isn't as much carbonaceous haze today as expected. Secondly, the great majority of coal used today in the Western world, e.g. at power plants, is required by law to have particulate controls, which would explain why the levels of heavy metals has decreased.
There is an article by Tammi Bond and co-authors (2004) which categorizes the sources, worldwide, of both elemental (black) carbon emissions, and organic carbon emissions -- a little googling should find the reference. Power plants emit less than one part per thousand of each, but coal burned in other used emits large quantities of each, as does biomass burning of various sorts.
What seems counter intuitive to me is that according to this, pollution over the last century has gone down but global temperatures have gone up.
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Well thats great to hear that power plants are burning more efficiently, sort of makes sense seeing as humans should be getting smarter as time goes on... Thus we should be smart enough to know we cant keep driving our SUV's to movie theaters!