Toxic European Chemicals Can Pollute the Arctic in Days
18 Jul 2006 - Interviews, Logistics
Lars-Otto Reiersen
© Lars-Otto Reiersen / IPF
Lars-Otto Reiersen, Executive Secretary of the Arctic Council's Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) was in Brussels in June, together with Dr Jon øyvind Odland (University of Tromso, Norway), and indigenous peoples' representatives, including Rune Fjellheim (Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples' Secretariat). The group was in Europe's capital as part of a briefing session, supported by the WWF, to inform Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) about the presence of high levels of chemicals in the Arctic and how strong European chemicals legislation is needed to help address that situation.
SciencePoles took the opportunity of talking with Reiersen and Odland about how serious the situation is for indigenous peoples in the Arctic.
Mr Reiersen, why is it that the Arctic region is so exposed to toxic chemicals?
Some initial testing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, followed by the introduction of more systematic monitoring, including by AMAP, raised the first alarm bells about surprisingly high levels of chemicals present in the bloodstreams of a range of Arctic indigenous peoples. This was true in absolute terms, and also relative to levels detected in other European peoples. This came as a great surprise - most people regarded the Arctic as a pristine environment, far removed from the heavy chemical pollution of the more industrialised continental Europe.
It turns out that the Arctic's atmosphere is much more interlinked with the sub-polar atmospheric systems than was previously thought. There is much more intermingling of polar and more temperate air. So much so that chemicals used on a golf course in Portugal might be detected reaching the Arctic within a single week.
Pathways for contaminants to the Arctic
© IPF / IPF
Is atmospheric intermingling the primary source of pollution in the Arctic
It certainly is the quickest way in which harmful chemicals have been reaching the Arctic but there are other potent transports of pollution. The freshwater rivers feeding the Arctic Ocean are also bringing toxic chemicals to the Arctic, especially during the spring flood. Ocean currents from the North Sea to the Arctic are also involved, albeit over 3-4 years rather than in a period of weeks. These sweep chemicals up the European coast to gather in the Arctic Ocean where they circulate for some time.
What toxic chemicals are we talking about?
There is quite a range I'm afraid to say. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have been prominent offenders. These are chemicals, such as DDT and PCBs, that are not easily broken down by the body and reside within fatty tissues. So they, in fact, accumulate in the food chain as the chemicals in one marine creature are ingested by another (which already has its own level of contamination) and so on. Heavy metals, such as mercury, are also an increasing problem - according to models and observations as much as 10% of global anthropogenic output of mercury may end up in the Arctic region during the spring period.
Dr Jon øyvind Odland
© Dr Jon øyvind Odland
Dr Odland, how do these chemicals affect indigenous peoples?
Indigenous peoples, it turns out, are extremely exposed. Their traditional diet relies heavily on fish, seals and whale meat that are very important for supply of energy and vitamins. These foods tend to have a high fat content , but unfortunately several of the POPs accumulate in the food chain by being stored in the fat. A series of tests for PCBs in the bloodstream of a number of indigenous peoples in the region showed the majority as having levels of concern, while this was the case for less than 10% of non-indigenous peoples tested. Some indigenous populations recorded extremely high levels, notably some indigenous women, which is of particular concern, given the known impacts of PCBs on foetal development.
Mr Reiersen, what is AMAP doing in response to this situation?
We're running as broad a monitoring program as we can and we rely on considerable involvement by indigenous peoples, some of it volunteer work, to enable limited resources to cover as much of the region as possible. For example, we're training local health people to take the necessary blood samples and store them appropriately as part of our program.
As far as action to redress the situation goes, I think the onus is really on European people who have effectively visited this problem on the Arctic indigenous peoples and the ecosystems they rely on to survive. Arctic peoples participate to a much lesser extent in the contemporary lifestyle which demands the production of these toxic chemical byproducts. European legislation, like REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) is therefore critical to reducing not only the exposure of Europe, but in particular of the Arctic. What's proposed at the moment is a start but there will continue to be a need to monitor the situation closely to see its impact.
Dr Odland, do you think climate change is affecting this situation?
Well we're seeing greater river run-off into the Arctic as a result of increased precipitation due to climate change. This may not change the absolute levels of chemicals reaching the region but may hasten their arrival from their source. Another potential worry is whether melting multi-year sea ice in the Arctic Ocean (which may have locked up chemicals from decades ago) will raise the overall levels of chemicals even further.
By: Richard de Ferranti
