Notices
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Ecotoxicology of Sea Level Rise (SLR)

  1. #1 Ecotoxicology of Sea Level Rise (SLR) 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    2
    Hello All,


    I hope you won’t mind my posting this, I have tried to substantiate - or dispel - my postulation for some 20 years, without success. I approached my Alma Mater about the topic, as well as several other bodies and organisations, but had no response, so, in desperation, I am now looking elsewhere, and this forum is one possibility my search turned up.



    I am a BSc. Hon. Graduate in Environmental Quality and Resource Management (1999) from the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. Sometime after graduating I developed an interest in the ecotoxicology of Sea Level Rise.



    In just a few words: SLR is happening already, but will be delayed by a ‘lag’, as rising waters inundate deep voids that were formerly inaccessible to inundation - much like a sponge at the bottom of a bath or basin will absorb water from a trickling tap, until it is saturated, then water level in the basin will rise at the rate of inflow, and anything embedded in the sponge itself will be dissolved or transported in suspension out into the surrounding water.



    So it will be of cemeteries, landfills, sewers, toxic and radioactive repositories, contaminated land and other point and diffuse sources. Thereafter tidal action and the Longshore Drift will combine to disperse toxic outflows onto the shores, decimating coastal species, especially eggs and larvae of invertebrates, and accumulating up the food chain, all the way to marine birds, before flowing out to open seas and oceans.


    The process will be simultaneous - though at different rates, depending on the number and density of waste voids accessible to se waters, and the rate of SLR.








    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by ToniM View Post
    Hello All,


    I hope you won’t mind my posting this, I have tried to substantiate - or dispel - my postulation for some 20 years, without success. I approached my Alma Mater about the topic, as well as several other bodies and organisations, but had no response, so, in desperation, I am now looking elsewhere, and this forum is one possibility my search turned up.



    I am a BSc. Hon. Graduate in Environmental Quality and Resource Management (1999) from the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. Sometime after graduating I developed an interest in the ecotoxicology of Sea Level Rise.



    In just a few words: SLR is happening already, but will be delayed by a ‘lag’, as rising waters inundate deep voids that were formerly inaccessible to inundation - much like a sponge at the bottom of a bath or basin will absorb water from a trickling tap, until it is saturated, then water level in the basin will rise at the rate of inflow, and anything embedded in the sponge itself will be dissolved or transported in suspension out into the surrounding water.



    So it will be of cemeteries, landfills, sewers, toxic and radioactive repositories, contaminated land and other point and diffuse sources. Thereafter tidal action and the Longshore Drift will combine to disperse toxic outflows onto the shores, decimating coastal species, especially eggs and larvae of invertebrates, and accumulating up the food chain, all the way to marine birds, before flowing out to open seas and oceans.


    The process will be simultaneous - though at different rates, depending on the number and density of waste voids accessible to se waters, and the rate of SLR.






    To establish that the effects of this will be as disastrous as you suggest, it seems to me you need to do a lot more to demonstrate that enough of these voids will be flooded and that the voids flooded will be as toxic as you suggest. I note for example you mention radioactive waste. What deep voids full of radioactive waste are you aware of that are within say, 10m, of sea level? How many of these will be flooded before the waste has decayed away to low levels? And so on.

    And do things like graveyards pose a significant risk? Aren't they just bones, basically?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    756
    Major floods take up and carry enormous amounts of toxic materials when they pass through towns and cities. I don't think sea level rise will be a greater risk than irregular flooding in this regard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    7
    Numerous nuke plants are not ready now for climate change, or tsunamis, much less SLR. Climate change and the resulting increase in intense storms has put a number of nuke plant at risk for another Fukushima.

    Can't debate aspects of voids as am not up on the subject. But the SLR threats raised by ToniM are quite valid.

    Below* is a well-studied article about the risks to nuclear power plants from climate change and SLR published by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    For the knee-jerkers out there who trash on all environmental groups, the NRDC was founded in 1970 by graduates of Yale Law School. Yes, these are lawyers who don't march in protests with signs hoping for the best. Instead, they hire scientists (700 total employees) to obtain the hard data and go to court with irrefutable evidence to support their claims of environmental degradation resulting from negligence and greed (the two are often related).

    Of course the other threats mentioned for pollution from climate change and SLR are also well known, at least to people who pay attention to environmental degradation and its causes.

    But the nuke threat is easier to run down in searches, and it is a very serious issue, assuming one has the intelligence to understand the significance of these reports (which, sadly, is far from common).


    * https://www.nrdc.org/experts/christina-chen/nuclear-vs-climate-change-rising-seas


    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Sea level Rise
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 7th, 2021, 07:52 AM
  2. Scientific reticence - sea level rise. Any others?
    By adelady in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: October 24th, 2012, 11:05 PM
  3. Geoengineering 'not a solution' to sea-level rise...
    By x(x-y) in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 26th, 2010, 04:51 PM
  4. TAR 4 underpredicted probable sea level rise...
    By Bunbury in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 14th, 2009, 06:10 AM
  5. Sea level Rise isn't distributed evenly
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 17th, 2009, 07:44 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •