A new study published in Risk Analysis found that residents living within five miles of the former Santa Susana Field Laboratory reported autoimmune disorders at more than four times the rate of those living 11 to 15 miles away.

Researchers from the University of Southern California led the study, shifting focus beyond the cancer statistics that have dominated discussion of the site for years. Instead, they examined health conditions and protective behavior among residents of a higher-income community living near a contaminated site, rather than the lower-income communities typically studied in environmental risk research.

An Unused Meltdown Superfund

Located in the Simi Hills northwest of Los Angeles, the Santa Susana Field Laboratory hosted rocket engine testing from 1949 to 2006 and nuclear reactor operations from 1953 to 1980. In 1959, a partial meltdown occurred at the site, which later became associated with radioactive and chemical contamination in soil and groundwater both on and beyond the property. Some have described the accident as the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history.

Although SSFL was designated a Superfund-eligible site in 1989, it has never been added to the National Priorities List. As a result, the site has not been cleaned up through the standard federal Superfund process.

Previous health studies did not find a significant increase in most cancers among those who lived near the site. A 1992 California Department of Health Services report also concluded that people living near SSFL were not at increased risk of developing cancers associated with radiation exposure. However, many residents and advocacy groups still believe that contamination from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory may be negatively impacting community health.

Testing What Money Can and Can’t Buy

Most Superfund sites are located in low-income areas, with 62% of nearby households earning less than $50,000 a year nationwide. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is different, as it is surrounded by higher-income neighborhoods. This gave the USC team an opportunity to examine how residents with greater financial resources respond to environmental hazards in their community.

Led by Jenna Blyler of the USC Wrigley Institute for Environment and Sustainability, the team surveyed 475 residents living within 15 miles of the site. More than half (56%) reported household incomes of $100,000 or more.

Illness That Tracks With Distance

The study found that 18% of residents living within five miles of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory reported autoimmune disorders, as compared to 4% of those living between 11 and 15 miles from it. Similarly, 15% of residents living within five miles reported metabolic and endocrine disorders, compared with 2% of those living 11 to 15 miles away.

Over one third of residents said they had received at least one chronic diagnosis since moving to the area, a rate similar to the national average of 38%. This result is notable because chronic illness is usually less common in higher-income communities.

Fear as a Motivator

“We expected to see wealthier people take more actions to protect themselves given their greater capacity to cope and affect change,” Blyler said. “Instead, fear of the contamination was what motivated protective action, rather than their perceived ability to manage the risks.”

The study also found that residents were more likely to adopt protective measures if they believed those measures were expensive. The finding runs counter to the researchers’ expectations and to previous research suggesting that higher costs can discourage protective behavior.

Blyler and her coauthor, Joseph Árvai, suggest two possible reasons for this result. The community may be able to afford costs that would prevent other groups from taking action, or residents may see a higher price as a sign that a precaution is effective and worth the investment.

What the Study Can’t Answer

The authors note several limitations of the study. The research is based on self-reported diagnoses collected at one point in time, and it does not show that contamination from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory directly caused the health conditions residents reported.

The researchers also found that health anxiety partially explained the relationship between existing illness and protective behavior, but the study could not determine why certain conditions were more frequently reported closer to SSFL.

Future studies using objective health data and longer-term follow-up could help determine whether the reported patterns reflect actual differences in disease prevalence and whether environmental exposure plays a role.

Austin Burgess is a writer and researcher with a background in sales, marketing, and data analytics. He holds an MBA, a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and a data analytics certification. His work focuses on breaking scientific developments, with an emphasis on emerging biology, cognitive neuroscience, and archaeological discoveries.

During future space missions, humans may finally encounter extraterrestrial life forms, settling the age-old question of whether we are alone in the cosmos. But what if alien biology is so different from that of Earthlings that its presence could become a potential global hazard?

This is the concern raised by researchers Frederick I. Moxley and Anthony Ricciardi in a new study, which argues that in an era of sample return missions and space missions that are carrying humans and our robotic probes farther into the cosmos than ever before, we need to be prepared to enact measures to protect our planet against the unforeseen consequences of any potential alien encounters the future may hold.

“The advancement of space exploration into an era of sample return missions from Mars, asteroids, and icy moons raises the potential for biological contamination either to or from Earth,” the authors write in their recent study, published in the journal Ambio. Given the potential for such contamination, Moxley and Ricciardi approach the question of alien contact from the perspective of past examples where invasive species on Earth have caused major disturbances to the environments they encounter.

“We consider the possibility that extraterrestrial organisms introduced to Earth could behave analogously to invasive species by destabilizing ecosystems or interacting unpredictably with their new environment,” the authors write, pointing to the multitude of examples known to science, many of which involve the introduction of microbial organisms into new environments—often with devastating consequences.

In many cases, such organisms not only can survive in new environments, but can often adapt with remarkable speed, even in some of the most extreme environments.

This, the authors say, challenges the idea that extraterrestrial life might not even be capable of surviving on Earth, as expressed by some past research.

“The plausibility of encountering extraterrestrial life warrants stringent planetary protection measures grounded in biosafety and biosecurity principles,” the authors warn.

So how do they suggest protecting Earth against such potentially catastrophic events involving future encounters with extraterrestrials?

According to Moxley and Ricciardi, building a quarantine facility on the Moon could serve as Earth’s last line of defense against any unintended alien invasions that could radically disrupt Earth’s fragile ecosystems.

“Due to its proximity, natural isolation, and apparent lack of a biosphere, the Moon can serve as a secure site for biocontainment of extraterrestrial samples,” the authors write. In their study, they examine historical instances where biological invasions have led to catastrophic environmental changes and argue that constructing a biocontainment facility on the Moon “should form the cornerstone of modern astrobiological risk mitigation strategies.”

What the researchers propose falls in line with current plans NASA has for a permanent lunar base, which is one of the many ambitious efforts under its Artemis Mission. Such a lunar outpost, which will serve as the official Artemis Base Camp, is planned for construction near the Moon’s South Pole.

At a cost of close to $30 billion, the effort will help to facilitate an ongoing human presence on the Moon by as soon as 2028, according to current mission timelines, and will serve as a science hub in support of future lunar exploration.

For Moxley and Ricciardi, incorporating a quarantine facility within our future lunar infrastructure that can house any extraterrestrial life forms we may encounter could prove to be vital. Ultimately, having such a facility may play the important role of shielding Earth against unintentional contamination by a potentially invasive alien species.

The team’s recent paper, “Protecting earth from extraterrestrial contamination: The case for a lunar biocontainment facility,” was published in Ambio.

Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. A longtime reporter on science, defense, and technology with a focus on space and astronomy, he can be reached at micah@thedebrief.org. Follow him on X @MicahHanks, and at micahhanks.com.

Film alimentaire, barquette, réfrigérateur, congélateur... Des chercheurs se sont penchés sur les interactions entre les emballages en plastique et la conservation du poisson. Leurs résultats soulèvent des inquiétudes.

92 % des échantillons d'eau potable analysés en France contiennent du TFA, une molécule quasi inconnue du grand public. L'Anses vient de livrer les résultats d'une campagne d'analyse sans précédent sur les PFAS. Ce que cette enquête révèle sur la contamination de notre eau du robinet est à la...

Electric vehicles and other clean energy devices rely on batteries that use a metal called lithium. The expanded use of lithium has made lithium mining a rapidly growing industry. Lithium is most often found in volcanic rocks called pegmatites. Researchers have studied how much carbon and water pegmatite mining uses, but they don’t know how it affects local water quality. 

Pegmatite mining releases not only lithium but also other metals commonly found in pegmatite, such as rubidium and cesium. These trace metals are under-researched in terms of their environmental effects and possible human toxicity, though the EPA has linked high levels of lithium to adverse health effects in kidney function, neurological development, and thyroid function. As such, there’s currently no established safe level for lithium in drinking water, but the U.S. Geological Survey suggests a preliminary safety level of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L). 

Researchers at Duke University recently tested how much pegmatite mining increased lithium levels in local waters, and how long those effects lingered after mining processes ended. To do so, they measured metal concentrations in waters downstream from 2 lithium mines and adjacent processing plants. They hypothesized that mining activities would increase interactions between rocks and the surrounding surface water and groundwater, impacting their lithium concentrations.

The researchers collected 99 water samples from surface streams and 93 samples from groundwater wells surrounding the Kings Mountain and Hallman Beam lithium mines, in a zone of about 40 kilometers (25 miles) along the border of South Carolina and North Carolina. The researchers took 51 surface water samples upstream of the mines to evaluate natural metal levels, and compared these with 48 downstream samples showing the mining-impacted metal levels. 

The researchers measured lithium and other trace elements, like rubidium, cesium, arsenic, and strontium, in the waters using an instrument called an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer. They found that lithium concentrations in the surface waters increased from a background of 0.2 to 79 μg/L to concentrations of 785 to 1,249 μg/L within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) of the mines and processing facilities. The groundwater lithium levels were as high as 4,500 to 47,000 μg/L in the wells at the mines, but were not affected at downstream wells where lithium levels ranged from 0.5 to 890 μg/L. 

They suggested that lithium in the groundwater downstream from the mines came from natural interactions of the pegmatite rocks with the water, rather than from the mines themselves. This natural process was confirmed when the researchers noticed that lithium levels in the groundwater rose after rainfall, which caused more water-rock interaction.

The researchers also measured ions like calcium, sulfate, and chloride in the waters using a tool that can analyze compound molecules, called an ion chromatograph. They found that calcium and sulfate concentrations increased in surface waters within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) downstream of the processing facilities. These downstream waters had 50 to 120 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of calcium and 100 to 300 mg/L of sulfate, compared to 5 to 20 mg/L of calcium and 3 to 10 mg/L of sulfate in the background surface waters. These ions are also byproducts of pegmatite processing, produced from a waste product made up of calcium sulfate, called gypsum. 

The team explained that active mining has been discontinued at this site for approximately 3 decades, meaning that the lithium concentrations they measured reflect the long-term release of lithium from inactive mines and mining waste. Drawing from historical data, they estimated that while the mines were active, they likely released 10 to 30 times the amount of trace metals they measured at the same location today. 

The researchers concluded that hard-rock processing impacts downstream metal and ion concentrations more than the mining itself. As lithium mining operations expand, the researchers suggested that future researchers examine lithium toxicity as well as the potential effects of its co-occurring metals, like rubidium and cesium. They also emphasized the need to find solutions for removing the trace metals and dissolved gypsum from water systems, or preventing them from leaking into the water systems to begin with.

The post Lithium mining impacts local waters appeared first on Sciworthy.