Mercury from centuries-old pollution still circulating in oceans, study finds
Toxins released by long-extinguished fossil fuel fires and gold smelters are showing up in the bodies of Arctic wildlife, according to new research pointing to mercury released by pollution hundreds of years ago still circulating in ocean currents.
A paper published Thursday in Nature Communications sought to untangle a paradox: why levels of the potent neurotoxin mercury in Arctic whales and polar bears are increasing — despite steps the world has taken to curb mercury pollution.
Those levels are now 20 to 30 times higher in Arctic wildlife than they were before the industrial era began, even as global mercury pollution has fallen since the 1970s.
'We've monitored mercury in Arctic animals for over 40 years. Despite declining global emissions since the 1970s, we see no corresponding decrease in Arctic concentrations — on the contrary,' coauthor Rune Dietz of Aarhus University, said in a statement.
The researchers' conclusion: mercury released by pollution hundreds of years ago is still circulating in ocean currents, which convey it up to the Arctic.
The findings come amid reports that the Trump administration is seeking to overturn rules limiting the release of mercury from U.S. power plants — a step that reverses a long campaign to slow its accumulation in the atmosphere.
If these U.S. changes take place, the findings suggest, they will continue to contaminate the environment well into the 2300s.
Mercury — particularly forms that have been processed by bacteria — wreaks havoc on the brain and body, disrupting the ability of humans and animals to move, sense and think.
While a global effort has been successful in cutting levels of mercury in the atmosphere, Thursday's findings point to a mystery: Levels of the toxin in the muscle and tissue of top predators like seals and polar bears are still going up.
In addition to being released into the environment from burning fossil fuels, mercury is also used to purify gold extracted in small-scale or wildcat mining — a practice that is still common in the world's forests, but has significantly decreased from its 19th Century peak.
In gold rushes like those in 1850s California or the modern Amazon, miners used mercury to bind together gold together from a slurry of dirt and ore, and then burn it off to leave pure gold — sending the mercury into the atmosphere.
From there, mercury rains down onto the land and flows into lakes and rivers, where bacteria break it down — as well as into the oceans, where that breakdown can take as much as 300 years.
The same quality that lets mercury pull together gold flakes gives it an insidious role in the environment because animals cannot easily purge it from their bodies.
That means mercury levels concentrate in the bodies of top predators — whether bears or humans.
The long duration of mercury in oceans gives it time to make its own epic journey from 19th Century smelters to the modern Arctic, the scientists found.
'Transport of mercury from major sources like China to Greenland via ocean currents can take up to 150 years,' Dietz said.
'This helps explain the lack of decline in Arctic mercury levels.'
Though China is working to phase out mercury mining and pollution from coal, the findings suggest a long lag time.
Even if mercury pollution continues to decrease, the scientists projected, its levels will continue to go up in the Arctic.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
41 minutes ago
- Axios
How much NASA spends on science in Utah
NASA spends an average of $11 million annually in Utah on scientific missions, per data from The Planetary Society, a pro-space nonprofit. Why it matters: NASA's science efforts bear the brunt of cuts to the agency in the Trump administration's proposed budget, which would slash science funding by nearly 50% to $3.9 billion. The big picture: Science represents roughly 30% of NASA's budget, supporting missions like space telescopes, robotic probes and satellites that gather data about Earth's changing climate. While not always as headline-grabbing as human spaceflight, NASA's science activity has greatly enhanced our scientific understanding of both Earth and our celestial neighborhood. By the numbers: NASA supported 2,375 jobs in Utah and generated $486.6 million in economic output and $17.2 million in state tax revenue in fiscal year 2023, per a state report. Over 60 suppliers in the state have contributed to the agency's Artemis moon exploration program. The intrigue: The proposed cuts come as some Utah officials want to position the state as a leader in space innovation. Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill in March appropriating $1 million to study the feasibility of a spaceport in Utah for potential space exploration. Zoom out: California (about $3 billion), Maryland ($2 billion) and Texas ($614 million) saw the most average annual NASA science spending across fiscal 2022-2024, the data shows. Zoom in: Missions on the chopping block in President Trump's NASA budget include the Mars Sample Return, an ambitious joint American-European plan to collect Martian soil samples and bring them to Earth for further study. Nearly 20 active science missions would be canceled in total, the Planetary Society says, representing more than $12 billion in taxpayer investments. What they're saying: A chief concern, Planetary Society chief of space policy Casey Dreier tells Axios, is that already paid-for probes and telescopes would be deactivated even though they're still delivering valuable data. "They keep returning great science for the very fractional cost to keep the lights on. And a lot of these will just be turned off and left to tumble in space," Dreier says

Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Amid NASA cuts, popular social accounts for Mars rovers, Voyager going dark
President Trump's NASA budget plans look to cut its public relations funding by half, but already the agency is shuttering social media accounts that include those dedicated to popular missions including Mars Curiosity, Mars Perseverance and Voyager. Those three in particular have quite the fanbase on X with Curiosity's account touting more than 4 million followers, Perseverance and its little flying buddy Ingenuity have more than 2.9 million followers and Voyager nearly 900,000. The X handles for the robotic missions have taken whimsical approaches to posting over the years. And after NASA announced Monday the planned consolidation of accounts, prompting an outpouring of support online, each posted thankful responses. 'Wow, thank you all for the supportive messages. I may be a robot, but I felt every bit of love,' reads a post from @MarsCuriosity, the account created in 2008 on what was then Twitter ahead of its 2011 launch from Cape Canaveral and 2012 landing on Mars. 'Every single one of you has made this curious journey even more meaningful. This account isn't archived just yet — so stick around for some highlights these next few weeks.' The account for @NASAPersevere, created in 2020 for the mission that launched that year and landed on Mars in 2021, posted a 'Thank you' with a heart emoji and said, 'All of your supportive words are more meaningful to me than ones and zeroes could ever be. My work on Mars continues, and while this account will soon be archived, I'm going to share a few mission highlights before signing off.' The account for @NASAVoyager, created in 2010 for the nearly 50-year-old mission, posted, 'Thanks to everyone who sent messages of support after yesterday's announcement that this account will be archived in coming weeks. Until then, we'd love to take you on a trip down memory lane and highlight some of our grand adventures and discoveries. Sound OK to you?' Another mission-specific account to hear the death knell is for New Horizons, which flew by Pluto in 2015 and is now traveling through the Kuiper Belt. It's one of several active missions the proposed Trump budget looks to shut down. It similarly posted a farewell message @NASANewHorizons and like the others asks followers to look for updates on other NASA accounts that remain active. They are among the most popular accounts as NASA streamlines its message, according to the agency announcement. Some social media accounts shuttering include NASA's Launch Services Program (@NASA_LSP) and Exploration Ground Systems (@nasagroundsys) based at Kennedy Space Center. Also being consolidated are Orion (@NASA_Orion), Space Launch System (@NASA_SLS) and Gateway lunar station (@NASA_Gateway) accounts under the Artemis program. Others shuttering include ones dedicated to NASA's astronaut corps (@NASA_Astronauts), climate missions (@nasaclimate), the Commercial Crew Program (@Commercial_Crew), moon science (@NASAMoon) and atmosphere research (@NASAAtmosphere) among others. 'Over time, NASA's social media footprint has expanded considerably, growing to over 400 individual accounts across 15 platforms,' the agency posted. 'While this allowed for highly specialized updates, it also created a fragmented digital landscape that was challenging for both the public to navigate and for NASA to manage efficiently.' NASA will still give updates to the missions, but just on broader channels. So many will be deactivated, while some will merge and in a few cases some will be rebranded. The move is a precursor to plans to centralize communications in its headquarters and eliminate those at its nine space centers, including Kennedy Space Center, according to Trump's proposed 2026 budget. 'Beginning in FY 2026, the Office of Communications will restructure the organization to an Agency or centralized structure vs Center-specific to eliminate functions not statutorily mandated, except functions the Agency deems necessary, consolidate management layers and duplicative functions, and evaluate/implement technological solutions that automate routine tasks,' reads the proposal. The 2024 budget funded the Office of Communications with $76.2 million of the NASA's nearly $25 billion. The 2026 spending plan drops that to $33.8 million of the agency's $18.8 billion. That includes eliminating $7.8 million for KSC — the most of any space center's public relations budgets. The shuttering of individual accounts is part of a plan for a more uniform message, NASA stated, citing the 1958 law creating the agency that required the 'widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.' 'The 2025 social media consolidation project is designed to fulfill this mandate more effectively. By reducing the number of agency accounts, NASA seeks to make its work more accessible to the public, avoiding the potential for oversaturation or confusion that can arise from numerous social media accounts bearing the NASA name and insignia,' it stated. Aside from fans who bemoaned losing the popular accounts, the change in approach has critics — including Jonathan McDowell. The British-American astronomer and astrophysicist works at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics' Chandra X-ray Center. 'So @NASA is consolidating media accounts for 'consistent messaging'. Which is bad the same way every cafe in town being a Starbucks forcing a consistent menu on you is bad. Much less chance of something interesting to *your* taste but not to HQ making it into the public domain,' McDowell posted on X. 'In my view the core strength of social media is letting individual voices and their quirks find their individual audiences. Making a bland uniform corporate account to replace individual @NASA voices is a mistake.'


Politico
5 hours ago
- Politico
Wanted: One NASA administrator
Presented by WELCOME TO POLITICO PRO SPACE. Thanks to everyone who read our inaugural issue. The excitement continues this week with speculation on the next NASA administrator, Congressional Golden Dome talk, and a Florida push to snag NASA HQ. Who do you think the next NASA chief should be? Email me at sskove@ with tips, pitches and feedback, and find me on X at @samuelskove. And remember, we're offering this newsletter for free over the next few weeks. After that, it will be available only to POLITICO Pro subscribers. Read all about it here. The Spotlight Now that Donald Trump has pushed NASA administrator nominee Jared Isaacman through the airlock, the search is on to find the space agency's next boss. We spoke to 12 insiders and analysts about who could get the nod. The conclusion? They'll probably be retired military. Starship Troopers: At least three former two- and three-star generals with space ties could be in the mix, according to four industry officials, who like others were granted anonymity to discuss internal discussions. These include retired Space Force Maj. Gen. John Olson, Lt. Gen. John Shaw, and Air Force Lt. Gen. Steve Kwast. Olson served in the Space Force and in NASA. Shaw retired as deputy commander of Space Command in 2023. Kwast last served in the Air Force, but supporters pushed for him to lead the Space Force. (Notice a theme?) The industry buzz follows Trump's decision two weeks ago to rescind the nomination amid a feud between SpaceX founder and Isaacman ally Elon Musk. The president then made the head-turning announcement that Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine would weigh in on the search for the next administrator for NASA — an agency that is not part of the military. Starfleet: Retired service members rarely lead the civilian agency, whose employees are known more for studying the stars than working with weapons. It has some people worried. Other potential names floating in the stratosphere include NASA's Kevin Coggins and astronaut Mike Hopkins. Coggins is a former military official who serves as head of NASA's Space Communications and Navigation program. Hopkins is a former NASA astronaut who joined the Space Force — from space — and was the first astronaut for the U.S.'s newest military service. Former Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.), who served on the House science subcommittee on space before Rep. George Whitesides (D-Calif.) unseated him this year, is yet another name circulating. Under Pressure: Both industry and lawmakers are eager to fill the role amid the White House's proposed budget cuts to NASA, competition with China to return to the moon, and Trump's plans to land astronauts on Mars. 'I had thought we would have [an administrator] by now,' Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees NASA, told my colleague Joe this week. 'I don't know what their timing is, but I hope that the White House moves swiftly.' Some senators were even willing to swallow their concerns about Isaacman, a billionaire who had no experience in government, to speed up the process. 'In this landscape of getting back [to the moon] quickly, usurping China, I was ready to give a technology entrepreneur a chance,' Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Senate Commerce committee, told Joe. Twilight Zone: But industry officials were not aware of any candidates the White House had spoken with yet, a sign that no one has emerged as a frontrunner. A White House spokesperson declined to comment. The physics of the nomination process is also working against the space industry, thanks to a nomination backlog. Isaacman, who Trump tapped early relative to past NASA administrators, took six months to even get on the roster for a Senate vote. And we all know how that turned out. Galactic Government THE NASA HQ RACE TRAILS ALONG: States have spent months duking out who will snag NASA's headquarters once its Washington lease expires in 2028. Florida has just upped the ante. Much of the Florida congressional delegation sent a letter this week to Trump urging him to consider moving NASA headquarters to Florida's Space Coast. It looks remarkably like a letter sent in April by Texas Republicans making a similar plea to relocate NASA to Houston, aka the 'Space City.' All in? But only two of Florida's eight Democratic representatives stamped their approval. None of Texas' 12 Democrats did. 'Both states could rally their delegations if it was important,' an industry official said. Military GOLDEN GANG: The Trump administration may not know how it will build the president's 'Golden Dome' defense shield, but that hasn't stopped lawmakers from creating a caucus for it. Reps. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) and Dale Strong (R-Ala.) launched the House Golden Dome caucus this week to complement its counterpart in the Senate, created in May by Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.). The highly nebulous plan involves placing interceptors in space to shoot down enemy missiles, a scheme that could cost more than $500 billion. Crank, a first time lawmaker, represents Colorado Springs, home of Space Command. Strong represents Huntsville, a space hub and possible future home of Space Command — over the opposition of his colleague. What Next: Trump announced in May that he had selected a design for the multi-layered system and tapped Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein to lead development. But senators from both parties have said the plan is opaque, and the Pentagon canceled a major conference with industry on its plans just two weeks before the meetings were set to take place. The Reading Room House appropriators call for new Space Force acquisition pilot: Breaking Defense How Private Space Drives Space Force's Intel Delivery: Payload Space Force's first next-gen missile warning launch pushed to 2026: Defense News Voyager raises $383 million from upsized IPO: SpaceNews Event Horizon MONDAY: The Washington Space Business Roundtable holds a discussion on 2025 priorities for the FCC's Space Bureau. The Paris Air Show starts Monday and runs through Sunday. TUESDAY: The Lunar and Planetary Institute holds a virtual and in-person discussion of NASA's Europa Clipper mission. WEDNESDAY: The National Security Space Association hosts a classified forum on the Space Force's strategic plans. The Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on the Defense Department's 2026 budget request. Photo of the Week