SOS

Hi everyone, today is my final post! Blogging about Antarctica has been incredibly insightful and I’ve enjoyed learning about a range of topics and ideas along the way. Also, apologies for the lengthy posts along the way, there was just so much I wanted to say about each topic! The aim of my blog was to shed light on the impacts that humans have had on Antarctica beyond climate (recall my first post). In this post, I’m going to summarise these impacts and come to some final conclusions which I hope my readers will take away from this blog.

Conclusions: Is Antarctica facing an SOS situation?

Recall that I posted up a short evaluation on 23 December where I wanted to take a step back to organise the findings of my blog and reflect on what I had written so far. This post will be an extension of this. Since the ‘Pause for Thought’ post, I introduced two new topics: scientific research stations and waste, and the hole in the ozone layer. In my blog, I have been keeping tabs on which impacts have a negative impact on Antarctica and which have a positive or natural effect. As this is the last post, I can now present the final score, which is 7-5. This means that, of the topics looked at, humans have been responsible for more negative than positive impacts. I know you’re probably reading this thinking, ‘I could have told you so…’ But I wanted to explore these effects in detail to discover what is actually happening and to what extent humans are responsible. In summary, this blog has shown that human intervention in Antarctica is for economic reasons (e.g. krill fishing), scientific reasons (e.g. research stations), leisure (e.g. tourism) and convenience (e.g. the use of CFCs).

A key conclusion I have reached from my blog is that the global system is so complex that often it difficult to distinguish between what is human and what is natural. This makes it hard to allocate blame for a problem that is observed in Antarctica. For example, when I looked at the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf and declining krill population, I also presented natural causes that can be used to explain these events. Also, regarding the ozone hole, the true effect of CFCs on ozone may be hard to distinguish from the effect of climate on ozone (for example changes in the Arctic Oscillation). This means that it is a challenge to understand the extent that climate affects ozone levels and the extent that CFCs affect ozone levels.

Another conclusion I can draw is that even though regulations are trying to limit human impacts, the effect of human actions prior to regulation is on-going and regulations don't change this. This means that long term protection is achieved while in the short term, the environment must face the consequences of our actions. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Well it’s bad that the environment continues to suffer even though we have limited our harmful actions. However, regulation is producing a ‘short term costs over long term benefits’ type of situation. This means that long term benefits could outweigh the negative impacts from human intervention in Antarctica. So in the future, perhaps the score board will look different.

Furthermore, one specific human action doesn’t just have one specific impact on Antarctica. There are many indirect effects that may often be unprecedented and this exaggerates the impact that humans are having on Antarctica. For instance, recall my post about the effect of a whaling ban on the food chain and krill/ penguin populations. Additionally, tourist ships are bringing invasive species into Antarctica, but these invasive species can sometimes bring diseases which can infect native animals like penguins. Tourist ships can also create oil spills. This is an unexpected result because it is not a consequence of the tourists themselves; rather it’s a consequence of bringing the tourism industry into Antarctica. These examples highlight the interconnectedness of Antarctic native animals with the ecosystem.

I hope you can hear the SOS call coming from Antarctica as I have throughout the past three months. I want to end this post with a note about a term I mentioned at the start of my blog. I referred to 'the Anthropocene' as a new geological epoch that describes the way that humans have affected this planet (see my Melting Ice – Larsen B post). By analysing the impact on Antarctica, the most remote, unique and wonderful location in the world, I have discovered that humans are everywhere, not just in population terms, but in aura. The presence of humans is truly felt everywhere and my opinion is that anyone who denies the use of this term should reconsider once they have read this blog!

With What Shall I Mend It, Dear Liza, Dear Liza?

Two years after Farman et al. (1985)’s findings were published, the ‘Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer’ was agreed. Under the Protocol, there are legally binding regulations to phase out (in other words, gradually reduce to nothing) the production and use of CFCs worldwide. The Protocol is now signed by 197 nations and continues to undergo revisions to set new targets for the CFC phase out process (The Australian Government: Department of the Environment, n/d). The original target was to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999 (Hardy and Gucinski, 1989) but this progressed to a complete phase out by 1995 (The Australian Government: Department of the Environment). The Protocol does not only require CFCs to be phased out though. Other substances that can react with ozone are also targeted to be phased out. These substances are appropriately named as ‘ozone depleting substances’ (Weatherhead and Andersen, 2006). Furthermore, one fact to note is that the obligations for developing and developed countries are different. The total phase out target for developing countries is later than for developing countries, this reflects the fact that they may have a lower ability to adapt and find alternatives than developed countries.

How successful was the phase out?

There is wide consensus among academics, politicians, researchers and scientists that this protocol has been one of, if not, the most successful international treaty ever (for example, The Australian Government; Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations; Aronson et al. 2011; Fahey, 2013; Mӓder et al. 2010). Indeed, what these scholars and politicians consider a success is the way that the agreement has reduced emissions of CFCs. By banning the production of CFCs and phasing out their usage, fewer chlorine molecules are able to react with ozone. Therefore the total layer of ozone gas should be restored. For example, Mӓder et al. ran a regression to analyse the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in protecting the ozone layer. The authors conclude from their analysis that their models have proven the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol and the ozone layer is indeed protected by the regulations that came out of the Protocol.

This evidence seems convincing, right? I thought it was, until I came across a video by the National Geographic, which can be accessed here (apologies I am unable to post it up on this blog). The video states that the ozone hole (not layer!) peaked in 2008. Therefore despite the widespread appraisal of the Protocol, levels of ozone have not actually been increasing since the ban of CFCs. Additionally, when NASA measures the amount ozone in Antarctica using satellites, the results are unexpected, and counter what scientists, politicians, and the general public, believe about the success of this regulation. For instance, figure 1 shows that the amount of ozone over Antarctica through the years has only been increasing since the Protocol, with 2014 spring levels still significantly lower than in 1979. This means that since the ban of CFCs, ozone depletion has continued!

Figure 1. Ozone levels in October 1979, 1989, 1999 and 2014. Adapted from ‘Map Archives' from NASA (2015). The depth of the ozone hole is measured in Dobson units. Purple and blue indicate low levels of ozone. Green and red indicate high levels of ozone.

What can explain this? Does this mean that banning CFCs was ineffective? Not necessarily. There are many factors that affect the levels of CFCs that remain in the ozone layer. These factors can limit the effectiveness of banning CFCs. For example, the ban was implemented approximately 50 years after CFCs first came into use. This means that 50 years’ worth of chlorine and bromine molecules are currently present in the ozone layer, despite having been emitted years ago. Thus, although Montreal has been effective at preventing further chlorine and bromine molecules from reacting with ozone, it has been unable to alter the composition of CFCs that are still present in the stratosphere. Current CFCs in the stratosphere remains a challenge to address unless the international community wishes to physically remove them from the stratosphere. I am definitely not suggesting that they do this as this task is impossible to carry out! The point I would like to make is that, unfortunately, humans’ past actions are leaving an unwanted legacy on the ozone layer which is beyond human control. Solomon (2004) states that lifetimes of CFCs can be between 50 and 100 years, showing that this legacy is going to exist for a long time and will prevent the ozone layer from fully recovering in the short term.

Another influence on the ozone layer is climate. Solomon mentions that a warm spring can result in less ozone depletion, and therefore a cold spring can lead to more ozone depletion. Given this trend, global circulations such as the Arctic Oscillation can affect the levels of ozone that are observed in Antarctica. As my post on 22 October explained, the Arctic Oscillation affects the climate in Antarctica and can be used to explain the extent of ozone depletion (Zhou et al. 2001). A further climatic factor that affects the level of ozone is temperature. Weatherhead and Andersen (2006:41) mention that ‘colder conditions in the lower stratosphere promote the formation of polar stratospheric clouds which contribute to severe ozone depletion’. These factors show that climate can interfere with levels of ozone, and that ozone levels are interconnected with a whole range of natural climatic systems. This makes the analysis of ozone complicated and challenging to understand. Furthermore, because of the range of factors that affect ozone, the true effect of the Montreal Protocol will never be fully known. This means that celebrating the success of the Montreal Protocol may be naïve.

Conclusions

Although the Montreal Protocol has successfully reduced emissions of CFCs, this is not enough to deal with the problem of CFCs. CFCs are still in the stratosphere which means that the hole in the ozone layer will be present until the end of CFC lifetimes. Furthermore, climate also affects ozone levels. These additional determinants of ozone levels complicate scientists’ understanding of ozone and so it is difficult to understand how successful the Montreal Protocol really is. As figure 1 shows, ozone levels are worse now than they were before the Montreal Protocol. Because of this, perhaps celebrating the success of the Protocol is premature.

I would like to end this post with a reference to the song indicated in the title. This folk song is a story about a hole in a bucket that needs amending. In order to fix it, many actions are required until the character trying to fix it cannot because he ends up back where he started and the story forms a loop. In terms of the ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol has found a solution in the long term. However in the short term, CFC molecules will continue to destroy ozone molecules until the end of the CFC's lifetimes. This means that no additional measures can be implemented to protect the ozone layer as these attempts will only lead us back to the same problem (i.e. the problem of having chlorine and bromine molecules that were emitted in the past in the stratosphere). This post therefore emphasises that human actions from the past can continue to have effects on the Antarctic environment. This means that measures taken in the present do not compensate for the negative impacts resulting from the past. Because of this, I believe that the Protocol has achieved all it can for the moment and only time will tell how effective it is at restoring the ozone layer to natural levels. For this reason, I will award a point to the positive side. Now the score is 7-5.

My next post will sadly be my last and this is where I'll summarise the key findings from my blog. Thanks for reading!

There’s a Hole in the Ozone Layer, Dear Liza, Dear Liza

A blog about the human impacts on Antarctica would be incomplete without a post or two concerning the hole in the ozone layer. This is perhaps the most well-known human impact on the continent. Furthermore, this blog has so far considered the human impacts on the ground or on the marine environment. The atmospheric effects are also significant. 

The ozone layer lies between the stratosphere and the troposphere. The reason this layer is useful to us is that ozone molecules absorb ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun and therefore protect us from the harmful effects of excessive UV radiation exposure (Martin and Hine, 2014, in ‘A Dictionary of Biology’).

The hole in the ozone layer was discovered by Farman et al. (1985). The authors collected data at the Halley Bay research station from 1957 to 1984 and, by using spectrophotometers, discovered that the ozone layer was depleting in spring (which is from September to November). The cause of ozone depletion was found to be a chemical reaction that occurs between chlorine and bromine atoms, that originate from chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone (Molina and Rowland, 1974). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were invented in the 1920s and commercially manufactured in the 1930s (The Ozone Hole, 2014). CFCs were used as cleaning solvents, in fire extinguishers, in aerosols and as refrigerants in air conditioning units (Tsai, 2014:883, in ‘Encyclopedia of Toxicology’). They were desirable because they possessed beneficial properties, including the fact that they were nontoxic and non-flammable. 

Molina and Rowland found that the reaction takes place in the presence of UV radiation. According to the NOAA (2008), during the Antarctic winter, ‘stratospheric ice clouds (PSCs, polar stratospheric clouds) form when temperatures drop below -78C. These clouds are responsible for chemical changes that promote production of chemically active chlorine and bromine’. During the winter, there is no sunlight in Antarctica. Thus, when spring arrives and the sun appears, chlorine and bromine molecules react with ozone molecules, causing it to break down. This is what creates a hole in the ozone layer during the spring. The reason why Antarctica in particular is subject to ozone depletion more than, say, the Arctic, is that cold temperatures are required for the reaction (Solomon, 2004). Figure 1 shows the monthly mean total ozone levels at Halley Bay in October, the middle of spring when ozone depletion occurs, from 1957 to 1984. The figure shows spring ozone depletion starting from the mid-1960s. CFCs have caused the ozone layer to deplete by as much as 50% (Smith et al. 1992) not just in spring, but in the winter as well (Rowland, 1986). The human invention of CFCs has therefore been the sole contribution to ozone depletion. 

Figure 1. Monthly mean total ozone levels at Halley Bay in October from 1957 to 1984. Source: Farman et al. (1985)

Effects

Without the protective shield from the ozone layer, more UV radiation reaches the Earth. For humans, greater exposure to UV can have severe health effects, such as increasing the likelihood of developing skin cancer (Norval et al. 2011), damage to DNA (Herrlich et al. 1992) and eye damage (Longstreth et al. 1995).

But I think it would be more relevant to focus on the effects of ozone depletion on species living in Antarctica. For instance, it has been observed that marine phytoplankton and diatoms have experienced DNA damage due to greater UV exposure (Buma et al. 2001). Furthermore, Smith et al. (1992) discovered that, in the Bellingshausen Sea (for a map of its location, see this post), a greater concentration of UV radiation is hindering photosynthesis which in turn is preventing the growth of phytoplankton. These findings illustrate how the marine ecosystem is negatively affected by the hole in the ozone layer. More specifically, phytoplankton is affected negatively. The importance of phytoplankton is illustrated by the food chain from my post from 29 November. Krill and penguins feed on phytoplankton. This shows how ozone depletion affects the food chain and therefore causes a change in the marine ecology of Antarctica. Additionally, this highlights that although ozone depletion happens in the stratosphere, there are indirect terrestrial effects observed as well.

Figure 2. Marine phytoplankton

I shall end this post with a short video to summarise the hole in the ozone layer, i.e. the key findings, the mechanism, the treaty…etc. It is presented by Shanklin, who co-discovered the hole in the ozone layer.

Next week, I will explore the subsequent regulation that followed from this discovery and its success at restoring the ozone layer. The updated score is 7-4, negative impacts seem to be taking the lead! 

Images to Display the Main Points So Far

By reading the human impacts on Antarctica, it can be difficult to picture what’s actually going on. In my blog, I have tried to make the posts as visual as I can, because this illustrates the extent of the issues I have discussed. Particularly because Antarctica is remote and relatively uninhabited, I have used maps to show where the places I talk about are.

Having said this, I feel like illustrations need their own post so today, I will be presenting a range of photographs that relate to the main issues I have mentioned so far: tourism, waste, entanglement and krill.

Figure 1.

Clean up operation of an abandoned landfill site at Thala Valley. The site was used from the 1960s to 1980s. An Australian research station dumped approximately 1,000 tonnes of soil here, which contains remains of used batteries and machinery. Source: Royal Society of Chemistry (2007)

Figure 2.

Freshly caught krill. Source: Australian government: Department of the Environment, Antarctic Division (2012)

Figure 3.

Researcher carefully taking a sample from a contaminated site. Source: Australian government: Department of the Environment, Antarctic Division (2012)

Figure 4.

Tourists enjoying the company of an Emperor penguin chick. Source: Wikipedia (2009)

Figure 5

Runner from the Antarctic Marathon smiling at a penguin. Source: B Positive Project (2013)

Figure 6.

Source: Peabody Essex Museum (2008)

Figure 7.

Diver among krill. Source: Sarano and Duran (2010) ‘Oceans:Official Companion to the Disney Feature Film’

Figure 8.

350 foreign officials attend an Annual Antarctic Treaty Conference in Uruguay in 2010. Main discussions included tourism, climate change and sovereignty. Source: Merco Press (2010)

Before I end this post, I'd like to recommend a couple of blogs and websites that have a good selection of photos that I would encourage my readers to take a look at. Firstly, Flickr's Antarctica page has a great range of pictures taken by tourist, and can be accessed by clicking here. Secondly, I came across a website called Wild Nature Images which has many photographs posted on their website, and can be accessed by clicking here. 

Wrap up of Research Stations

Since I've been looking at research stations recently, I'd like to post up this insightful three minute video which summarises why countries want to do research in Antarctica. It celebrates the success of the research being undertaken by the countries that have bases, mentioning research on penguins and even the use of research for physics!

Waste Regulation

In my last post, I discussed how Antarctica suffers from contamination from research stations. This makes regulation an important strategy to try and limit the impact of these activities on the environment.

Montreal Protocol

The Montreal Protocol, as I have mentioned in this blog before, contains two annexes that relate to waste and pollution. These two annexes are Annex III, waste disposal and waste management, and IV, prevention of marine pollution. Under the annexes, countries that own, operate and manage research stations should endeavour to dispose of the waste produced with consideration to the environment.

Annex III states that sewage should not be disposed of in the sea ice or on the ice shelf. But, what I find disappointing about this Annex is that it allows sewage to be disposed of directly into the sea. This clause states that where large amounts of sewage are disposed of in the sea, it should be treated by breaking it down (maceration), (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, accessed through Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011). It seems counter-productive to allow sewage disposal into the sea, but not onto the sea ice or ice shelf given that there are just as many or perhaps more species living in the sea. Additionally, sewage is more susceptible to spread across the ocean if it is allowed to be dumped here. This shows that while measures are put in place to reduce human impact, there are not strong enough, limiting the effect of them.

Analysing Annex III further, I discovered that pesticides are banned from the ice and sea, however pesticides used and discarded for scientific purposes are allowed. This hardly shows commitment to protecting the environment. Additionally, as mentioned in my post Antarctic Treaty post, under the Antarctic Treaty, there should be freedom of scientific investigation. This further limits the extent that scientific research stations are obliged to follow the regulations. The regulations concerning waste and waste disposal should apply to every user of the Antarctic though. If there are exceptions, countries will use scientific research as an excuse to allow harmful chemicals into the Antarctic environment. Furthermore, if research requires the release pesticides in the first place, perhaps this research should be questioned because it is harming the environment at the same time.

Sewage treatment facilities

A positive aspect resulting from the Protocol, however, is that it is incentivising countries to implement treatment facilities to reduce waste. The Guardian (2014) interviewed a cook on the McMurdo station who reported that waste that must be shipped costs money to dispose of. This indicates that regulation is increasing the research station’s costs. To deal with this, treatment plants are being built as an alternative to shipping waste out. Sewage treatment facilities remove unpleasant matter from the waste and then chemically or physically disinfect what’s left over (Gröndahl et al. 2009). Subsequently, the treated water is released into the environment without harmful chemicals in it. The critical question here is, are the sewage treatment facilities effectively removing harmful substances from the waste?

The Rothera Research Station (see figure 1) continued to dump human and food waste into the sea until 2003 when it built a sewage treatment plant (Hughes, 2004). Liquid waste was sterilised with UV which was then released into the North Cove (ibid). Hughes discovered that this plant has been successful at reducing concentrations of faecal coliform (a type of bacteria) in Rothera. Figure 2a) shows the distribution of this bacteria in 1999 and 2b) shows the concentration in 2004. It is evident that the plant successfully reduced faecal coliform concentration.

Figure 1. Map showing Rothera Station on the Antarctic Peninsula (far left). 

Source: CIRES (2013)

Figure 2. a) concentration of faecal coliform in February 1999

b) concentration of faecal coliform in February 2004.

Successful reduction of faecal coliform in Rothera resulting from the release of treated water. Source: Hughes (2004)

This example shows how sewage treatment plants can reduce the effect of sewage waste on the Antarctic environment.

How many research stations are building sewage treatment plants?

There are over 100 permanent, summer and field stations in Antarctica (Polar Conservation Organisation, n/d). Gröndahl et al. (2009) investigated 71 stations, table 1 shows the results. The authors found that 41 permanent stations operate with sewage treatment plants. Although this represents more than half of those studied, it also signifies that perhaps there aren’t enough operating given the severity of the contamination occurring.

Table 1. The number of stations with sewage with sewage treatment plants out of a sample of 71. Source: Gröndahl et al. (2009)

Having said this, building a sewage treatment plant in Antarctica is particularly difficult. Climate, remoteness and wildlife disturbance are special considerations that have to be made when designing the plant and these factors contribute to the difficulty. Additional challenges are faced during operation of the plant. For example, if a spare part is required, getting replacements may take months due to remoteness. This means that contingency plans should be put into place, for instance, where is the sewage going to be stored in the mean time? Furthermore, because of the harsh climate, the plant must ensure that pipes don't freeze during operation (Connor, 2008). These factors mean that repairs or maintenance work is almost impossible to undertake, especially during the winter. Because of this, the treatment plants must be designed to require as little maintenance as possible. Difficulties like these can discourage countries from building sewage treatment facilities near their research stations. Therefore these problems can limit the uptake of treatment plants as an effective method to reduce waste discharge into the environment.

Moreover, despite Hughes’ successful results, it is important to bear in mind that not all sewage treatment plants have been successful. For instance, the Maitri plant experienced large reductions in the pH of wastewater and a large proportion of treated water was not biodegradable despite being treated (Ghosh et al. 1997). This was due to mechanical malfunctions. The purpose of treating water is to ensure that safer water is discarded into the Antarctic environment for the protection of marine life. If treatment plants are unable to produce safer water, then the plant is not worth having. This therefore highlights the importance of minimising operational problems and malfunctions. Although due to the problems mentioned above, this task is immensely difficult, showing that waste management remains one of the biggest challenges faced in Antarctica.

This post has shown that regulation can be effective if treatment plants are implemented, but the success of these are limited if they are not fully functioning. Moreover, The Montreal Protocol has obligations that must be followed when regarding waste and sewage disposal, although this is also successful to a limited extent due to exemptions given to scientific research. In my view, more stringent rules must be introduced if Antarctic marine life and nearby waters are to be restored to their natural state, i.e. that without human interference.

I have argued that it is possible for a sewage treatment plant to successfully treat sewage to release less harmful substances into Antarctic waters. This reduces the negative human impacts arising from research stations. Therefore, the future looks promising and because of this, the scores for negative human impacts verses positive/ natural impacts on Antarctica are 6-4.

All in the Name of Research…

Given that thousands of humans reside in Antarctica every year working in research stations, it is unlikely that the environment is going to remain unchanged. The reason for this is that humans create waste everywhere they go. Food and sewage waste are created by the simple act of living in Antarctica, but waste resulting from the research itself is also one of the main problems. Waste from building materials, batteries, fuel drums and laboratory chemicals (Aronson et al. 2011) are additional types of waste that the Antarctic is subjected to. This post will focus of sewage waste from chemical and human waste, discussing what the effects are.

I find this topic particularly interesting because in my view, researchers would not want to criticise their work. Much attention and credit goes to the research itself rather than the effects of the process that led to the discovery. This means that the extent of the waste problem may not be widely known. However, the waste problem was recently in the news (The National Geographic, 2014), where a study discovered that penguins’ tissues were found to be contaminated by a toxic flame retardant. The contaminants were being passed on by fish. The flame retardant supposedly came from waste from the McMurdo Station and another New Zealand base.

Chemical and human waste from the McMurdo Research Station

In the 1950s, before the Montreal Protocol (see my post on the Antarctic Treaty) and before any regulation, sewage was dumped into Winter Quarters Bay in McMurdo Sound (see figure 1) by those working in the McMurdo Station (Landis, 1999). The region earned a reputation to become 'one of the higher toxic concentrations of any body of water on Earth' (Aronson et al. 2011: 90), which certainly left a legacy on the environment. Contamination occurred from the disposal of heavy metals such as zinc and arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyl from abandoned sites (such as the Wilkes Station, see figure 2), and as mentioned, flame retardants (Tin et al. 2009).

Figure 1. Winter Quarters Bay in McMurdo Sound. Adapted from University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2005)

Figure 2. Abandoned Wilkes Station

One example of the effect of contamination from the McMurdo research station is a change in the behaviour of heart urchins. Lenihan (1992) conducted an experiment in Winter Quarters Bay. The author compared the burrowing behaviour of heart urchins near the McMurdo station with those near the Jetty and Cinder Cones stations, which are supposedly uncontaminated. The results found that 'heart urchins did not burrow into Winter Quarters Bay bottom sediment' but they did in Jetty and Cinder Cones bottom sediments (ibid: 321). This shows that the behaviour of heart urchins has changed due to contamination. In particular, urchins are finding the seabed toxic which shows that their habitats have become unsafe for them. Therefore one key finding from this study is that contamination has reached the bottom of the seabed. The potential effects of this can even alter survival rates because if urchins do not reach the seabed, they are susceptible to predators. Furthermore, some heart urchins are being killed because of the concentrations of metals found. Biodiversity in Antarctic oceans, is therefore being threatened by human actions.

A study conducted by Negri et al (2006) investigated contamination in sediments, bivalves and sponges in McMurdo Sound, which lies in the same region as the McMurdo Station. Figure 3 is a map showing where the McMurdo Station is, relative to the sampling sites used in the study. Metal concentrations were measured in Antarctic soft shell clam, called Laternula elliptica, because they are largely abundant which means they are good indicators of metal accumulation (ibid). Sediments extracted from the sponge tissue from the clam found the highest concentrations of copper, zinc, silver, lead and cadmium (ibid) compared to the other sites. This shows just how contaminated McMurdo Sound has become due to anthropogenic activities. Additionally, in the book 'Need for real world assessment of the environmental effects of oil spills in ice-infested marine environments. POAC 81. The 6th international conference on port and ocean engineering under Arctic conditions, Quebec, 27-31 July 1981. Vol. II', Robbilliard and Busdosh found that the concentration of the soft clam in Winter Quarters Bay has substantially reduced. This evidence also shows that these metal substances are harmful to marine life in the Antarctic waters.

Figure 3. Map of McMurdo Sound and Negri et al. (2006)'s sampling sites. 

So in summary, while research centres are an opportunity to find out more about human disturbance in Antarctica, they also, ironically, contribute to the disturbance as well. Biodiversity in Antarctica is unique to Antarctica and is being threatened by research stations’ waste. This effect is exaggerated by the expansion of research centres across the continent. Above, I mentioned that these studies represent the legacy of past waste disposal. Since the Antarctic Treaty, regulations have been implemented to prevent waste and contamination from affecting this pristine environment. It’s just a shame that past actions are having long term effects on the marine life in Antarctica. Was the regulation implemented too late? According to Negri et al., Winter Quarters Bay may have supported a rich community of benthic organisms prior to pollution from the McMurdo station, but communities have failed to recover since regulation was implemented. This indicates that perhaps it may have been.

It is important to stress that this post is not a criticism of the research undertaken, as written in my previous post, research is immensely valuable. It finds the effects of human activities and therefore helps find solutions. Rather, this post is a way of analysing the unintended consequences of the research. As was the case with regulating tourism, I emphasise again that more needs to be done to regulate waste. Next time, I focus on waste regulation. The scores for negative human impacts verses positive/ natural impacts on Antarctica are 6-3.