Researchers examining the effects of mercury on wildlife found elevated levels of the neurotoxin in songbirds and bats from Maine to Virginia, prompting the study’s authors to call for more monitoring and stronger conservation measures.
Researchers with the BioDiversity Research Institute, based in Gorham, and The Nature Conservancy compiled blood tests from nearly 1,900 birds and 800 bats collected over the past decade in the mid-Atlantic and the Northeast.
The resulting report, “Hidden Risk: Mercury in Terrestrial Systems of the Northeast,” states that some species of birds and bats may be absorbing dangerously high levels of mercury from the insects they eat. Although the authors acknowledge more study is needed, they said the results suggest that the neurotoxin may be taking a toll on species previously overlooked by scientists.
Among the species with “high risk” to “very high risk” levels of mercury were saltmarsh sparrows, indigo buntings, rusty blackbirds and Nelson’s sparrows. Big brown bats — a species common throughout the Northeast — had the highest levels of mercury contamination.
“Mercury accumulation has many implications for the health and survival of wildlife species across habitats, not just those that live and feed in aquatic habitats,” David Evers, executive director and chief scientist at the BioDiversity Institute, said in a statement. “Our research has found that mercury concentrations in animals that live in terrestrial environments are significant enough to cause physiological and reproductive harm.”
After mercury is emitted into the air by coal-burning power plants and other sources, it eventually settles to the ground in precipitation or in a dry state. Once on the ground, it is converted to methylmercury, the more toxic and organic form that can be absorbed by plants and animals.
Methylmercury magnifies as it moves up the food chain, so that a loon or a human that eats fish contaminated with mercury will accumulate higher levels of the neurotoxin linked to developmental and reproductive problems. “Hidden Risk” suggests that bug-eating birds and bats face similar risks as they devour insects, spiders, snails and other invertebrates contaminated with mercury.
Songbirds living and feeding in bogs, estuaries and similar areas — such as the saltmarsh sparrow — had the highest mercury contamination levels because the wet-dry cycle can lead to additional mercury being released into the environment in its organic form. But the study also found elevated levels in the Bicknell’s thrush, a high-altitude bird. That is likely because higher altitude areas are prone to more precipitation and therefore more exposure to mercury in cloud water, the authors stated.
As for possible solutions to the issue, “Hidden Risk” recommends the adoption of a nationwide mercury monitoring program that includes songbirds and bats. Additionally, the authors cheered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recently announced rules requiring coal-fired power plants to substantially reduce mercury emissions.
Other recommendations included restricting logging near water bodies, controlling reservoir levels to avoid remobilizing sequestered mercury, and tracing unknown sources of mercury.
“Reducing this neurotoxin from the environment will benefit wildlife and people,” Tim Tear with The Nature Conservancy said in a statement.
“Although the authors acknowledge more study is needed, they said the results suggest that the neurotoxin may be taking a toll on species previously overlooked by scientists.” thats statement bothers me. Why release a “study” if more work has to be done?
To give other researchers the information they have gathered so far, so they can choose a narrower slice of information to examine. This study looked at 1900 birds and 800 bats, without (apparently) breaking it down to the species level. So they can’t say whether this or that species is more or less affected than this or that other species. Other factors may also be able to be isolated better in future studies. In scientific investigations like this, one study is never enough to make a final conclusion. Many studies are combined in order to be as certain as possible about the implications.
Agreed, although I will argue the fact that a study can draw a final conclusion if that study is done correctly. My point is, why release a “study” to the media or scientific world that draws no conclusions. I am sure researcher at BioDiversity Research Institute are in contact with other researchers, so why not tell them and be done with it.
Also a test group of 1900 birds and 800 bats (without breaking it down to a species level) seems too small to draw any conclusion from. With a test group that small, a few birds with extremely high levels of mercury could skew the results of the test. Also without breaking down to a species level, leaves any possible conclusions hidden.
So my orginal question still stands why release a study that is not done?
Something should be done to stop the continuing contamination of our waters by dentists who are polluting with mercury daily. Requirements to utilize amalgam seperators are uninforced. Seperators are not effective and are not being maintained. EPA has a hands-off attitude when it comes to dentistry, Maine’s largest polluters of mercury. Money talks.
They’re worried about bats and birds yet parents allow big Pharma and doctors to inject Mercury, a known neurotoxin, directly into their children’s veins via vaccines every single day.
Nope. Stop your incessant repetition of non-facts.
The article above clearly states Mercury is a neurotoxin. Mercury is in some vaccines (most notably the flu vaccine). It’s injected directly into children’s veins. All facts.