Why there is no evidence that Pyridine killed the English crabs

IF 3.5 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental science. Advances Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1039/d4va00006d
Alex T Ford, Mark Fitzsimons, Crispin Halsall
{"title":"Why there is no evidence that Pyridine killed the English crabs","authors":"Alex T Ford, Mark Fitzsimons, Crispin Halsall","doi":"10.1039/d4va00006d","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The North East coast of England experienced a mass mortality event in late 2021 affecting millions of crabs and lobsters. The die-off coincided with the redevelopment of one of the UK’s flagship ports, prompting local scientists to suggest the remobilization of dredged industrial contaminants as a cause. A multi-agency investigation found no definitive causal factor, however re-evaluation of data by consultants drew a different conclusion, linking the industrial compound pyridine to the crustacean deaths. An unpublished study subsequently claimed that their data demonstrated pyridine to be exceptionally toxic, and that their modeling explained the coastal distribution of washups. This data was presented to a cross-party Environmental, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (EFRA) committee in the UK parliament, and led to the commissioning of an independent panel to review the data. This panel was also unable to identify a definitive cause, but found that a major role for pyridine was ‘very unlikely’. Unfortunately, the debate has been highly politicised, with misleading information aired by the two leading political parties. Here, several members of that independent review panel refute the pyridine link to the mass mortality, based on both reported data and the known chemistry and behaviour of this molecule, and highlight where the science has been misrepresented by the media.","PeriodicalId":72941,"journal":{"name":"Environmental science. Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental science. Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1039/d4va00006d","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The North East coast of England experienced a mass mortality event in late 2021 affecting millions of crabs and lobsters. The die-off coincided with the redevelopment of one of the UK’s flagship ports, prompting local scientists to suggest the remobilization of dredged industrial contaminants as a cause. A multi-agency investigation found no definitive causal factor, however re-evaluation of data by consultants drew a different conclusion, linking the industrial compound pyridine to the crustacean deaths. An unpublished study subsequently claimed that their data demonstrated pyridine to be exceptionally toxic, and that their modeling explained the coastal distribution of washups. This data was presented to a cross-party Environmental, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (EFRA) committee in the UK parliament, and led to the commissioning of an independent panel to review the data. This panel was also unable to identify a definitive cause, but found that a major role for pyridine was ‘very unlikely’. Unfortunately, the debate has been highly politicised, with misleading information aired by the two leading political parties. Here, several members of that independent review panel refute the pyridine link to the mass mortality, based on both reported data and the known chemistry and behaviour of this molecule, and highlight where the science has been misrepresented by the media.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么没有证据表明吡啶杀死了英国螃蟹
2021 年末,英格兰东北海岸发生了大规模死亡事件,数百万只螃蟹和龙虾受到影响。这次死亡事件与英国旗舰港口之一的重新开发相吻合,促使当地科学家认为疏浚工业污染物的重新流动是造成死亡的原因之一。一项多机构调查没有发现明确的致病因素,但顾问对数据的重新评估得出了不同的结论,认为工业化合物吡啶与甲壳类动物的死亡有关。随后,一项未发表的研究称,他们的数据表明吡啶具有特殊毒性,他们的建模解释了冲刷的沿海分布。这些数据被提交给了英国议会的一个跨党派环境、渔业和农村事务(EFRA)委员会,并导致该委员会委托一个独立小组对这些数据进行审查。该小组也无法确定明确的原因,但认为吡啶发挥主要作用的可能性 "非常小"。不幸的是,这场辩论被高度政治化,两个主要政党都发布了误导性信息。在此,该独立审查小组的几位成员根据报告数据和已知的吡啶分子化学性质和行为,驳斥了吡啶与大规模死亡之间的联系,并强调了媒体对科学的误导之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Laccase-Mediated Degradation of Emergent Contaminants: Unveiling a Sustainable Solution A brief review on flue gas desulfurization gypsum recovery toward calcium carbonate preparation Advancements in Visible Light-Driven Micro/nanomotors for Photodegradation of Environmental Pollutants Impacts of biochar and slag on carbon sequestration potential and sustainability assessment of MgO-stabilized marine soils: insights from MIP analysis Back cover
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1