1 . In the first test of its kind in Europe, and only the second in the world, Belgian researchers tested 39 brands of straws (吸管) for the group of synthetic (合成的) chemicals known as poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The straws are made from five materials — paper, bamboo, glass, stainless steel and plastic. PFAS were found in the majority of the straws tested and were most common in those made from paper and bamboo. They were not found only in steel straws tested.

PFAS are used to make everyday products, from outdoor clothing to non-stick pans, resistant (抵抗to water, heat and stains. They are, however, potentially harmful to people, wildlife and the environment. They have been related to a number of health problems, including lower response to vaccines (疫苗), lower birth weight, thyroid disease, liver damage, kidney cancer and testicular cancer. They break down very slowly over time and can last thousands of years in the environment, a property that has led to them being known as “forever chemicals”.

A growing number of countries, including the UK and Belgium, have sopped the sale of single-use plastic products, including drinking straws, and plant-based versions have become popular. The PFAS concentrations (浓缩物) were low in them and, bear in mind that most people tend to only use straws occasionally, bringing a limited risk to human health. However, PFAS can remain in the body for many years and concentrations can build up over time.

It isn’t known whether the PFAS were added to the straws by the producer for waterproofing or the PFAS were the result of contamination. Potential sources of contamination include the soil the plant-based materials were grown in and the water used in the production process. However, the presence of the chemicals in almost every brand of paper straws means it is likely that it was, in some cases, being used as a water-resistant coating, say the researchers.

2 . A new study has found that light pollution is making the night sky brighter and the stars dimmer (暗淡的). The study examined data from more than 50, 000 citizen star watchers across the world, It found that man-made, or artificial lighting is making the night sky about 10 percent brighter each year. Data for the study was collected from 2011 to 2022.

The result was a much faster rate of change than scientists had estimated in the past. As cities expand and put up more lights, a “skyglow” is created in the sky. Skyglow is a term scientists use to describe light that becomes more intense. The research team gave an example to explain the result. If a child is born where 250 stars can be seen on a clear night, by the time that child turns 18, only 100 stars will be seen.

Past studies involving artificial lighting used satellite images of the Earth at night. They had estimated the yearly increase in sky brightness to be about 2 percent a year. But the satellites used are not able to identify light with wavelengths toward the blue end of the spectrum (光谱) — including light given off by energy-effective LED bulbs. The researchers noted that more than half the new outdoor lights put in across the United States during the past 10 years have been LED lights. The satellites are also better at finding light that gets spread upward like a spotlight than light that spreads out from side to side, Kyba said.

“Migratory songbirds normally use starlight to orient (确定方向) where they are in the sky at night,” said Georgetown University biologist Emily Williams. She was not part of the study. And when sea turtle babies hatch, they use light to orient toward the ocean — light pollution is a huge deal for them.

Falchi, the physicist at the University of Santiago de Compostela, said part of what is being lost is a universal human experience. “The night sky caused the generations before ours to have exciting new ideas or made them want to create something, especially in art, music, science and literature,” he added.

3 . According to a new study, human noise is a “major global pollutant” that harms a wider range of animal life than we tend to think. Published in the journal Biology Letters, the study suggests noise pollution not only harms lots of animals, but also threatens the survival of more than 100 different species.

Lots of species rely on sound for communication, for example, including many amphibians, birds, insects and mammals which use sound for vital business like finding mates or warning about predators (捕猎者). If noise pollution drowns out enough of these messages. it can threaten survival and the stability of their populations.

On the other hand, noise pollution can make it harder for some predators to find food Bats and owls rely on sound to hunt, for instance, which may not work if noise pollution drowns out the sounds of their prey like insects and mice. Even if noise pollution is mild, it might still force them to spend more time and energy searching for food, which could be enough to cause a decline.

Noise pollution is a well-known risk for whales and dolphins, but it threatens other sea animals, too. The researchers cite fish larvae, which are easily drawn to the sounds of coral reefs (珊瑚礁). This is how they find suitable habitats, but if their journey features too much noise from ships and other human sources, more fish larvae may get lost or move into wrong reefs, potentially reducing their lifespan.

Similarly, noise pollution influences the way animals migrate (迁徙), which in turn can have chain effects for ecosystems along migration routes. Some migrating birds avoid areas with noise pollution, the researchers note, which may change not only where they travel, but also where they establish long-term homes and raise their young. Many ecosystems and non-migrating species have come to depend on the arrival of migrating birds, and many others may be unprepared for their sudden absence, so this could cause a series of ecological changes.

“Noise must be considered as a global pollutant and we need to develop strategies to protect animals from noise for their livelihoods,” says Kunc, the lead author of the study.

4 . In the west of the Greek capital Athens, the fish market of Keratsini is busy early in the morning, with trucks waiting nearby to be loaded with fishes. But on his fishing boat, Arapakis sorts out something different—bottles, boots, plastic pipes and fishing nets, all dragged from the bed of the Aegean Sea.

“We are swimming in plastic,” said Arapakis, whose family has fished for five generations. “By 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea,” he said, as recent reports noted.

That morning’s plastic catch weighed “about 100 kilograms,” said the founder of Enaleia, a nonprofit that encourages fishermen to collect marine (海洋的) waste caught in their nets. Since its establishment in 2018, it has worked with more than 1,200 fishermen in Greece to raise concern over the degradation of the marine environment.

Active in 42 ports throughout Greece, Enaleia provides fishermen with large bags for marine waste that they can put in garbage cans once back at port. For every kilogram of plastic they deliver, they receive a small amount of money, which is enough for a drink. Since October, fishing crews have dragged out 20 metric tons of plastic and old fishing equipment each month. Nearly 600 tons have been collected over the last five years. The collected plastic is transported to a recycling plant in the industrial area of Megara near Keratsini, to make new products such as socks, swimwear or furniture.

Arapakis said he went about the cleanup project after a trip to Greece’s Cyclades islands, where he saw fishermen throwing the waste gathered by their nets back into the sea.

Arapakis is convinced there has been a “mentality change” among Greece’s fishermen. “Previously we caught large quantities of plastic, but we only kept the fish. All waste was thrown into the sea,” said Mokharam, team leader on the Arapakis family’s boat. “The project brings practical benefits for fishing boats. In the past, the anchor was often caught by waste, especially nets, and the engine would go out. But now things have changed,” he added.

Japan started releasing nuclear-contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean on August 24th and will continue to do so for at least 30 years. In the face of strong questioning and opposition from the international community, Japan plays word games by referring to the discharged “nuclear-contaminated water” as “treated nuclear wastewater”.

However, the two are fundamentally different. Nuclear wastewater refers to the wastewater produced during the normal, daily operation of a nuclear power plant, such as large quantities of water used to cool down the reactor of the plant. Because the water doesn’t touch radioactive substances (放射性物质) in the nuclear reactor, it can be flushed out after strict processing.

Nuclear-contaminated water refers to cooling water that comes into direct contact with radioactive materials inside the reactor when the reactor is breached after a nuclear accident. The cooling water becomes contaminated with highly radioactive substances, thus becoming nuclear-contaminated water.

The Fukushima nuclear power plant experienced a major incident in 2011, bringing water into contact with radioactive substances. The Japanese side’s conflation (混淆) of this with wastewater from normal operations is a deceptive attempt to hide the truth. The Japanese side claims that the multi-nuclide treatment system ALPS is used to treat nuclear contaminated water, and that the treated water is safe and even meets drinking water standards. However, such statements fail to alleviate public concerns. Japan has yet to address major international concerns, such as the long-term reliability of the purification facility, the authenticity and accuracy of the nuclear-contaminated water data, and the effectiveness if the monitoring arrangement. This is extremely selfish and irresponsible, as the discharge will spread the risks of nuclear contamination to the rest of the world.