1 . Japan said Tuesday that it would start pouring treated radioactive water (放射性废水) from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean within two years. Officials in Tokyo said the water would be filtered and diluted (稀释) to safe levels first, but most locals remain firmly opposed to the plan. Protesters gathered outside Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s residence in downtown Tokyo to criticize the government’s decision.

More than a million tons of radioactive water is currently being stored at the Fukushima power plant in a massive tank farm big enough to fill 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The wastewater comes from water pumped in to cool the plant’s damaged reactors (反应堆). The government says it has simply run out of room to store all the water. The plan to dump the water into the ocean first came to light in the autumn of last year, when Japanese news reported anonymous (匿名的) officials said the decision had been taken.

On Tuesday, Suga said that after years of study, his scientific advisors had concluded that ocean discharge was the most possible way to cope with the wastewater. But the decision to pour Fukushima wastewater into the ocean has drawn fire from neighboring Asian countries and local fishermen along Japan’s coast.

China called the decision “extremely irresponsible,” and South Korea summoned (召唤) the Japanese ambassador in Seoul over the matter. “They told us that they wouldn’t release the water into the sea without the support of fishermen,” Kanji Tachiya, who leads a local cooperative of fisheries in Fukushima, told national broadcaster NHK ahead of the announcement on Tuesday. “We can’t support this move to break that promise and release the water into the sea unilaterally (单方面地).”

The actual release of water from the Fukushima plant will take decades to complete. Critics have called on Japan’s government to at least ensure that independent monitoring is in place to check the level of radiation in the poured water is safe for the environment.

3 . There is increasing alarm about the extent of micro plastic pollution, which has been found everywhere from Everest to the Arctic. However, it turns out there’s an even smaller and more poisonous form of plastic pollution entering remote reaches of the globe. A new study published in Environmental Research found significant quantities of nanoplastics in ice samples from both the North and South Poles.

“Now we know that nanoplastics are transported to these comers of the Earth in these quantities. This indicates that nanoplastics are really a bigger pollution problem than we thought,” study lead author Dusan Materic said in a press release.

Nanoplastics are plastics that are smaller than a micrometer in size. Their small size means they are more difficult to study than microplastics, or plastics between five millimeters and a micrometer. But they maybe even more dangerous.

“Nanoplastics are very toxicologically active compared to, for instance, microplastics, and that’s why this is very important” Materic said.

Materic and his team used new methods to measure nanoplastic pollution in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica. They sampled a 14-meter-deep ice core (核) from the Greenland icecap and sea ice from Antarcia’s McMurdo Sound. They found that there were an average of 13.2 nanograms per milliliter of nanoplastics in the Greenland ice and an average of 52.3 nanograms per milliliter in the Antarctic ice.

But what was even more surprising than the amount of nanoplastics in the remote ice was just how long they had sat there. “In the Greenland core, we see nanoplastic pollution happening all the way from the 1960s. So organisms, despite the lack of the solid evidence, likely all over the world, have been exposed to it for quite some time now,” Materic said.

The study also looked at the types of plastic present in the samples. Half of the Greenland nanoplastics were polyethylene (PE), the kind of plastic used for plastic bags and packaging. A quarter came from tires and a fifth were polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is, used for clothing and bottles.

4 . British chip maker Walkers is being flooded with mail deliveries of its own packaging. An online petition (请愿) with more than 312,000 signatures so far encourages those who signed to mail their empty chip plastic bags to Walkers as an act of protest against the bags’ non-recyclable design.

As petition organizer Geraint Ashcroft explained, the majority of chip packets, made from plastic coated with metal, are not recyclable and have been found fully undamaged up to 33 years after consumption. The UK alone consumes 6 billion bags of chips a year, and Walkers turns out 11 million bags daily. Ashcroft wrote, “At today’s consumption rate in 33 years’ time, there will be 200 billion packets either sent to landfill or polluting our oceans. Many will be eaten by fish or birds, leading to a slow death.”

Mailing the bags to Walkers is a way to hold the company accountable for its packaging and to pressure it to come up with a better design. But it is controversial. Because the Royal Mail postal service isn’t happy about the sudden in flow of packages, asking people calm down to help with ease of delivery. Critics on Twitter also question the logic of buying a product in order to protest against its producer and suggest that giving up chips altogether would improve one’s health as well as the environment.

Walkers issued a statement on Wednesday, saying it will make its packaging plastic-free by 2025. “We have received some returned packets and recognized the efforts being made to bring the issue of packaging waste to our attention. The returned packets will be used in our research as we work towards our commitment of improving the recyclability of our packaging.”

5 . To solve a big environmental problem, chemists have been thinking small. Really small: a new mini robot with the purpose of helping clean up tiny plastic that pollutes water across the world.

The new microrobots, each of which is no bigger than the tip of a pencil, are magnetic(有磁性的)and shaped like four-pointed stars. When the sunlight shines on them, they can swim in a direction; when the sunlight disappears, they stop moving. Finding a piece of plastic, they hold onto it, produce chemical reactions and start to break it down.

The project is led by chemist Martin Pumera, a researcher who also studies ways to build microrobots at the Czech University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. About ten years ago, he noticed the microplastic was everywhere, from the bottom of the ocean to the ice on the top of mountains. It even turned up in drinking water, both bottled and tap water. Just think about how much plastic you meet every day. It doesn’t easily degrade ( 降 解 ) which is a big problem. Therefore, Pumera chose to focus on the problem of water pollution caused by microplastic.

The researchers tested the microrobots on four types of plastic in the lab. After a week, all four began degrading, losing around 3 percent of their weight, which showed the microrobots were breaking the plastic down. The robots also turned the plastic’s smooth surface into the rough one. Finally, the scientists showed that magnets could attract the microrobots at the end of the test - along with the plastic waste.

In fact, Pumera says they still have a long way to go. These microrobots are unlikely to succeed in degrading all types of plastic. They’ll also need a lot of testing to show that they’re safe in open waterways, such as at sea. But he thinks that these challenges can be overcome. Someday, the microrobots will play a big role in a worldwide cleanup effort.

7 . We all have an idea about the common types of environmental problems. However, light pollution may be a new term to many of us. But, the fact is that it does affect mankind, other living forms and the environment as a whole.

What is light pollution? It presents all forms of misused man-made light. The obvious cause of light pollution is the use of outdoor lighting products improperly. It can be office lighting, car headlights, station lights, streetlights and many more.

Light pollution is harmful to both animals and plants. Upon studies, it is found that obvious effects are observed in the behaviour of animals that are active at night. Needless to mention, bright light at night makes it difficult for these animals to hunt, wander and perform their regular activities. Light pollution is directly or indirectly responsible for causing several diseases. Its effects are related to disturbance in the physical rhythm (节奏). It contributes to risks of developing cancerous cells. So, it’s nothing less than a threat to human health.

You have already seen the negative effects of light pollution on animals and human health. Apart from this, the actual cost of misused light is about millions of dollars every year. It also leads to the release of greenhouse gases and global warming. After all, coal or gas is used for producing electricity.

While outdoor lighting and using man-made lighting products are part of our modern lifestyle, some simple ways will surely help in reducing light pollution. For example, while installing (安装) outdoor lighting, make sure that they are pointed downwards. Also, use only the required lighting equipment for both home and offices. Believe it or not, many people living in the urban areas cannot view clear sky and stars at night. Let’s contribute our part in reducing the pollution.

8 . Microplastic pollution is increasing dramatically around the globe, according to a study of airborne (空气传播的) plastic particles(粒子).

People are already known to breathe, drink and eat microplastics, and research suggests that pollution levels will continue to rise rapidly. The researchers said that inhaling (吸入) these particles can irritate (刺激) lung tissue and lead to serious diseases.

Professor Natalie Mahowald, at Cornell University in the US and part of the research team, said: “But maybe we could solve this before it becomes a huge problem, if we manage our plastics better, before they accumulate (积聚) in the environment and swirl (打旋) around everywhere.”

The research, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined airborne microplastics, which have been far less studied than plastic in oceans and rivers.

The team gathered more than 300 samples of airborne microplastics from 11 sites across the western US. These were the basis for atmospheric modeling that estimated the contribution from different sources, and was the first such study to do so.

They found that roads were the dominant factor in the western US, linked to about 85 percent of the microplastics in the air. These are likely to include particles from tires and brake pads on vehicles, and plastics from litter that had been broken down.

The researchers extended their modeling work to a global level and this suggested that while roads are also likely to be the dominant driver of airborne plastics in Europe, South America and Australia, plastic particles blown up from fields may be a much bigger factor in Africa and Asia.

Professor Andreas Stohl of the University of Vienna’s Faculty of Earth Sciences, and not part of the study team, said: “The study confirms the global-scale nature of microplastic transport in the atmosphere and does a good job in highlighting highly relevant and concerning possibilities, but more measurement data is needed to get a better idea of the sources.”

10 . From his uptown Manhattan home, Samir Kumar can usually see skyscrapers (摩天大楼) downtown. But this week, as smoke from wildfires raging in the western United States and Canada stretched all the way to the East Coast, the city skyline was invisible.

Currently, nearly 300 wildfires are burning in British Columbia and about 80 are blazing through states in the U. S. West The fires get worse due to heat waves and prolonged (持续的) drought in the west, two weather patterns made more extreme by climate change.

As the smoke spreads across the country and exposes millions of people, the health impact becomes more widespread among the most vulnerable (易受伤的). In addition to causing breath problems, the smoke can lead to poor heart health. What’s more, smoke from wildfires could make it harder for people to fight off COVID-19 infections and the emerging variants (出现的变体) because their immune (免疫的) systems are already battling pollution. Studies have shown that people exposed to air pollution are more likely to die from COVID-19.

For the first time in its history as a state, California’s population is decreasing Falling birth rates, high housing prices and high taxes have been factors for years, and COVID-19 has strengthened the trend, delaying planned moves into the slate. Many survivors of wildfires have also chosen to rebuild in different states. “If I was starting to raise children… I probably would leave this state.” says Hertz-Picciotto, a director of the university’s health science center. She plans to spend several weeks during the height of wildfire season in August away from her home in northern California, where wildfires have become common.

Reducing air pollution from wildfire smoke in California and the rest of the country will require reducing the number and size of wildfires themselves. Lawmakers have introduced laws aimed at better managing forests, training more firefighters and making infrastructure (基础设施) more fire resistant.

“Ultimately until we stop burning fossil fuels. I don’t see why it’s not going to get worse. It certainly can’t get better,” says Hertz-Picciotto.