Pesticides May Drastically Shorten Fish Lifespans, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 13
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: Even low levels of common agricultural pesticides can stunt the long-term lifespan of fish, according to research led by Jason Rohr, a biologist at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. Signs of aging accelerated when fish were exposed to the chemicals, according to the study, published in Science, which could have implications for other organisms. [...] The research found that fish from pesticide-affected lakes showed shortened telomeres, the caps at the end of chromosomes that are known as the biological clock for aging. When they shorten, it is a sign of cellular aging and a decline in the body's regenerative capacity. The lake populations consisted of younger fish, indicating that the pesticides contributed to shortened lives. Laboratory experiments confirmed the findings and showed chronic low-dose exposure reduced fish survival and degraded telomeres. These effects were not seen with acute high-dose exposure.
Chemical analysis showed chlorpyrifos, which is banned in the UK and the EU but used in the US and China, was the only compound found in the fish tissues that was consistently associated with signs of aging. These included shortened telomeres and lipofuscin deposition -- a buildup of insoluble proteins often described as cellular "junk". The worrying aging effects occurred at concentrations below current US freshwater safety standards, Rohr said, suggesting the effects of chemicals and pesticides could be occurring at low levels over the long term. While short-term exposure to high doses did not appear to cause these aging issues -- though it did cause high toxicity and death in fish -- the researchers concluded that it was long-term exposure to low doses that drove the changes. The scientists added that reduced lifespan was particularly problematic because older fish often contribute disproportionately to reproduction, genetic diversity and population stability.
Chemical analysis showed chlorpyrifos, which is banned in the UK and the EU but used in the US and China, was the only compound found in the fish tissues that was consistently associated with signs of aging. These included shortened telomeres and lipofuscin deposition -- a buildup of insoluble proteins often described as cellular "junk". The worrying aging effects occurred at concentrations below current US freshwater safety standards, Rohr said, suggesting the effects of chemicals and pesticides could be occurring at low levels over the long term. While short-term exposure to high doses did not appear to cause these aging issues -- though it did cause high toxicity and death in fish -- the researchers concluded that it was long-term exposure to low doses that drove the changes. The scientists added that reduced lifespan was particularly problematic because older fish often contribute disproportionately to reproduction, genetic diversity and population stability.
What does this prove? (Score:1)
That fish are pests?
Re: What does this prove? (Score:2)
Care to extend that line of reasoning to humans? Do pesticides shorten our lifespans?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it increases cancer rates? if it's only 2-3% it's within margin of error and we'll never confirm it. If it's 13% it'll take 30+ years because the industry is probably around as powerful as tobacco; although the USA is at it's most corrupt, other places could figure it out but they already avoided the problem so why would they invest in such efforts?
What really shortens fish lifespans (Score:2)
Is Chinese fishing fleets roaming the oceans and fishing until the water is empty.
But, yeah, pesticides.
Re: (Score:1)
Jiiihna!
Re: (Score:2)
"...combined field observations of more than 20,000 lake skygazer fish from lakes..."
Not sure how fishing fleets roaming the oceans impacted the lake fish, but if you say so ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They have to feed 1.2 billion people. PER CAPITA fishing volume the US captures more ocean fish than China. The ocean is a shared resource so if you want to enforce some BS law of how much fish can be caught. Other countries should per capita reduce their fish capture. Here are the biggest offenders per capita:
Top Countries by Capture Fisheries Volume Per Capita
Based on 2026 projections and recent FAO reporting cycles, the following nations produce the highest volume of wild-caught fish per resident:
Iceland
Re: (Score:2)
Two wrongs do not make a right. Per capita is an attempt to justify one wrong with another. Overfishing is not made good by overpopulation.
The rest of your post is whataboutism -"everyone else is doing bad things!"
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. What I am saying is that we need to determine how much fishing is OK and then allow it per capita for each nation. Not sure how that's a wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fun to watch someone flood a conversation with statistics, then interpret them in a way that has no bearing on the issue at hand to support their argument.
There is no way that the average person in Iceland is eating 4000kg of fish per year. Surely there's some other explanation of where all that fish goes.
Round-Up Ready Salmon (Score:2)
Bayer just realized another market with growth potential.
Fish will evolve around it (Score:1)
humans won't, and fuck selves in their greedy asses.
Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring confirmed (Score:2)