Small-scale gold mining in South America is facing a risk of collapse as the prohibition of mercury – a highly toxic metal – is threatening the industry. Despite the ban, both the legal and illegal trade of mercury are thriving, resulting in complex and multifaceted issues with devastating health and environmental impacts. Collaborative efforts are needed to prioritise sustainable and ethical practices to address the illegal mercury trade.

—

Why Is Mercury Dangerous?

Mercury can affect the neurological and nervous systems. The World Health Organisation reports that mercury exposure can cause tremors, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular effects, headaches, and cognitive and motor dysfunction. Prolonged exposure can lead to irreversible neurological damage. The toxic metal can also contaminate the environment, and mercury pollution can lead to poisoning in humans and wildlife that eat contaminated fish. Smugglers continue to transport mercury from Guyana to neighbouring countries, despite the risks to human health and the environment. 

You might also like: Cobalt Mining: The Dark Side of the Renewable Energy Transition

Mercury Trade in South America

Mercury has long been used in small-scale gold mining throughout South America due to its ability to bind with flecks of gold and form an amalgam that simplifies collection. However, increasing scrutiny of the metal’s health and environmental impact is leading to its prohibition throughout the continent. Unfortunately, this puts economies that rely on gold mining at risk of collapse, and smugglers are taking advantage of the situation. 

One of the last countries legally importing mercury is Guyana, making it a nexus for smuggling mercury into neighbouring countries. 20,000 kilogrammes of mercury are legally imported into Guyana’s capital Georgetown every year from the US, the UK, Russia, and other countries. Increasingly, large quantities are also being imported on the black market, representing a multi-million dollar industry of both legal and illicit trade in mercury. 

In the centre of Georgetown, dozens of gold shops and mining supply stores divide up and sell mercury under the table in small quantities. From there, mini-buses and charter planes distribute the mercury to small-time buyers of gold mines throughout the interior of Guyana and traffic it to neighbouring countries where it is sold at ten times the price. Talking about mercury is taboo for most traders who lack the paperwork to legally move the liquid metal.

Mahdia is a historic gold-producing centre in Guyana’s interior surrounded by mines scattered throughout the lush forests. There, miners go into cold water early in the morning, sometime around 5 a.m., to start pumping water. From 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day, they use silver mercury to drop it on the sheet, then they put the silver into the pond or trouble, and the silver still runs. Without the silver, they cannot catch any gold. Mercury binds with flecks of gold to form an amalgam that’s easier to collect. Without it, miners would go home empty-handed. 

The bustling commerce of Mahdia embodies the free spirit of the Guyanese interior, where gold fever has a firm grip on the people. 

Buyers and jewellers in Mahdia burn off excess mercury from fresh mine gold, turning a shapeless mass into refined bars, all the while exposing themselves to an invisible danger. Smelting or dealing with a lot of mercury requires suiting up and gearing up, but not everyone takes these precautions.

Can We Stop Illegal Mercury Trade?

The Guyanese government ratified an international treaty in 2014 aimed at reducing mercury, known as the Minamata Convention, which requires them to phase out its use, putting miners who rely on mercury at odds with the government. If the prohibition of mercury goes into effect, it will have significant implications for the livelihoods of miners and communities across the Amazon.

The prohibition of mercury would certainly be a significant blow to the economies that rely on gold mining in South America. However, there are alternative, less harmful methods of mining that could be implemented. The long-term benefits of transitioning to these methods would far outweigh the short-term economic costs. Governments in the region need to take a stand and prioritise the health and well-being of their citizens over short-term economic gains.

The smugglers and black-market traders are not the only ones to blame for the continued use of mercury. The consumers who buy gold without considering its source also bear responsibility. It is important to be aware of the supply chains behind the products we buy and to support sustainable and ethical practices.

The situation in Guyana and the surrounding countries is complex and multifaceted. It is clear that the use of mercury in gold mining needs to end, but it is also important to consider the livelihoods of the miners and the economic impact of the prohibition. Solutions will require a collaborative effort from governments, miners, and consumers.

As the world becomes more interconnected, issues like mercury use in small-scale gold mining in South America become increasingly relevant to us all. It is important to educate ourselves and support sustainable practices that prioritise the health and well-being of people and the environment. The path to a better future begins with awareness, education, and action.

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons

You might also like: The Environmental Problems Caused by Mining

The post The Toxic Truth: Smugglers and Governments Fuelling Illegal Mercury Trade appeared first on Earth.Org.

Science has a sustainability problem- a lab uses up to 10x more energy and academic labs generated 12 billion pounds of plastic waste last year. Scientists want to do good in the world, but if they are not careful, they might be doing more harm.

—

What is The Problem?

Sustainability is the current zeitgeist and science has responded by inventing new green processes and synthesising new green materials. Sustainability depends on science. Whether one believes in renewables or nuclear, wants to engage in carbon capture or bioremediation, it is impossible to tackle climate change without employing science. However, these technologies did not come from nowhere. Modern science consumes extreme quantities of key resources (such as water, energy and plastic), which we cannot overlook.

As any scientist who works in a biotechnology lab can attest, they are addicted to plastic. In the quest for sterility, safety and efficiency, labware has switched to a very convenient material – plastic. A plastic test tube comes wrapped in plastic; held in a bag with the other test tubes which is also wrapped in plastic; within another larger bag or box of test tube bags; and placed in a larger box, with plastic packing material, for shipping. And, most, if not all of this material is single-use and dumped into biohazard waste disposal facilities. This waste is autoclaved (decontaminated at high temperatures) and then incinerated at high temperatures. 

Likewise, every chemistry bench (of which a lab has multiple) is equipped with a fume hood, which siphons off dangerous gases. Each one of these hoods uses as much energy as three and a half households! Bubbling away in these fume hoods are toxic reactions that require single-pass cooling, which is the scientific equivalent of a continuous cold shower. The technique consumes 2 000 gallons of clean water per reaction. Considering that each floor has multiple fume hoods running multiple reactions, each lab building has multiple floors and each research and development campus contains multiple buildings, the costs become staggering.  

Even astronomy labs are not immune. Modern astronomy requires extreme hardware, such as large radio arrays and supercomputers, which have extremely high carbon footprints. One lab, the Max Planck Institute in Germany, found that they emitted 18 tonnes CO2e per researcher per year, with 150 researchers on the team.

What is Green Lab?

Green Lab (or Sustainable Lab) is a movement advocating for research and analytical labs to become more sustainable. The goal is to encourage academic, industrial and analytical labs to examine their operating procedures and optimise for the smallest possible environmental footprint.

Sustainable Lab actions are not only good for the environment, but also make business sense. Beyond the raw monetary savings, they reduce risk from future legislative changes, bring institutions in line with customer demands and develop a good culture for employees. 

Why is This So Difficult?

The problem is that Sustainable Lab practices are not taught in traditional education and aren’t prevalent in scientific culture. It requires educating scientists and changing the way science is done. 

Scientific procedures are passed on from one generation to the next. This leads to a set of standard practices and conventions, concerning everything from refrigerator temperatures to sterilisation methods. While many of these conventions could use revision for the modern day, scientists do not have the time to examine every tradition in extensive detail. Deviating from the norm could introduce more doubt (perceived or actual) into one’s experiments. 

Green Labs require scientists to step back from their high-paced research world, and analyse everything that they have ever been taught, every procedure and every assumption, to see where changes can be made. 

This is easier said than done. Often the protocols are so ingrained that scientists do not even realise that they can make changes. An excellent example is the temperature of laboratory freezers used to store biological samples. The earliest ultra-low temperature scientific freezers, the type used to store the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, were only able to get to -60°C, which is roughly the minimum acceptable standard. However, with better refrigerant technologies and improved insulation, freezers were able to achieve -70°C. These extra 10 degrees were a meaningful improvement because they ensured that opening the freezer door would not ruin samples. 

You might also like: Centuries-Old Trees May Be at Risk of Dying from Climate Change- Study

Ultra-low temperature freezer, a “-80” (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

However, the 1980s saw more advances, and the -80°C freezer was born. Adoptions were slow at first because labs could not justify the increased cost. However, years of marketing made their mark, and over time -80°C freezers became the norm. Some labs even set their freezers at -86°C! Today, an ultra-low temperature freezer is known simply as a “-80.” 

The stored biological molecules have not changed significantly, but there is an erroneous belief that lower temperatures are definitely better. The Green Lab movement actively encourages labs to relax their lab freezers back to -70°C, which provides an energy savings of up to 30% and increases the life of the freezer. However, the suggestion is often met with intense resistance. A freezer stores a scientist’s life’s work and increasing the temperature to save some energy, is seen as a move too risky for most to make.   

Another problem is that unsustainable lab methods are generally given a pass. Science happens in the initial stages, where the chances of success are lowest. Therefore, it is often considered inefficient to worry about sustainability. Why work on saving water in an experiment, if it probably won’t even work? It is thought that, since scientists are only doing that reaction once, twice, or a hundred times at small scale, the environmental impact is low. They believe it is more important to get the technology out fast and to worry about sustainability when it gets produced at manufacturing scale. Essentially, scientists are passing the buck onto the process engineers downstream.

Unfortunately, most engineers do not have the same depth of science education as scientists – after all, they studied engineering. Even if the engineers care about sustainability, they will work on reducing the carbon footprint in areas they understand, such as the cleaning and sanitisation procedures of the manufacturing equipment. Unless it impacts their work, engineers will never pause a manufacturing start-up and send a reaction back to the lab for sake of sustainability. The unsustainable methods coming out of research and development labs can perpetuate through to production. 

Once a scientific method is validated, the scientists then publish their work in journal papers. As mentioned earlier, those methods get passed on and get repeated hundreds of thousands more times. Sustainability in the lab matters. 

What Should Be Done?

Getting started is easy. There are many simple ways to be more sustainable in the lab. These include:

• turning off unused lights and equipment, 
• changing to LED lighting, 
• doing routine equipment checks and maintenance, 
• cleaning and defrosting freezers, 
• sharing equipment, 
• not using ultra-pure water when tap water will do
• separating waste, 
• donating unused equipment and consumables
• reducing and reusing where possible. 

These may sound obvious, but are surprisingly rare in labs. Laboratories are highly-specialised, risk-averse environments. For every step, scientists will need to invest some time educating themselves. For example, before turning off a piece of equipment, they may need to check the manual or contact the manufacturer. Another is breaking down and understanding pre-made lab testing kits to look for alternatives. Since every lab is different, even the simple actions may require some trial and error. But once a good change is found, the benefits can be multiplied by sharing these good practices with colleagues.  

Although the above actions are a fantastic start, they will not be enough to align scientific research with the goals promised in the Paris Agreement. Although sustainability is everyone’s responsibility, dedicated effort and money needs be allotted to decarbonising labs. A full Green Lab program is complex and requires a large amount of time and expertise to design and implement. It should not just be added to the end of a scientist’s job description.

Further encouragement for Green Lab programmes need to come from upper-level management, universities, governments and funding bodies. A serious Green Lab programme should assemble a specialised team with deep understanding of science and lab processes to develop an action plan that includes audits, tracking, targeting, benchmarking and reporting. Green Lab also requires drastic culture change. Everyone from the newly-hired lab technician to the senior lab manager needs to be open and willing to do things differently. They need to learn to take smart risks and everyone needs to do their part. 

Thus far, universities have been leading the way starting Green Lab programmes. Students consider sustainable science as their “moral obligation” and bring a wealth of enthusiasm and new ideas to the movement. Industrial labs have been slow to follow, and it is time for companies to step up. 

The post Science Has a Sustainability Problem: How Can We Make Labs Greener? appeared first on Earth.Org.