This news has been received from: motherjones.com

All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.

mail: [NewsMag]

James Wakibia/SOPA Images via ZUMA Press Wire

This story was originally published by Hakai Magazine and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The plastics had only been submerged in the ocean off Falmouth, England, for a week, but in that time a thin layer of biofilm, a slimy mix of mucus and microbes, had already developed on their surfaces.

Michiel Vos, a microbiologist at the University of Exeter in England, had sunk five different types of plastic as a test. He and his colleagues wanted to know which of the myriad microbes living in the ocean would glom on to these introduced materials.

Vos and his colleagues’ chief concern was pathogenic bacteria. To understand the extent to which plastic can be colonized by potentially deadly bacteria, the scientists injected wax moth larvae with the biofilm. After a week, four percent of the larvae died. But four weeks later, after Vos and his team had let the plastics stew in the ocean for a bit longer, they repeated the test. This time, 65 percent of the wax moths died.

The scientists analyzed the biofilm: the plastics were covered in bacteria, including some known to make us sick. They found pathogenic bacteria responsible for causing urinary tract, skin, and stomach infections, pneumonia, and other illnesses. To make matters worse, these bacteria were also carrying a wide range of genes for antimicrobial resistance. “Plastics that you find in the water are rapidly colonized by bacteria, including pathogens,” says Vos. “And it doesn’t really matter what plastic it is.”

It’s not just bacteria that are hitching a ride on plastics. Biofilms on marine plastics can also harbor parasites, viruses, and toxic algae. With marine plastic pollution so ubiquitous—it’s been found everywhere from the bottom of the Mariana Trench to Arctic beaches—scientists are concerned that plastics are transporting these human pathogens around the oceans.

But whether plastics are bearing pathogen populations dense enough to actually be dangerous and whether they are carrying them to new areas are difficult questions to answer.

There are good reasons to believe that plastics are accumulating and spreading pathogens around the world. Linda Amaral-Zettler, a microbiologist at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, who coined the term plastisphere for the novel ecosystem plastics create, says plastic is different from other hard surfaces one often finds in the ocean—such as logs, shells, and rocks—because plastic is durable, long-lived, and a lot of it floats. “That gives it mobility,” she says.

Plastics can travel long distances. After the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, for example, many identifiably Japanese objects washed up on the west coast of North America. This litter, says Amaral Zettler, has “the potential to transport anything attached to it.”

Recent laboratory work also shows that some typically terrestrial disease-causing parasites can survive in seawater and infect marine mammals. Karen Shapiro, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, Davis, showed that these protozoan parasites—specifically, Toxoplasma gondii, Cryptosporidium parvum, and Giardia enterica—can attach to microplastics in seawater. This could be altering where, when, and how these parasites accumulate in the ocean.

“If they are hitching a ride on plastics that happen to be in the same sewer outlet, or river, or overland runoff from a storm drain, then they will end up where the plastic ends up,” Shapiro explains. That could be in shellfish on the seafloor, or floating on currents in the middle of the ocean.

The next step, Shapiro explains, is to look for a similar association between parasites and plastics outside the lab.

That microplastic pollution appears to be a breeding ground for pathogens raises, for Vos, a long-term concern as well—that plastics might be promoting the spread of antibiotic resistance. Bacteria can exchange genes, and since the bacteria are in close contact on the surface of tiny microplastics, the level of horizontal gene transfer between them is high, he says. Plastics can also put bacteria in close contact with pesticides and other pollutants, which also stick to biofilms. This encourages the development of antimicrobial resistance.

“We don’t know that much about it,” Vos says, “but there’s potentially interesting ways in which bacteria can experience stronger selection [for antimicrobial resistance] on plastics, but also have more opportunity to exchange genes that could confer resistance.”

As well as posing potential risks to human health, plastic-borne pathogens could threaten marine ecosystems and food supply chains, Amaral-Zettler says. Millions of people rely on seafood as a source of protein, and there are many pathogens that infect the fish and shellfish we eat. It might be possible, Amaral-Zettler says, for microplastics to spread diseases between different aquaculture and fishing areas.

Even though we don’t fully understand the risks, these studies are yet another good argument for limiting plastic pollution, Vos says. “There can’t be anything positive about plastics with pathogens floating around.”

News Source: motherjones.com

Tags: donate donate coronavirus investigations photos coronavirus donate investigations photos climate desk donate donate climate change climate desk environment health donate give a gift subscription donate a microbiologist at the university plastic pollution that plastics in close contact marine plastic percent the scientists the scientists understand plastics plastics bacteria can in the ocean the plastics the plastics the plastic vos

Brooklyn Beckham and Nicola Peltz kiss on red carpet amid family drama

Next News:

Technology | It didnt take long for Metas new chatbot to say something offensive

By Catherine Thorbecke | CNN Business

Meta’s new chatbot can convincingly mimic how humans speak on the internet — for better and worse.

In conversations with CNN Business this week, the chatbot, which was released publicly Friday and has been dubbed BlenderBot 3, said it identifies as “alive” and “human,” watches anime and has an Asian wife. It also falsely claimed that Donald Trump is still president and there is “definitely a lot of evidence” that the election was stolen.

If some of those responses weren’t concerning enough for Facebook’s parent company, users were quick to point out that the artificial intelligence-powered bot openly blasted Facebook. In one case, the chatbot reportedly said it had “deleted my account” over frustration with how Facebook handles user data.

While there’s potential value in developing chatbots for customer service and digital assistants, there’s a long history of experimental bots quickly running into trouble when released to the public, such as with Microsoft’s “Tay” chatbot more than six years ago. The colorful responses from BlenderBot show the limitations of building automated conversational tools, which are typically trained on large amounts of public online data.

“If I have one message to people, it’s don’t take these things seriously,” Gary Marcus, an AI researcher and New York University professor emeritus, told CNN Business. “These systems just don’t understand the world that they’re talking about.”

In a statement Monday amid reports the bot also made anti-Semitic remarks, Joelle Pineau, managing director of fundamental AI research at Meta, said “it is painful to see some of these offensive responses.” But she added that “public demos like this are important for building truly robust conversational AI systems and bridging the clear gap that exists today before such systems can be productionized.”

Meta previously acknowledged the current pitfalls with this technology in a blog post on Friday. “Since all conversational AI chatbots are known to sometimes mimic and generate unsafe, biased or offensive remarks, we’ve conducted large-scale studies, co-organized workshops and developed new techniques to create safeguards for BlenderBot 3,” the company said. “Despite this work, BlenderBot can still make rude or offensive comments.”

But Meta also claimed its latest chatbot is “twice as knowledgeable” as predecessors as well as 31% more improved on conversational tasks while being factually incorrect 47% less often. Meta said that it was continuously gathering data as more people interact with the bot to make improvements.

Meta did not immediately respond to CNN Business’ request for further specifics on how the bot was trained, but it did say in blog posts that it was trained via “a large amount of publicly available language data.” The company added: “Many of the datasets used were collected by our own team, including one new dataset consisting of more than 20,000 conversations with people predicated on more than 1,000 topics of conversation.”

Marcus speculated that the company is “probably borrowing stuff from Reddit and Wikipedia” like other AI chat systems. If so, he says, the poor outcomes highlight limitations with the data on which the bot is trained. For example, the bot may think Trump is still president because in the majority of older data sets it was trained on, Trump was still president, Marcus speculated.

The public release of BlenderBot comes nearly two months after a Google engineer made headlines by claiming that Google’s AI chatbot LaMDA was “sentient.” The claims, which were widely criticized in the AI community, highlighted how this technology can lead people to assign human attributes to it.

Related Articles

  • Technology | Social media addiction bill fails in California Legislature
  • Technology | Nebraska mom charged with aiding teen’s abortion after police find Facebook messages
  • Technology | Opinion: California can end social media ploys to keep children clicking
  • Technology | Manjoo: The economy is in a weird place — especially in the tech industry
  • Technology | Will California tech giants be held liable for social media addiction?
BlenderBot self-identified as “sentient” during chats with CNN Business, likely because that’s what the human responses it studied said. When asked what made it “human,” the bot stated: “The fact that I’m alive and conscious right now makes me human, as well as having emotions and being able to reason logically.”

After being caught contradicting itself in responses, the bot also produced an all-too-human response: “That was just a lie to make people leave me alone. I’m afraid of getting hurt if I tell the truth.”

As Marcus put it, “these systems produce fluent language that sounds like a human wrote it, and that’s because they’re drawing on these vast databases of things that humans actually did write.” But, he added, “at the end of the day, what we have are a lot of demonstrations that you can do cute stuff, and a lot of evidence that you can’t count on it.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Other News

  • Major update in chilling case of mom whose decapitated body found in plastic container with head recovered months later
  • Paulina Porizkova fires back after plastic surgeon says her face needs fixing
  • Fox News panel explodes when guest defends Hillary Clinton mishandling classified info: She cooperated like a normal human being
  • NFL | Tom Brady on personal leave: Were praying for whatever hes got going on
  • Health | A new virus was found in China, heres what we know
  • Technology | It didnt take long for Metas new chatbot to say something offensive
  • Kardashian fans think Kim now looks like Teen Mom Farrah Abraham with ‘frozen’ face from ‘too much fillers’ in new video