It's time to rethink how satellites and other objects are made and eventually destroyed.
- The objects humans send to space teach us a lot about the universe, but they are also cluttering it up. While some objects are close enough to be retrieved, others become dangerous, fast-moving bullets that can cause serious damage.
- In addition to cleaning up what's already there, MIT Assistant Professor Danielle Wood says that we need to think more sustainably about the technology used in future missions. "We have to ask the question, will we respect the rights of people and the environment as we go forward in space," Wood says.
- One possible solution is a wax-based fuel source (made of beeswax and candle wax) for satellites that would be less toxic and more affordable than currently used inorganic compounds, and that would help bring the objects closer to Earth for deorbiting and destruction.
Since 1957, the world's space agencies have been polluting the space above us with countless pieces of junk, threatening our technological infrastructure and ability to venture deeper into space.
- Space debris is any human-made object that's currently orbiting Earth.
- When space debris collides with other space debris, it can create thousands more pieces of junk, a dangerous phenomenon known as the Kessler syndrome.
- Radical solutions are being proposed to fix the problem, some of which just might work. (See the video embedded toward the end of the article.)
In 1957, the Soviet Union launched a human-made object into orbit for the first time. It marked the dawn of the Space Age. But when Sputnik 1's batteries died and the aluminum satellite began lifelessly orbiting the planet, it marked the end of another era: the billions of years during which space was pristine.
Today, the space above Earth is the world's "largest garbage dump," according to NASA. It's littered with 8,000 tons of human-made junk, called space debris, left by space agencies over the past six decades.
The U.S. now tracks more than 25,000 pieces of space junk. And that's only the debris that ground-based radar technologies can track. The U.S. Space Surveillance Network estimates there could be more than 170 million pieces of space debris currently orbiting Earth, with the majority being tiny fragments smaller than 1 mm.
Space debris: Trashing a planet
Space debris includes all human-made objects, big and small, that are orbiting Earth but no longer serve a useful function. A brief inventory of known space junk includes: a spatula, a glove, a mirror, a bag filled with astronaut tools, spent rocket stages, stray bolts, paint chips, defunct spacecraft, and about 3,000 dead satellites — all of which are orbiting Earth at speeds of roughly 18,000 m.p.h.
By allowing space debris to accumulate unchecked, we could be building a prison that keeps us stranded on Earth for centuries.
Most space junk is floating in low Earth orbit (LEO), the region of space within an altitude of about 100 to 1,200 miles. LEO is also where most of the world's 3,000 satellites operate, powering our telecommunications, GPS technologies, and military operations.
"Millions of pieces of orbital debris exist in low Earth orbit (LEO) — at least 26,000 the size of a softball or larger that could destroy a satellite on impact; over 500,000 the size of a marble big enough to cause damage to spacecraft or satellites; and over 100 million the size of a grain of salt that could puncture a spacesuit," wrote NASA's Office of Inspector General Office of Audits.
If LEO becomes polluted with too much space junk, it could become treacherous for spacecraft, threatening not only our modern technological infrastructure, but also humanity's ability to venture into space at all.
By allowing space debris to accumulate unchecked, we could be building a prison that keeps us stranded on Earth for centuries.
An outsized problem
Space debris of any size poses grave threats to spacecraft. But tiny, untrackable micro-debris presents an especially dreadful problem: A paint fragment chipped off a spacecraft might not seem dangerous, but it careens through space at nearly 10 times the speed of a bullet, packing enough energy to puncture an astronaut's suit, crack a window of the International Space Station, and potentially destroy satellites.
Impacts with space debris are common. During the Space Shuttle era, NASA replaced an average of one to two shuttle windows per mission "due to hypervelocity impacts (HVIs) from space debris." To be sure, some space debris are natural micrometeoroids. But much of it is human-made, like the fragment that struck the starboard payload bay radiator of the STS-115 flight in 2006.
"The debris penetrated both walls of the honeycomb structure, and the shock wave from the penetration created a crack in the rear surface of the radiator 6.8 mm long," NASA wrote. "Scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray detection analysis of residual material around the hole and in the interior of the radiator shows that the impactor was a small fragment of circuit board material."
The European Space Agency notes that any fragment of space debris larger than a centimeter could shatter a spacecraft into pieces.
Impact chip on the ISSCredit ESA
To dodge space junk, the International Space Station (ISS) has to conduct "avoidance maneuvers" a couple times every year. In 2014, for example, flight controllers decided to raise the ISS's altitude by half a mile to avoid collision with part of an old European rocket in its orbital path.
NASA has strict guidelines for how it decides to perform these maneuvers.
"Debris avoidance maneuvers are planned when the probability of collision from a conjunction reaches limits set in the space shuttle and space station flight rules," NASA wrote. "If the probability of collision is greater than 1 in 100,000, a maneuver will be conducted if it will not result in significant impact to mission objectives. If it is greater than 1 in 10,000, a maneuver will be conducted unless it will result in additional risk to the crew."
These precautionary measures are becoming increasingly necessary. In 2020, the ISS had to move three times to avoid potential collisions. One of the latest close-calls came with such little warning that astronauts were instructed to take shelter in the Russian segment of the space station, in order to be closer to their Soyuz MS-16 spacecraft, which serves as an escape pod in case of an emergency.
The Kessler syndrome
The hazards of space debris grow exponentially over time. That's because of a problem that NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler outlined in 1978. The so-called Kessler syndrome states that as space becomes increasingly packed with spacecraft and debris, collisions become more likely. And because each collision would create more debris, it could trigger a chain reaction of collisions — potentially to the point where near-Earth space becomes a shrapnel field through which safe travel is impossible.
A paint fragment chipped off a spacecraft might not seem dangerous, but it careens through space at nearly 10 times the speed of a bullet, packing enough energy to puncture an astronaut's suit, crack a window of the International Space Station, and potentially destroy satellites.
The Kessler syndrome may already be playing out. Perhaps it began with the first known case of a spacecraft being severely damaged by artificial space debris, which occurred in 1996 when the French spy satellite Cerise was struck by a piece of an old European Ariane rocket. The collision tore off a 13-foot segment of the satellite.
The next major space debris incident occurred in 2007 when China conducted an anti-satellite missile test in which the nation destroyed one of its own weather satellites, triggering international criticism and creating more than 3,000 pieces of trackable space debris, most of which was still in orbit ten years after the explosion.
Then, in 2009, an unexpected collision between communications satellites — the active Iridium 33 and the defunct Russian Cosmos-2251 — produced at least 2,000 large fragments of space debris and as many as 200,000 smaller pieces, according to NASA. About half of all space debris currently orbiting Earth came from the Iridium-Cosmos collision and China's missile test.
There's more. Russia's BLITS satellite was spun out of its orbital path in 2013 after being struck by a piece of space debris suspected to have come from China's 2007 missile test; the European Space Agency's Copernicus Sentinel-1A satellite was struck by a tiny particle in 2016; and a window of the ISS was hit by a small fragment that same year.
As nations and private companies plan to send more satellites into orbit, collisions and impacts could soon become more common.
The promise and peril of satellite mega-constellations
Space organizations have recently begun launching satellites into low Earth orbit at an unprecedented pace. The goal is to create "mega-constellations" of satellites that provide high-quality internet access to virtually all parts of the planet.
Internet-providing satellites have existed for years, but they're typically expensive and provide slower service than land-based internet infrastructure. That's mainly because it can take a relatively long time for a signal to travel from the satellite to the user due to the high altitudes at which many of these satellites float above us in geostationary orbit.
China and companies like SpaceX, OneWeb, and Amazon aim to solve this problem by launching thousands of satellites into lower orbits in order to reduce signal latency, or the time it takes for the signal to travel to and from the satellite. But some space experts worry satellite mega-constellations could create more space debris.
"We face entirely new challenges as hundreds of satellites are launched every month now — more than we used to launch in a year," Thomas Schildknecht of the International Astronomical Union said at a European Space Agency conference in April. "The mega-constellations are producing huge risks of collisions. We need more stringent rules for traffic management in space and international mechanisms to ensure enforcement of the rules."
A 2017 study funded by the European Space Agency found that the deployment of satellite mega-constellations into low Earth orbit could increase the number of catastrophic collisions by 50 percent. Still, it remains unclear whether sending more satellites into space will necessarily cause more collisions.
SpaceX, for example, claims that Starlink satellites aren't at significant risk of collision because they're equipped with automated collision-avoidance propulsion systems. However, this system seemed to fail in 2019 when a Starlink satellite had a close call with a European science satellite named Aeolus. The company later said it had fixed the bug.
A batch of 60 Starlink test satellites stacked atop a Falcon 9 rocket.Credit SpaceX
Currently, there are no strict international rules governing the deployment and management of satellite mega-constellations. But there are some international efforts to curb space debris risks.
The most concerted effort is the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), a forum that comprises 13 of the world's space agencies, including those of the U.S., Russia, China, and Japan. The committee aims "to exchange information on space debris research activities between member space agencies, to facilitate opportunities for cooperation in space debris research, to review the progress of ongoing cooperative activities, and to identify debris mitigation options."
The IADC's Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines list three broad goals:
1. Preventing on-orbit break-ups
2. Removing spacecraft from the densely populated orbit regions when they reach the end of their mission
3. Limiting the objects released during normal operations
But even though the world's space agencies recognize the gravity of the space debris problem, they're reluctant to act because of an incentives-based dilemma.
Space debris: A classic tragedy of the commons
Space debris is everyone's problem, but no one entity is obligated to solve it. It's a tragedy of the commons — an economic scenario in which individuals with access to a shared and scarce resource (space) act in their own best interest (spend the least amount of money). Left unchecked, the shared resource is vulnerable to depletion or corruption.
For example, the U.S. by itself could develop a novel method for removing space debris, which, if successful, would benefit all organizations with assets in space. But the odds of this happening are slim because of a game-theoretical dilemma.
"[In space debris removal] each stakeholder has an incentive to delay its actions and wait for others to respond. This makes the space debris removal setting an interesting strategic dilemma. As all actors share the same environment, actions by one have a potential immediate and future impact on all others. This gives rise to a social dilemma in which the benefits of individual investment are shared by all while the costs are not. This encourages free-riders, who reap the benefits without paying the costs. However, if all involved parties reason this way, the resulting inaction may prove to be far worse for all involved. This is known in the game theory literature as the tragedy of the commons."
Similar to trying to curb climate change, there's no clear answer on how to best incentivize nations to mitigate space debris. (For what it's worth, the game theoretical model in the 2018 study found that a centralized solution — e.g., one where a single actor makes decisions on mitigating space debris, perhaps on behalf of a multinational coalition — is less costly than a decentralized solution.)
Although space organizations have been slow to act, many have been exploring ways to remove space junk from orbit and prevent new debris from forming.
Cleaning up space debris
Space organizations have proposed and experimented with many ways to remove debris from space. Although the techniques vary, most agree on strategy: get rid of the big stuff first.
That's because collisions involving large objects would create lots of new debris. So, removing big debris first would simultaneously clean up low Earth orbit and slow down the phenomenon of cascading collisions described by the Kessler syndrome.
To clean up low Earth orbit, space organizations have proposed using:
- Electrodynamic tethers: In 2017, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency attempted to remove space debris by outfitting a cargo ship with an electrodynamic tether — essentially a fishing net made of stainless steel and aluminium. The craft then tried to "catch" space debris with the aim of dragging it into lower orbit, where it would eventually crash to Earth. The experiment failed.
- Ultra-thin nets: NASA's Innovative Advanced Concepts program has funded research for a project that would deploy extremely thin nets designed to wrap around space debris and drag them down to Earth's atmosphere.
- "Laser brooms": Since the 1990s, space researchers have proposed using ground-based lasers to strategically heat one side of a piece of space debris, which would change its orbit so that it re-enters Earth's atmosphere sooner. Because the laser systems would be based on Earth, this strategy could prove to be relatively affordable.
- Drag sails: As a relatively passive way to accelerate the de-orbit of space junk, NASA and other space organizations have been exploring the viability of attaching sails to space junk that would help guide debris back to Earth. These sails could either be packed within new satellites, to be deployed once the satellites are no longer useful, or attached to existing space junk.
Illustration of Brane Craft Phase II, which would use thin nets to capture space debris.Credit Siegfried Janson via NASA
But perhaps one of the most promising solutions for space debris is the ESA-funded ClearSpace-1 mission. Set to launch in 2025, ClearSpace-1 intends to be the first mission that successfully removes space debris from orbit. The goal is to launch a satellite into orbit and rendezvous with the upper stage of Europe's Vega launcher, which was left in space after a 2013 flight.
Once the satellite meets up with the debris, it will try to capture the junk with a robotic arm and then perform a controlled atmospheric reentry. The task will be challenging, in part because space junk tumbles as it flies above Earth, meaning the satellite will have to match its movements in order to safely capture it.
Freethink recently spoke to the ClearSpace-1 team to get a better understanding of the mission and its challenges.
But not all space debris removal strategies center on technology. A 2020 paper published in PNAS argued that imposing taxes on each satellite in orbit would be the most effective way to clean up space. Called "orbital use fees," the plan would charge space organizations an annual fee of roughly $235,000 per each satellite that's in orbit. The fee would, in theory, incentivize nations and companies to declutter space over time.
The main hurdle of orbital-use fees is getting all of the world's space organizations to agree to such a plan. If they do, it could help eliminate the tragedy of the commons aspect of space debris and potentially quadruple the value of the space industry by 2040.
"The costly buildup of debris and satellites in low-Earth orbit is fundamentally a problem of incentives — satellite operators currently lack the incentives to factor into their launch decisions the collision risks their satellites impose on other operators," the researchers wrote. "Our analysis suggests that correcting these incentives, via an OUF, could have substantial economic benefits to the satellite industry, and failing to do so could have substantial and escalating economic costs."
No matter the solution, cleaning up space debris will be a complex and expensive challenge that requires a coordinated, international effort. If the global community wants to maintain modern technological infrastructure and venture deeper into space, conducting business as usual isn't an option.
"Imagine how dangerous sailing the high seas would be if all the ships ever lost in history were still drifting on top of the water," Jan Wörner, European Space Agency (ESA) director general, said in a statement. "That is the current situation in orbit, and it cannot be allowed to continue."
Noise causes stress. For our ancestors, it meant danger: thunder, animal roars, war cries, triggering a 'fight or run' reaction.
Noise is a belittled threat that disrupts the functioning of people, animals, even plants. It causes stress, provokes aggression, increases the risk of heart disease. Blocking the issue of noise can bring catastrophic consequences for us.
Morning coffee. I set up my laptop in the garden. All I can hear is the morning chirping of birds. Nothing to bother me. Suddenly, the roar of a chainsaw tears into the idyllic scenery. Actually, it's two chainsaws, which the new neighbours are using to massacre trees on the plot next door. Construction work has started. I hide in the house. Unfortunately, even with my windows shut, my ears register a muffled yet distracting roar. Noise has caught up with me here, in the countryside, the place I escaped to from the city. Is there any way to protect myself from it?
The necessary cost of progress?
Or maybe I'm just sowing needless panic? After all, noise has been accompanying us for ages and we have been dealing with it somehow. In Ancient Rome, there was a ban on riding chariots at night to prevent the rattling of wheels from waking the residents, in the Middle Ages streets were sound-proofed with hay, while today we set up noise barriers along roads and railroad tracks, and install sound-proof windows. But the noise level is increasing along with the expanding networks of motorways, railway lines and new airports; we are all experiencing noise, and it's affecting not only the inhabitants of big cities, but also small villages like the one I live in. The most common source of undesired sounds is road traffic; research shows that that 125 million Europeans are subject to sound intensity levels exceeding 55 decibels (which is considered to be harmful). To give you something to compare that to: rustling in the woods is around 10 decibels, a whisper is 30–40 decibels, while a regular conversation is about 50 decibels. One passenger car generates sound of an intensity exceeding 65 decibels, a lorry over 70 decibels, and a plane taking off 120 decibels. In large European or American cities, such as New York or Los Angeles, the average sound intensity is 80–90 decibels. If for an extended period of time we hear noise exceeding 85 decibels, we expose ourselves to hearing damage, balance disorder or even pain. Noise at a lower level of intensity causes us to be nervous and fatigued.
Why do most of us trivialize the issue then, saying You can live with it. It's something you can get used to? I pose that question to Agata Stasik, a sociologist from Kozminski University in Warsaw. "Noise is one of those harmful factors that has a delayed effect on us; it's hard to detect the negative influence of noise on our health without going through costly long-term testing. Indeed, it is easy to notice the unfavourable effect of noise on our well-being. Yet the fact that noise bothers us can be quickly put off as a sign of our oversensitivity, which has no place in a big city. For many people, noise is quite justified and viewed as a necessary cost of progress. Even more so as it usually appears as a side effect of processes like mobility or the effect of industrial activity that serves to meet commonly accepted needs. As a result, any discussion usually goes in the direction of having an only choice between pre-modern life and life in noise," the expert explains.
1.6 million years of life in good health
Maybe it's high time to stop drowning out the issue of noise and confront the effects it has? "Noise pollution is the second threat to public health right after air pollution," is the conclusion of the research of the Environmental Burden of Disease Project presented by the World Health Organization (WHO). As far as eight years ago, the WHO estimated that each year we lose 1.6 million years of good health due to the noise coming from our environment. And this pertains to Europe only! Let's add to that the calculations made by the European Environment Agency (EEA), which show that on the Old Continent, noise is responsible for 10,000 premature deaths, 43,000 hospitalizations and 900,000 cases of hypertension. Yutong Samuel Cai, an epidemiologist from Imperial College London, analysed the data of 356,000 British and Norwegian people. Noise considerably increased the risk of cardiovascular disease; the impact was stronger than the effects of smog, for example. Francesca Dominici from the Harvard School of Public Health came to similar conclusions when she took a good look at the data of over six million Americans (aged 65 years and older) who lived in the vicinity of 89 airports. The results of her research published in 2013 in The BMJ show that an increase in noise intensity of 10 decibels translates into an increased (on average 3.5%) number of patients with cardiovascular diseases: heart attacks, cardiac dysrhythmia or ischaemic heart disease. Why does that happen?
"Noise causes stress. For our ancestors, it meant danger: thunder, animal roars, war cries, triggering a 'fight or run' reaction," explains Bart Kosko, a professor of electrical engineering from the University of Southern California and the author of Noise, published in 2006. And although modern noise, such as the sound of cars on the streets, does not usually pose a threat, our body reacts to it by secreting stress hormones, adrenaline and cortisol, leading in turn to higher blood pressure, higher pulse rates, increased glucose levels in the blood and increased lipid metabolism; excessive lipid levels can build up in the blood vessels.
Add to that sleep disorders. "Our auditory system has a watchman function. It's constantly monitoring our environment for threats even while we're sleeping. [...] However we are often not aware of this noise and our sleep disturbances because we are unconscious while we're sleeping. In the past we've done studies on the effects of traffic noise on sleep, and research subjects would often wake up in the morning and say, 'I had a wonderful night, I fell asleep right away, never really woke up.' When we would then go back to the physiological signals we had recorded during the night, we would often see numerous awakenings and a severely fragmented sleep structure. These awakenings were too brief for the subjects to regain consciousness and to remember them the next morning, but they may nevertheless have a profound impact on how restful our sleep is," noted Mathias Basner from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine during his presentation at TEDMed in 2018. He has been researching the effects of noise on sleep for years, he is also an advisor of the WHO and President of the International Commission of Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN). Poor quality of sleep disrupts not only circulation, but also metabolism, which increases the probability of the onset of type 2 diabetes, as confirmed by Swiss studies involving the participation of over 2500 people. The risk of the onset of depression also increases considerably, as much as 25%. Recent research conducted by the National University in Seoul showed that poor sleep may also increase the risk of infertility in men.
Be quieter in school and at work!
The sound of the school bell can hardly be heard over the whirring of power drills and rattling of hammers. The primary school in our village is going through a new phase of construction, as it needs to be expanded due to the latest educational reform and the need to provide room for Year 7 and Year 8 pupils. The operation is being performed on a live organism, during the school year. Nobody seems to have given any thought to issues like constant headaches, lack of concentration or lack of motivation for learning. It's strange, because back in the 1970s, Arline Bronzhaft, a professor in environmental psychology, had already looked into the matter. "One of my students at Lehman College was complaining that at the elementary school his child was attending it was so loud that children were not able to study," the researcher mentions in a recently published book by David Owen, Volume Control: Hearing in a Deafening World. Passing next to Public School 98 in northern Manhattan was an elevated subway line. Some parents were thinking of suing the city, but Bronzhaft convinced them that they needed proof that the noise was in fact harmful to their children. She compared three years of test results of pupils who were in classrooms located right next to the line with the results of pupils who were studying in the quieter parts of the school. On average, the first group had an 11-month delay in terms of its level of knowledge when compared to the second group. Bronzhaft's research not only ignited a heated discussion in scientific circles, but also forced city authorities to sound-proof the ceilings in the school, while special rubber pads were installed between the rails and the tracks (the solution was later introduced on all New York subway lines). The tests were repeated six years later and showed that eliminating the noise helped the pupils even out the results. The level of noise at school as well as at home has an influence on the development of children. Studies conducted at Cornell University show that children growing up in a noisy environment are significantly more often subject to development problems and have to deal with disorders like dysgraphia, are slower learners, understand less from a text they've read, or find it more difficult to remember new information.
Problems with concentration, nervousness, or even aggression affect adults as well, both at home and at work. The sectors that are most exposed to noise naturally include construction, mining and entertainment, but the issue also troubles people working in the increasingly more common open space offices. Based on tests conducted on urine samples, Gary Evans, a psychologist from Cornell University, determined that open space employees had an increased level of the stress hormone, adrenaline. Their motivation to work was also weaker when compared to people working in small, yet separate rooms. Vinesh Oommen from the Australian Queensland University of Technology believes that in open spaces, we are "confronted with a number of issues, such as the lack of privacy or the flood of stimuli, which in turn lead to health issues, reduced productivity and a low level of job satisfaction." Even a regular conversation between two colleagues at adjacent desks can significantly reduce concentration.
Why doesn't the whale sing?
Noise also has a negative effect on plants and animals. The first discoveries confirming this hypothesis were made accidentally by researchers who were measuring the level of stress hormones in whale stool samples in the Bay of Fundy on the coast of Canada. They found that the level of the hormone drastically fell in September 2001, after which it grew again in a few months. The scientists, who were using hydrophones (microphones to receive sounds underwater) noticed that during that time the level of noise generated by ship traffic had significantly decreased, which was the effect of the September 11 terror attacks. The researchers decided to take a closer look at the effects of noise on marine life, and the results of their research showed that it is harmful to animals, disrupting their communication, foraging and reproduction. "Visibility underwater can reach ten metres, but sound spreads over hundreds of kilometres," explains Peter Tyack, an ecologist from The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod. The main source of noise are ships, but the greatest threat is posed by the so-called impulse sources used to search for crude oil. These sources generate a seismic wave underwater, and the signal can be detected by acoustic monitors even thousands of kilometres away. As Tyack's research shows, some animals react negatively even to the sound of a sonar. "Whales stop foraging then, leave the given area and don't return for many days. The sound of the sonar scares them away, even if they are swimming a kilometre deeper than the source of the sound," Tyack explains in his book, Volume Control. Sometimes the sound causes the animal to have a panic attack and suddenly rise to the surface, where it dies from decompression sickness. Impulse sources also kill zooplankton which is food for many marine creatures. Robert McCauley from Curtin University in Perth, Australia took plankton samples before and after a seismic wave was 'triggered'; after the wave was emitted, the abundance of plankton fell by 60% and the number of dead species doubled. Certain animals, like turtles, which react to noise by hiding in their shells, stop to seek shelter in the shells due to the increased frequency of that stimulus; as a consequence, they fall prey to predators more often.
Noise also disrupts the reproduction process in marine mammals. Researchers observing humpback whales near the Japanese island of Ogasawara noticed that in response to noise from ships, males change their mating songs or stop singing altogether. At a distance of 500 metres from the route that ships often sail on, the number of humpback whales was significantly less, while at a distance of 1.2 kilometres from the wake, whales either sing less often or not at all. The whales that stop singing don't start again until at least half an hour has passed after the ship sailed by, according to the article published in PLOS ONE magazine.
And the robin went silent too...
Noise is also harmful to animals on land: the most common source here are roads, production plants, or logging locations near animal habitats. Yet it's not only noise that is a threat to the animals; excessive intensity of artificial light or air pollution are also culprits here. How can we check to what degree noise specifically is harmful to them? Pondering that question was Jesse Barber from Boise State University in Idaho. In 2012, together with his team, he built a half-kilometre stretch of phantom road in Glacier National Park. Speakers mounted on the trunks of fir trees emitted traffic noise. Although the sounds were not deafening (an average inhabitant of a large city would find it to be a delicate hum), the effect they had was dramatic. The number of migrating birds fell by 28% during emission, while certain species completely left the area. Those who stayed suffered; the MacGillivray's warblers did not gain weight like they should have, and they need a supply of fat to migrate successfully. Other research confirmed the observations of Barber's team. Gareth Arnott from Queen's University Belfast demonstrated that noise drowns out the singing of European robins. "In effect, the robins obtain incomplete information regarding the intentions of other birds and their reactions are sometimes inadequate to the situation. In certain cases, the males fight more ferociously, while in others they resign from fighting early on," the researcher says. Noise also disrupts the functioning of bats, which use echolocation to navigate and look for food.
"Noise has a cascade effect on entire ecosystems; it disrupts the functioning of not only animals, but plants as well," Rachel Buxton, a biologist from Colorado State University explains. Insects become more aggressive under the influence of noise; for example, beetles start to attack each other. Bumblebees pollinate plants less frequently; as a result, these plants give lower yield.
Let's make some noise about noise
"The sounds you hear when you walk through the woods, the bustling river, tree branches swaying in the wind or the singing of birds make even us, people, feel better. They are important for our physical and emotional welfare. We should protect them," Buxton argues. But how can we do that? In accordance with EU guidelines (based in turn on WHO recommendations), we should not be subject to noise levels that are a threat to health or quality of life: "At no point in time may exposure to noise exceed 85 dB, and the permissible level of noise in built-up areas during the day should be 60 dB (during the night – 50 dB)." Unfortunately though, things look rather bleak when it comes to implementing these guidelines. The Polish National Inspectorate of Environmental Protection evaluates "facilities that are especially damaging to the environment" and also creates "acoustic maps of areas surrounding airports and entire localities".
The most popular solution is to install acoustic barriers along roads or railroad lines which, as many local residents complain, distort the landscape (accessing the road is also often more difficult). Solutions such as hiding traffic in tunnels are not applied due to their high cost. "The negative impact on health due to noise is not easy to observe on one's own, making it difficult to encourage politicians and citizens to stand up and fight against it. It seems that proposing alternative solutions is key here; in many situations, noise is not inevitable, even if any change in the technologies used and change of habits could be associated with cost at the beginning," Agata Stasik argues.
The so-called third sector, or non-governmental organizations, are introducing effective solutions. In the US, one of the more thriving organizations is The Quiet Coalition (one of its co-founders is Arline Bronzhaft), which is trying to make the authorities realize how negative the effect of noise is on health, work and education. It also supported New York City authorities in creating new regulations regarding noise limits in the city (the so-called noise code), which became the benchmark for other American cities. "While in Poland we have thriving nationwide social movements battling smog, such as Polish Smog Alert (Polski Alarm Smogowy), organizations fighting for silence are usually active on a local level, such as the Quiet Sky over Warsaw association (Ciche Niebo nad Warszawą), which challenges users of Babice Airport in the city to comply with the law. As a result of the pressure exerted by activists, city authorities have announced that they will enforce compliance with noise level standards by users of airports," says Stasik. Yet a nationwide movement in Poland advocating silence is still lacking. Which is a shame, since as our experience with battling smog shows, it could be instrumental in increasing awareness of the issue and exerting pressure on authorities and the private sector. Such a movement would support the activities of citizen science; the idea would be to have citizens create their own noise maps using their smartphones and appropriate software (The Sounds of New York City does that, for example).
Noise pollution has a socio-economic dimension. In her book, The Soundscape of Modernity, Emily Thompson notes that quite often large cumbersome investments, such as production plants or airports, are located in poorer districts, because their residents do not have enough clout to protest against them. Wealthier citizens escape noise by settling in quieter and more expensive districts. "This is a pattern we can also observe in Poland," Stasik confirms.
Let's not forget that we can start the fight against noise with ourselves. "Very much like a carbon footprint, we all have a noise footprint, and there are things we can do to make that noise footprint smaller. For example, don't start mowing your lawn at 7am on a Saturday morning. Your neighbours will thank you. [...] Whenever you're looking to buy a new car, air-conditioning unit, blender, you name it, make low noise a priority," suggests Mathias Basner during his TEDMed presentation. The 'Quiet Mark' programme, active since 2012 and led by the UK Noise Abatement Society, has already started cooperation with over 70 key equipment manufacturers (including Electrolux, Bosch, Logitech and Samsung), ranging from home appliances to lawn mowers and computers. Agata Stasik is also urging us to change our transport habits: opt for a walk, go by bike or use public transport whenever possible.
Contrary to what we might expect, our individual actions can translate into improved social relations. Noise caused by annoying neighbours is, after all, the main reason for an increase in aggressive behaviour, or even violence. Every third person surveyed by Rockwool admitted that loud neighbours deprive us of sleep and cause nervousness and aggression. Nearly two million Brits claim that 'loud neighbours have made their life a nightmare'. Attempts to defuse the stress not only result in increasingly more complaints year after year, but such issues are often solved through the use of force, leading to serious bodily injuries and even the death of those participating in the dispute. So it's probably better to turn down that music.
As Mathias Basner concludes: "Robert Koch once said that one day humanity will fight with noise like it once did with cholera or the plague. It seems that we've reached this point and I hope we will win this fight. And when we win, we'll celebrate in silence."
Translated from the Polish by Mark Ordon.
When we look at the night sky, we may see junk instead of stars.
- New research has found that the entire planet is covered by light pollution from space objects.
- Companies like SpaceX and Amazon plan to launch thousands of satellites into orbit this decade.
- Scientists fear this space traffic will impede their ability to stare into deep space.
In December, we reported on the imminent clean-up of space junk. With an estimated 129 million pieces of debris currently orbiting our atmosphere, one lucrative contract awarded by the European Space Agency will commence in 2025.
Four years is a long time, however, given the amount of junk we've allowed to float into space. It's not the only issue affecting the crowded ether. New research, published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, has found that astronomers can no longer find anywhere on Earth to view the night sky free of space junk and satellite pollution.
Although the first satellite was only launched in 1957, as of the beginning of this year, 3,372 are now in orbit, alongside the aforementioned debris—what the research team from Slovakia, Spain, and the United States term "space objects" for sake of brevity. These objects range in altitude from a few hundred to over 35,000 kilometers.
These objects pose an immediate threat to researchers by compromising astronomical data. Space debris and satellites often appear as streaks of varying lengths and brightness in ground-based telescopes. And the problem is going to get worse, says John Barentine of the International Dark-Sky Association.
"It's a bit of an eye-opener. As space gets more crowded, the magnitude of this effect will only be more, not less."
This handout image supplied by the European Space Agency (ESA), shows a view of The Palms, Dubai as the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft passes below, in an image taken by ESA astronaut Tim Peake from the International Space Station on April 10, 2016.Photo by Tim Peake / ESA/NASA via Getty Images
Plenty more is coming as the race for consumer travel heats up. SpaceX has already launched over 1,000 Starlink communication satellites as it builds a new global internet infrastructure. Last year, the FCC approved 3,236 Amazon satellites that will all be in orbit as part of the mega-constellation "Project Kuiper" by 2029. While these aren't the only companies in the race to a global internet, SpaceX alone aspires to launch 42,000 satellites into space.
On Earth, we might enjoy faster internet speeds, but in observatories, researchers are concerned. Currently, scientists plan their observations around the orbit schedule of known objects. In a few years, the researchers of this letter write, that might prove impossible. An exponential increase in satellites will likely guarantee streaks in every telescope across the globe.
Slovakian astronomer Miroslav Kocifaj, part of the team behind this new research, believes this logjam in space could create such an intense background glow that we'll no longer be able to gaze out into the farthest reaches of space.
His team points to the 1979 resolution of the International Astronomical Union, which stated observatories should only be built in regions where light pollution adds less than 10 percent more light than normal skyglow. While they point out that "natural skyglow" is a debatable term, they're also concerned that the ambitious plans of private companies will ensure that nowhere will come in under that number. As the team writes:
"These results imply that diffuse night sky brightness produced by artificial space objects directly illuminated by the Sun may well have reached nowadays, and perhaps exceeded, what is considered a sustainability 'red line' for ground based astronomical observatory sites."
Just at the moment when we're reaching further into the cosmos, we seem to be boxing ourselves in. For millennia, we've started into the night sky and dreamed about the stars. Soon, it seems those dreams will be aimed at the junk we've placed there.
Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter. His most recent book is "Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."
Masks are great, but what happens when we try to throw out a billion masks at once?
- A new study suggests that the huge numbers of disposable masks we're using may end up polluting the environment.
- The materials used to make some of these masks may be especially disposed to break down into microplastic bits.
- Once those plastic bits get into the environment they end up everywhere, including inside people.
The face mask might be the quintessential image of this pandemic. Required attire for almost every activity taking place outside your home, masks are now made by high-end fashion companies in a variety of colors and will likely continue to be worn by many people even after COVID-19 is brought under control.
For those of us who aren't willing to shell out for a Louis Vuitton face mask, cheaper and often disposable options have become the norm. Many of these surgical masks are made of a combination of absorbent fabrics, polyester, and common plastics such as polypropylene or polystyrene.
Despite their life-saving qualities, the incredible consumption of these masks is likely to create a new problem: what to do with the plastics in them as we toss them aside after use. A new study suggests that this might be a bigger problem than we expect.
Remember all that “Nature is healing” stuff from last year? It didn't last long.
Gary Stokes, founder of the environmental group Oceans Asia, poses with discarded face masks he found on a beach in the residential area of Discovery Bay on the outlying Lantau island in Hong Kong.
Credit: ANTHONY WALLACE/AFP via Getty Images
According to recent studies, humanity is going through 129 billion face masks a month, which works out to three million a minute. While we go through a lot of plastics in a month, the number of plastic bottles we use has been estimated at 43 billion a month, a large fraction of those have well-known guidelines around them promoting recycling.
Such information doesn't exist for masks, making it likely that most of them are ending up in the trash.
Like any other object with plastic in it, improper disposal can cause the plastic to enter the environment. Where the tiny bits of plastics spread into water and soil before eventually working their way into animals. The authors of this study, doctors Elvis Genbo Xu of the University of Southern Denmark and Zhiyong Jason Ren of Princeton, argue that the specifications of these masks make them particularly likely to contribute to plastic pollution:
"A newer and bigger concern is that the masks are directly made from microsized plastic fibers (thickness of ~1 to 10 micrometers). When breaking down in the environment, the mask may release more micro-sized plastics, easier and faster than bulk plastics like plastic bags. Such impacts can be worsened by a new-generation mask, nanomasks, which directly use nano-sized plastic fibers (with a diameter smaller than 1 micrometer) and add a new source of nanoplastic pollution."
At the moment, no data on how much masks have contributed to the amount of plastic in the environment exists.
The authors suggest that there are steps to be taken to prevent this problem from getting out of control. They include helping people switch from disposable plastic masks to reusable cloth ones, inventing biodegradable masks, designating special disposal areas for masks, and standardizing waste processing procedures concerning these plastics.
Why should we care?
Plastic pollution is pretty terrible for the environment. Animals can confuse small bits of plastic for food, consuming it instead of something nourishing and starving to death as their stomachs fill. The chemicals in plastics can also cause various ailments if consumed, even if the amount eaten isn't enough to kill the animal.
Before you say that you don't care about fish, birds, or any other kind of wildlife, remember that studies are finding ever-increasing amounts of plastic in people, too. Many of the chemicals in these plastics are associated with health risks, including cardiovascular diseases and cancer.
The benefits of face masks are beyond debate, but the side effects of throwing out so many disposable masks may prove to be quite terrible if we're not careful.