Alaska's rivers are turning bright orange and as acidic as vinegar as toxic metal escapes from melting permafrost

A milky orange river viewed from directly above
Toxic metals released by melting permafrost are staining Alaska's rivers bright orange and making them highly acidic. This section of the Kutuk River in the Gates of the Arctic National Park looks like it has had orange paint spilled in it when viewed from above. (Image credit: Ken Hill/National Park Service)

Dozens of Alaskan rivers have turned bright orange in recent years because melting permafrost has released high levels of toxic metals into the waterways, a worrying new study reveals. The colorful contamination, which can be seen from space, is a potential ecological nightmare — and is likely to get even worse in the coming years, researchers say.

In the new study, which was published May 20 in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, researchers identified at least 75 orange rivers and streams in a Texas-size area of Alaska's Brooks mountain range. Most of the affected waterways were initially spotted by helicopter surveys of the area.

"The more we flew around, we started noticing more and more orange rivers and streams," study lead author Jon O'Donnell, an ecologist with the National Park Service's Arctic Inventory and Monitoring Network, said in a statement. "There are certain sites that look almost like a milky orange juice." 

Chemical analysis of the rusty rivers revealed high levels of zinc, nickel, copper and cadmium, as well as iron, which is largely responsible for the orange hue of the waterways. Researchers also found that the polluted waterways were unusually acidic: Some of the smaller streams had a pH of as low as 2.3, which is around the same as lemon juice or vinegar, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.  

The high metal concentration and acidity of the water can both be tied to melting permafrost — a permanently frozen layer of Earth's surface that covers large swaths of the Arctic. As the frozen ground thaws thanks to human-caused climate change, previously sealed minerals are exposed to rain for the first time in thousands of years, allowing metals to dissolve out of the rocks and into surrounding streams, which feed larger rivers.  

Not only are the affected habitats visually transformed but the high mineral concentrations are also highly toxic to most aquatic life. Researchers are particularly worried about what the toxic meltwater could be doing to spawning fish, which could have major knock-on effects on U.S. fisheries.

Related: Scientists are mapping Earth's rivers from space before climate change devastates our planet

Rivers that once ran crystal clear now look unnaturally orange. Here, a contaminated part of the Kutuk River runs alongside an unspoiled section of the same river. (Image credit: Ken Hill/National Park Service)

The idea for the new study was seeded back in 2018 when researchers visited a rust-colored river that had been crystal clear just a year earlier. However, subsequent satellite sleuthing revealed images of orange rivers dating back as far as 2008.

It is hard to tell how much metal has been released into rivers during this time. But the rivers in satellite photos "have to be stained a lot to pick them up from space," study co-author Brett Poulin, an environmental toxicologist at the University of California, Davis, said in the statement.

The researchers are planning follow-up tests this year to determine the full scale of the problem. However, they fear that increased permafrost melting caused by record-breaking temperatures over the last year will have released even more metals. And as temperatures continue to climb in the coming decades, metal contamination is likely to get even worse. 

As the water gets more acidic over time it will also make it easier for even more metals to dissolve from the newly thawed permafrost, creating a worrying "positive feedback loop" — where the problem gets exponentially worse. The melting of the permafrost is also likely to birth more new rivers in places like Alaska and Siberia, which would further exacerbate the issue.

There are lots of other serious implications to losing permafrost coverage, such as releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, as well as uncovering radioactive materials and unleashing dormant viruses, which could spark new pandemics. 

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Harry Baker
Live Science Staff Writer

Harry is a U.K.-based staff writer at Live Science. He studied Marine Biology at the University of Exeter (Penryn campus) and after graduating started his own blog site "Marine Madness," which he continues to run with other ocean enthusiasts. He is also interested in evolution, climate change, robots, space exploration, environmental conservation and anything that's been fossilized. When not at work he can be found watching sci-fi films, playing old Pokemon games or running (probably slower than he'd like). 

  • Meteoric Marmot
    It's nice to know that the world will be a more colourful place thanks to climate change. Too bad about the fish...

    /s
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    This story is not making sense to me.

    Where did the metal ion "contamination" in the thawing permafrost come from to be in that permafrost in the first place? Considering how long it has been frozen, it seems unlikely that this contamination was cause by human activities - unless some sort of mining is trying to inject waste liquids under the permafrost. But, if that were the case, I would expect the article to use it to blame humans even more. The article says it came from "the rocks", so it sounds like natural ore deposits.

    So, how about an explanation for why there is so much metallic content in permafrost that it can turn the water orange?

    The pH seems about right for pure tannic acid. Tannic acid typically results from decay of vegetation. Usually, it is more diluted and turns water brownish. Rivers and swamps in the south have "black water" due to that. Many species of fish live in them.

    So, how about the rest of the story? Are there dead fish floating down these rivers? Do sediment cores taken off the north coast of Alaska show any previous episodes of these same chemicals, for instance at about 120,00 years ago, during the previous interglacial warm period?
    Reply
  • Helio
    Unclear Engineer said:
    So, how about an explanation for why there is so much metallic content in permafrost that it can turn the water orange?
    Yeah, there are some important questions to ask.

    Here is the Nature article on it. It looks like the bulk of it is found in sulfides, especially iron sulfides.
    There is an interesting ground picture showing the color change in one year, but I notice that the deeper background water is blue, which I'm unclear what this suggests.

    The Nature article mentions that there is little research as to why those minerals are there in the first place, likely not due to prior mining.

    The fish count reduction before and after seems to be only in this section of the stream. Are they more abundant in what I think is the deeper water?

    No doubt this is a problem that would be great to solve and counteract its effects, if possible.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    If this produces a discovery of large deposits of important metal ores, it might result in mining - and that would really have a high probability of messing up the local environment. The area north of the Brooks Range in Alaska is really "remote" and, so far, not badly damaged by human activities.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Helio, Thanks for the link.

    It does make the problem sound somewhat less serious, at least at its present level.

    For instance, the samples of the impaired streams' pH seems to be much better than the 2.3 stated in the Space.com article, and that low value seems to be for seeps before dilution in a stream. For streams, the Nature article says:
    "In our study, orange streams had lower pH (mean pH ± standard deviation = 7.41 ± 0.75) compared to reference streams (7.98 ± 0.24; two-tailed t test: t = 2.510, df = 20, P = 0.035;" and it says most of the metals were in particulates. This indicates that there is substantial buffering in the natural streams, which is what I would expect.

    It would be helpful if there was some indication of what fraction of streams in the area are severely yellowed. The Nature article talks about comparing the yellowed streams to "nearby streams" that are not affected. So, although the effect is observed over a very long distance along the backbone of the Brooks Range, it is not clear that it (currently?) affects a large fraction of the numerous streams in that region.

    It would also help to know if the yellowing is transient, or constant or increasing in the affected streams. If this is the new normal for all streams, then it is definitely a big deal. If it only affects a small fraction of all streams, then it might not be such a big deal. If it is a relatively short term effect when some particular depth of the permafrost thaws and accumulated weathering materials are flushed out with increased water flow-through, then it might not be such a bid deal.

    It definitely warrants further study. But, we need to understand that we aren't going to reverse this effect in the foreseeable future by lowering CO2 emissions. We are going to have to live with / adapt to whatever this becomes.
    Reply
  • The_Guchi
    I'm wondering how the author came to the conclusion that this was caused by human influenced climate change versus because of the fact that we are in a warming phase at the tail end of an ice age???
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    That is why I asked if there are any well cores that show stratigraphy going back several ice ages, taken from places which could tell us if this has happened before.
    Reply
  • COLGeek
    The_Guchi said:
    I'm wondering how the author came to the conclusion that this was caused by human influenced climate change versus because of the fact that we are in a warming phase at the tail end of an ice age???
    This is not an either/or topic. But both. While there are natural climate cycles, human activity exacerbates those cycles. That is a significant part of what many miss in discussing these issues.

    This is based on science, not political ideologies or conspiracy theories.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    COLGeek said:
    This is not an either/or topic. But both. While there are natural climate cycles, human activity exacerbates those cycles. That is a significant part of what many miss in discussing these issues.

    This is based on science, not political ideologies or conspiracy theories.
    I am going to disagree with that to some degree. The article unequivocally says it is the result of "human-caused climate change."

    Yes, we are doing "science" to study the phenomenon, and it seems clear that the thawing tundra is causing the "yellowing" phenomenon in some streams. And, it is clear that the climate there and pretty much everywhere else on Earth is warming.

    We even know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases Earth's surface temperatures. Not to mention the methane and other compounds we emit from our industries.

    But, we also know that the Earth's climate has been going through freeze-thaw cycles for the last 3 million years, first on a frequency of about 50,000 years, but changing to a frequency of about 100,000 years about 900,000 years ago.

    We do have the "science" to recognize astronomical influences on Earth's climate, and we do have the "science" to read the geological records about past climate values, including sea levels, temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

    But, at this point in our scientific understanding, we do not have computer models of the Earth's climate that can replicate the past ice ages and warm periods. We can tell that there are some effects that we cannot model accurately enough, and those seem to involve circulation patterns of air and water, and maybe some chemicals.

    So, were really are not able to "scientifically" say exactly what the Earth's climate would be like today if humans had not affected it, nor what it would have done before starting the next ice age (which we may or may not have stopped). We do have some hints that sea level eventually got substantially higher in previous warm periods than it is today (e.g., about 25' higher 120,00 years ago than now). So, it is not a safe bet that the planet would be naturally cooling off, now, without human effects.

    And, expecting the climate to remain static is definitely not "scientific". We have plenty of evidence that it changes dramatically over periods of 10,000 to 100,000 years, with some pretty big and rapid changes at some points in cycles. Sea level was about 325' lower than it is today, about 25,000 years ago.

    So, getting back to the yellowing streams, the "scientific" question to ask is whether this also has happened in previous interglacial warm periods, or is it "unprecedented" in those natural cycles.

    And, I suggest that looking for indications of previous occurrences in cores of sediments extracted from local wells would help address that question. I expect that some of the exploratory drilling done around Prudhoe Bay might be useful to address that question.
    Reply
  • COLGeek
    Unclear Engineer said:
    I am going to disagree with that to some degree. The article unequivocally says it is the result of "human-caused climate change."

    Yes, we are doing "science" to study the phenomenon, and it seems clear that the thawing tundra is causing the "yellowing" phenomenon in some streams. And, it is clear that the climate there and pretty much everywhere else on Earth is warming.

    We even know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases Earth's surface temperatures. Not to mention the methane and other compounds we emit from our industries.

    But, we also know that the Earth's climate has been going through freeze-thaw cycles for the last 3 million years, first on a frequency of about 50,000 years, but changing to a frequency of about 100,000 years about 900,000 years ago.

    We do have the "science" to recognize astronomical influences on Earth's climate, and we do have the "science" to read the geological records about past climate values, including sea levels, temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

    But, at this point in our scientific understanding, we do not have computer models of the Earth's climate that can replicate the past ice ages and warm periods. We can tell that there are some effects that we cannot model accurately enough, and those seem to involve circulation patterns of air and water, and maybe some chemicals.

    So, were really are not able to "scientifically" say exactly what the Earth's climate would be like today if humans had not affected it, nor what it would have done before starting the next ice age (which we may or may not have stopped). We do have some hints that sea level eventually got substantially higher in previous warm periods than it is today (e.g., about 25' higher 120,00 years ago than now). So, it is not a safe bet that the planet would be naturally cooling off, now, without human effects.

    And, expecting the climate to remain static is definitely not "scientific". We have plenty of evidence that it changes dramatically over periods of 10,000 to 100,000 years, with some pretty big and rapid changes at some points in cycles. Sea level was about 325' lower than it is today, about 25,000 years ago.

    So, getting back to the yellowing streams, the "scientific" question to ask is whether this also has happened in previous interglacial warm periods, or is it "unprecedented" in those natural cycles.

    And, I suggest that looking for indications of previous occurrences in cores of sediments extracted from local wells would help address that question. I expect that some of the exploratory drilling done around Prudhoe Bay might be useful to address that question.
    So, long story short, not an either/or issue as previously (concisely) stated.

    Of course it is a complex issue, but to assume that human activity has no impact on the climate is wrong.
    Reply