Permafrost Diseases - A risk worth taking seriously?
Whether natural, or man made, the earth is warming. Some geographies are affected more so than others, with the Arctic on average warming three times as quickly. Apart from a rise in sea levels, change in weather patterns, and a destruction of habitat, another relatively obscure, but potentially just as severe, risk exists from polar warming. This article therefore will examine the potential risks concerning the possibility of permafrost diseases - a phenomenon where melting ice releases dormant bacteria and viruses back into the atmosphere and to those who come into contact.
Although not well known, scientists are confident that this process has already occurred. In 2016, communities in northern Siberia were victims of an Anthrax outbreak. This outbreak occurred in the Yamal peninsula, where Anthrax was not observed for the past 70 years. Although from the 1940s, local reindeer populations were regularly vaccinated, due to the region being declared ‘free of anthrax’, vaccination was halted in 2007. This resulted in thousands of reindeer being infected when the 2016 outbreak occurred. 72 people were hospitalised, and Anthrax took the life of a 12-year old boy.
If the Yamal peninsula was declared ‘anthrax free’, then how did the outbreak occur? Studies have shown that for the past 6 years prior to the outbreak, permafrost in the region had thawed. Furthermore, Anthrax is known to be able to survive within the carcass of infected animals, if they are buried within the permafrost. Scientists have therefore posited that a buried and infected 75-year old deer carcass served as a biological time capsule and host-carrier of Anthrax. This outbreak, therefore, would not have occurred but for the thawing of the permafrost in this region.
Should we expect more outbreaks such as the 2016 Anthrax Outbreak? A couple things to keep in mind.
Firstly, with diseases such as Anthrax, we have the capabilities of controlling the spread through immunisation and vaccination programmes. The main reason why the outbreak occurred was not due to the thawing of the permafrost. Although that was the catalyst, the principal cause of the outbreak was the halting of the immunisation programme in 2007. Now that we are aware of such zombified revival of diseases, immunologists and epidemiologists should and would take such risks into account. We also have vaccination and treatment procedures for Anthrax.
More eye-catching and headline-gaining are the diseases that we know nothing about which may lay dormant within the permafrost. In 2014, scientists in a lab were able to revive a virus frozen in Siberian ice for 30,000 years. Many scientists have therefore posited that this process could also happen naturally within the permafrost, as both DNA viruses and bacteria are able to survive dormant for long periods of time.
However, we have to keep in mind that these worries are all hypotheticals. We have yet to see outbreaks caused by dormant unknown viruses or bacteria. We may perhaps never see one, as these outbreaks are impossible to predict. Most scientific articles and news articles always use the words ‘could’ or ‘the potential to’, or ‘may’. A workshop hosted by the National Academies of Science furthermore concluded that it is ‘not clear that the Arctic should be considered a “hotspot” for disease emergence, especially compared to areas that are known to be high risk’.
What we do know, however, is that even if we do experience such outbreaks, our pharmaceutical industries possess the knowledge and capabilities of rapidly developing, testing, and manufacturing immunisation and therapeutic measures to help control the severity. We have various contact tracing and isolation measures which should confine the spread. We have international cooperation, and precedent regarding travel agreements and shared quarantine measures. It is important to put such risks, no matter how scary, into perspective, and realise that there are thousands of epidemiologists, health experts, and policy makers monitoring such situations. Especially after COVID, any potential disease, especially if deadly, will be subject to special scrutiny by trigger-happy policy makers. No one wants to be the government which causes the next pandemic!