4 ms·
The conclusion of the article: "The results of this study did not show a significant load of MPs larger than 149 μm in salts originating from 8 different count
by jknoepfler 10y ago
The conclusion of the article:
"The results of this study did not show a significant load of MPs larger than 149 μm in salts originating from 8 different countries and, therefore, negligible health risks associated with the consumption of salts. The increasing trend of plastic use and disposal50, however, might lead to the gradual accumulation of MPs in the oceans and lakes and, therefore, in products from the aquatic environments. This should necessitate the regular quantification and characterization of MPs in various sea products."
Is interesting to me, because I feel like this is where environments politics properly starts. Should the US federal government (insert your home gov't, or the EU, or whatever) fund regular monitoring for micro plastic levels? Maybe! it's a hard cost/benefit question that involves weighing priorities and careful thinking. But that's the kind of question we should be asking when it comes to environmental politics, not "should the EPA exist," or "is climate change real?"
- TaylorAlexander 10y ago"Politics" in practice is a way to give the people something to argue about that is related to, but fundamentally separate from, the real decisions being made. It's best if we're arguing about useless memes while real decisions are made or else we might question those decisions.
- btown 10y agoObviously every state should build their own parallel monitoring program with its own duplicated bureaucracy and time spent developing regulations. Because obviously people in New York and people in Alabama have different levels of plastic tolerance. Heck, I hear people in Alaska like plastic in their fish! Why are we taking away their rights?
- twobyfour 10y agoFurthermore, what happens when the wind blows pollution from one state across state lines into another? Does Louisiana get a say in what Iowa dumps into the Mississippi? And gee, it's not like anything dumped into the ocean in one place ever comes out in another, does it?
- true_religion 10y agoForeign products arrive in a country at specific locations---most likely large seaports. Impounding and stamping these products as having X standard or Y standard isn't very different if the standards body is the singular federal government, or applying 5-10 different standards levied by states. Also, even if there is a federal standard, the states themselves are always free to set greater limitations---for example federal emissions controls on cars, versus California emission controls.
- adventured 10y agoWell, in fact each state would and does need a parallel monitoring program, which inevitably would come with some duplicated bureaucracy. You can mostly skip the duplicated regulation process however. How are you planning to interface with people in each state, in regards to community and business, as it pertains to policy changes and dozens of other scenarios (some of which may be limited to just a few states based on industry and environment)? There's no scenario under which you don't need to have parallel monitoring for every state.
- zbjornson 10y agoThis is only one source of microplastics, but in 2015 Obama signed signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act, banning plastic microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products. Seems smart to target the source instead of monitor and clean up afterwards.
- dgellow 10y agoI agree but the monitoring and cleaning is still something you have to do if you want to follow the situation. You cannot just say 'we will ban X, problem solved'
- jfoutz 10y agoIf you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. I agree, it's not a solution. But maybe not doing that anymore is enough. Maybe not, and we need to investigate more. It reminds me of DDT. Oh gosh, that's useful but problematic, let's be super careful using this in the future.