5 ms·
Toxic chemicals are only one aspect of pollution. AFAIK the more serious threat is from plastic decomposing into micro/nano-sized particles, which are then cons
by glenneroo 8y ago
Toxic chemicals are only one aspect of pollution. AFAIK the more serious threat is from plastic decomposing into micro/nano-sized particles, which are then consumed by plankton who then perish and/or are consumed by ever-larger creatures in the food chain. Plankton are vital for our species' survival, since they produce 50-85% of the world's oxygen supply, as well as feeding all other living things in the ocean (and eventually ending up in Human stomachs).
- blackflame7000 8y agoYea but the ocean is full of things decomposing into small particles. Rocks for one.
- orf 8y agoWell that's OK then. Thank god.
- coryrc 8y agoI don't think you should be downvoted, as it's a valid observation. Nanoplastics concentrate toxic compounds within themselves, smuggling them past animals' defense system. This does not happen with rock. There has not been enough time for animals to evolve systems to remove nanoplastics from their bodies.
- throwaway5752 8y agoI don't doubt that microplastics are not good for the environment and organisms that consume them, but can you provide a citation for the toxin concentration claim so I can learn more about it?
- A2017U1 8y agoTop 3 results here should do fine. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nanoplastic%20toxin%20concentration https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nanoplastic%20toxin%20...
- Reelin 8y agoThe wording of the grandparent comment was sloppy. You might try DOI 10.1039/C8NR09321K (https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/nr/c8nr09321k https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/nr/c8nr0...). In summary, for whatever reason it seems that nanoparticles of some plastics readily penetrate and accumulate in biological tissues. There are also chemicals that will adsorb onto these nanoparticles. This can make a chemical at a given concentration more toxic to an organism, or even potentially make something toxic that was previously not.
- blackflame7000 8y agoThat was my point, to suggest that the size of the particles alone shouldn't pose a hazard, there must be more going on.
- glenneroo 8y agoYes but I assume that plankton are smart enough not to eat rock particles, since they have both existed for millions/billions of years and plankton have adapted to discern between edible/inedible, whereas plastic is a very recent invention and is easily mistaken as a food source. Perhaps you need an analogy: Consider if a company were to sell you a plastic hamburgers disguised as a real hamburgers (i.e. how advertising food products used to be before being outlawed). Now, pretend you could swallow and ingest a hamburger whole (without chewing i.e. how plankton eat). What do you think will happen to your body? Here is a video in case you are unable to follow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUhzQAkanM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUhzQAkanM
- nothrabannosir 8y agoThis point stands without the snark. I understand the frustration when people poopooh climate issues, but at the end of the day, nobody is served by a slapfest. Would you please consider editing to remove the snarky jabs?
- scrollaway 8y agoI'm not reading snark in the parent's response. Consider giving people the benefit of the doubt.
- smogcutter 8y ago> Perhaps you need an analogy > Here is a video in case you are unable to follow: This is patronizing and rude.
- magduf 8y agoPossibly, but in cases where someone is being willfully obtuse (which I'm not claiming is the case here, but I see it elsewhere a lot), how else are you supposed to respond? Constantly being polite when someone is being willfully contrary actually seems to result in the other person appearing to win the argument according to bystanders. We see this in politics all the time: the candidates who sling mud and make bad arguments and cite outright falsehoods win elections, while the ones who always take the high road lose.