5 ms·

Also it seems likely at this point that the danger has been wildly underestimated. The rallying cry against plastic used to be that "it takes hundreds of years

Also it seems likely at this point that the danger has been wildly underestimated. The rallying cry against plastic used to be that "it takes hundreds of years to break down". But now we know that when it breaks down, it gets worse. Microplastics are suspected to be bioaccumulating, carrying poisons and bacteria, and possibly could get into cells like asbestos. And the only way to dispose of the stuff that won't eventually become microplastic is incineration - putting all that carbon into the atmosphere, along with other unpleasant combustion products.

docker_up 7y ago
Yes, as usual those of us that told us the risk was low or non-existent were wrong again. How often do we have to be duped by so-called experts before we realize that the "experts" have actually no idea how to calculate risk, and that we can't rely on their "assurances"? It goes both ways, where scientists told us that salt and high fat diets were causing heart disease and now both of those have been walked back.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  The experts were working with the facts as they were known at the time. Microplastic wasn't obvious. Most things, when they break down, aren't harmful. This isn't a problem of experts. This is a problem of hubristically creating a never seen before material and assuming it would have no impact.
  - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
    Hubris will ultimately kill all of us. We've known that for at least thousands of years, yet still neglect it. Look at all the praise for capitalism despite the fact it has destroyed the planet.
    - lopmotr 7y ago
      > it has destroyed the planet. Using a hyperbole to justify another claim doesn't support that claim, it just sounds poetic to people who already believe it. What evidence do you have that hubris will ultimately kill all of us? Do you have a time frame for that prediction? If not, then it's a meaningless claim.
      - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
        I rest my case.
    - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
      > Look at all the praise for capitalism despite the fact it has destroyed the planet. Please, oh please, show me a system that has increased the quality of life for more people than "capitalism" has. I'm not saying that we shouldn't conserve- we should- I do- but there are limits, and things take time. If humanity had never built fires because they pollute, we wouldn't be here today. If coal had been prohibited, people would probably still be burning trees as the main source of their energy.
      - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
        If we weren't here, that'd be a good thing.
        mooseburger 7y ago
        If we weren't here, there would be no such thing as 'good', as that is an entirely human construct.
    - dang 7y ago
      Maybe so, but will you please not post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We're particularly looking to avoid generic, a.k.a. tedious, ideological tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- guelo 7y ago
  Which experts are you talking about? Before 10 years ago or so I don't remember ever seeing a discussion about plastics in the environment one way or the other.
- jeromegv 7y ago
  Problem is that you're putting all "experts" in one bucket. There has been "experts" talking against the use of plastic and single-use for a very long time, but by attacking all experts like you're doing, you make it sound that they are the same people. Clearly, environmentalist were not the ones promoting plastic?
shawnz 7y ago
> and possibly could get into cells like asbestos To be clear, there is no current evidence that microplastics might share any mechanisms with asbestos/CNTs/etc, right?
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I do know that people with cystic fibrosis have a bad habit of dying of infections from microorganisms that are usually not deemed infectious for most humans. When you google the names of the microorganisms in question, some of them are used by scientists for bioremediation of petrochemical spills. In other words, they eat petrochemicals. They also think people with CF are tasty as hell while not much caring for "normal" humans, which looks rather suspect to me. So I suspect that the defect in the CFTR allows plastics and petrochemicals generally, plus metals, to accumulate at higher than normal rates in the CF population. I have run this hypothesis past a guy with a PhD in Biology who suggested that it was not simply straight up crazy talk. He said the function of the CFTR should have some implication for how the body processes metals, IIRC. (He's a member of HN and is more than welcome to chime in for accuracy's sake if he happens to see this remark, realizes DoreenMichele used to post as Mz and I am talking about him -- hello, nice person with PhD in Biology, and thank you for the awesome feedback.) Our oceans are getting increasingly polluted with plastic and we increasingly see, for example, dead whales on beaches who are full of plastic and these two things are deemed not unrelated, from what I gather. So it seems that there comes a point past which "normal" humans with a normal CFTR who do not have CF may be unable to avoid similar bioaccumulation of plastics/petrochemicals and other toxic chemicals as I am hypothesizing drive some deadly infections in the CF population. So, perhaps we can extrapolate from the experiences of the CF community that as our world gets increasingly toxic, it will negatively impact human health generally, including, but not limited to, making us more prone to infection from microogranisms that were never a problem before. Arguably, this is probably already happening and may be contributing to the rise of Super Bugs. It may not be merely overuse of antibiotics causing this problem. It may also be widespread environmental changes, including but not limited to the increasing prevalence of microplastics across the entire world.
  - 7y ago
technofiend 7y ago
Serious question: based on what we now know, does it make sense to revisit incineration of plastics particularly if we can update the stacks to do a better job of scrubbing?
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Probably gasification instead, which is much cleaner but more energy intensive. Incineration still produces tons of ash and chemical waste. Then some more thinking on how to handle resulting gases.
  - distances 7y ago
    Nordic countries incinerate almost all non-recycled municipal waste, to the point that they import waster from other countries to keep the incinerators well fed. Any insights how this is handled there? They are pretty famous for having some of the strictest environmental and health regulations, so I assume these issues have solutions.
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    I wonder if it could be low-oxygen burned to non-poisonous charcoal? That could be put into the environment without toxicity. (Such as making Terra Preta soil.)
siruncledrew 7y ago
Plastic is our new collective "Chernobyl".
- fourier_mode 7y ago
  One HBO show and boom: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=chernobyl https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=chernobyl

docker_up 7y ago

Yes, as usual those of us that told us the risk was low or non-existent were wrong again. How often do we have to be duped by so-called experts before we realize that the "experts" have actually no idea how to calculate risk, and that we can't rely on their "assurances"? It goes both ways, where scientists told us that salt and high fat diets were causing heart disease and now both of those have been walked back.

JulianMorrison 7y ago
The experts were working with the facts as they were known at the time. Microplastic wasn't obvious. Most things, when they break down, aren't harmful. This isn't a problem of experts. This is a problem of hubristically creating a never seen before material and assuming it would have no impact.
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  Hubris will ultimately kill all of us. We've known that for at least thousands of years, yet still neglect it. Look at all the praise for capitalism despite the fact it has destroyed the planet.
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    > it has destroyed the planet. Using a hyperbole to justify another claim doesn't support that claim, it just sounds poetic to people who already believe it. What evidence do you have that hubris will ultimately kill all of us? Do you have a time frame for that prediction? If not, then it's a meaningless claim.
    - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
      I rest my case.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    > Look at all the praise for capitalism despite the fact it has destroyed the planet. Please, oh please, show me a system that has increased the quality of life for more people than "capitalism" has. I'm not saying that we shouldn't conserve- we should- I do- but there are limits, and things take time. If humanity had never built fires because they pollute, we wouldn't be here today. If coal had been prohibited, people would probably still be burning trees as the main source of their energy.
    - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
      If we weren't here, that'd be a good thing.
      - mooseburger 7y ago
        If we weren't here, there would be no such thing as 'good', as that is an entirely human construct.
  - dang 7y ago
    Maybe so, but will you please not post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We're particularly looking to avoid generic, a.k.a. tedious, ideological tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
guelo 7y ago
Which experts are you talking about? Before 10 years ago or so I don't remember ever seeing a discussion about plastics in the environment one way or the other.
jeromegv 7y ago
Problem is that you're putting all "experts" in one bucket. There has been "experts" talking against the use of plastic and single-use for a very long time, but by attacking all experts like you're doing, you make it sound that they are the same people. Clearly, environmentalist were not the ones promoting plastic?

shawnz 7y ago

> and possibly could get into cells like asbestos To be clear, there is no current evidence that microplastics might share any mechanisms with asbestos/CNTs/etc, right?

DoreenMichele 7y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I do know that people with cystic fibrosis have a bad habit of dying of infections from microorganisms that are usually not deemed infectious for most humans. When you google the names of the microorganisms in question, some of them are used by scientists for bioremediation of petrochemical spills. In other words, they eat petrochemicals. They also think people with CF are tasty as hell while not much caring for "normal" humans, which looks rather suspect to me. So I suspect that the defect in the CFTR allows plastics and petrochemicals generally, plus metals, to accumulate at higher than normal rates in the CF population. I have run this hypothesis past a guy with a PhD in Biology who suggested that it was not simply straight up crazy talk. He said the function of the CFTR should have some implication for how the body processes metals, IIRC. (He's a member of HN and is more than welcome to chime in for accuracy's sake if he happens to see this remark, realizes DoreenMichele used to post as Mz and I am talking about him -- hello, nice person with PhD in Biology, and thank you for the awesome feedback.) Our oceans are getting increasingly polluted with plastic and we increasingly see, for example, dead whales on beaches who are full of plastic and these two things are deemed not unrelated, from what I gather. So it seems that there comes a point past which "normal" humans with a normal CFTR who do not have CF may be unable to avoid similar bioaccumulation of plastics/petrochemicals and other toxic chemicals as I am hypothesizing drive some deadly infections in the CF population. So, perhaps we can extrapolate from the experiences of the CF community that as our world gets increasingly toxic, it will negatively impact human health generally, including, but not limited to, making us more prone to infection from microogranisms that were never a problem before. Arguably, this is probably already happening and may be contributing to the rise of Super Bugs. It may not be merely overuse of antibiotics causing this problem. It may also be widespread environmental changes, including but not limited to the increasing prevalence of microplastics across the entire world.
- 7y ago

technofiend 7y ago

Serious question: based on what we now know, does it make sense to revisit incineration of plastics particularly if we can update the stacks to do a better job of scrubbing?

AstralStorm 7y ago
Probably gasification instead, which is much cleaner but more energy intensive. Incineration still produces tons of ash and chemical waste. Then some more thinking on how to handle resulting gases.
- distances 7y ago
  Nordic countries incinerate almost all non-recycled municipal waste, to the point that they import waster from other countries to keep the incinerators well fed. Any insights how this is handled there? They are pretty famous for having some of the strictest environmental and health regulations, so I assume these issues have solutions.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  I wonder if it could be low-oxygen burned to non-poisonous charcoal? That could be put into the environment without toxicity. (Such as making Terra Preta soil.)

siruncledrew 7y ago

Plastic is our new collective "Chernobyl".

fourier_mode 7y ago
One HBO show and boom: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=chernobyl https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=chernobyl