10 ms·

The correct place to take plastic out of landfills is by forbidding its use in manufacture, for anything except unavoidable necessities such as medical uses. Y

The correct place to take plastic out of landfills is by forbidding its use in manufacture, for anything except unavoidable necessities such as medical uses. You can use glass bottles and wash and reuse them. You can package things in wax paper. You can wear clothes made of natural fiber. Plastic needs to be treated like asbestos: useful, but the uses do not justify the risk in most cases.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wormseed 7y ago
What's wrong with putting plastic in landfills?
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  It doesn't stay there. And microplastic looks very likely to be an asbestos-level menace up and down the food chain, including to humans. The more it breaks down, the worse it is. The only safe way to dispose of plastic is incineration, adding to the carbon dioxide problem. The best way to avoid this is not to make it.
  - wormseed 7y ago
    It does just stay there in a well run landfill, and microplastics mostly either come from tyres and cosmetics, or plastics that aren't disposed of in landfills. There's some poorly run landfills, but how about we campaign to somewhat improve landfills instead of trying to reform all of modern society?
    - sambull 7y ago
      We many just need to reform all of modern society.
    - isostatic 7y ago
      Isn't that like saying nuclear waste is fine if it's in a properly run container. How many years will it take until the plastic is no longer able to get into the food chain?
    - JulianMorrison 7y ago
      Most landfills aren't well run. They're in third world countries, or places with business-favouring politics, or corrupt. Also, you aren't thinking in deep time. Plastic waste needs to be managed indefinitely if it isn't going to be incinerated, because plastic becomes more dangerous, not less, as it becomes finer particles. Which also penetrate containment more readily.
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        > Most landfills aren't well run. They're in third world countries, or places with business-favouring politics, or corrupt. We can regulate our own landfills and we can regulate which countries we export to. This is a far more realistic prospect than just banning most plastic products outright, as you suggest. > Plastic waste needs to be managed indefinitely if it isn't going to be incinerated, because plastic becomes more dangerous, not less, as it becomes finer particles. Yes, waste needs to be managed indefinitely, and we will always have to manage waste. We can do that.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Asbestos-level? Do you have any sources to back up that micro plastics cause cancer?
    - ryanmercer 7y ago
      >Ingested microplastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals—from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) to pesticides—that can compromise immune function and stymie growth and reproduction. Both microplastics and these chemicals may accumulate up the food chain, potentially impacting whole ecosystems, including the health of soils in which we grow our food. Microplastics in the water we drink and the air we breathe can also hit humans directly. And a little more concerning >What matters most is whether these physical and chemical impacts ultimately affect an organism’s growth, reproduction or susceptibility to illness. In a surprising study published in March, not only did fish exposed to microplastics reproduce less but their offspring, who weren’t directly exposed to plastic particles, also had fewer young, suggesting the effects can linger into subsequent generations. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-huma...
      - refurb 7y ago
        So basically nothing like asbestos at all?
        ryanmercer 7y ago
        Asbestos can take 10-80 years to cause cancer based on a cursory Google search while plastics are capable of causing a decline in fertility rates for at least two generations as well as begin to immediately interfere with hormone levels/production. It took decades to understand asbestos was bad as it is and even then it took direct exposure (generally with you working with the stuff). Plastic is building up in the environment daily, and the levels have only really start to increase. Plastic is also effectively forever, there is no practical plastic abatement like there is with asbestos. One great way of dealing with asbestos removal is keeping it damp, microplastics though are just going to spread with water. Microplastics are in the air and water, it's effectively falling like snow from the sky which is documented in the NatGeo article I linked. Concentrations of microplastics is only going to go up as more and more of the plastic we've created starts to break down into smaller and smaller pieces. When you get small enough, like nano-scale, particles can get extremely dangerous as they can cross the cell membrane. Plastic pollution is likely going to be far worse than asbestos and for incredibly more species.
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    AFAIK plastics degrade and break down primarily due tue UV light. If you have plastics hidden under earth, it has great durability.
    - JulianMorrison 7y ago
      Which just defers the problem. What's underground will eventually be returned to the surface by [insert geological event here]. What will a landfill be in 10,000 years time?
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        > What will a landfill be in 10,000 years time? Someone else's problem. In all seriousness, by then either we have solved waste disposal through automation, or we will be living in landfills.
      - dTal 7y ago
        Deferring the problem seems like a viable strategy in this case. Plastic recycling seems like the kind of thing that technology might have something to say about eventually - especially if the plastic is already conveniently sorted into its own dedicated place. If petroleum demand falls to the point where oil wells shut down, and there's huge piles of plastic ready for the taking just under the surface, the economics of digging it up become more and more favorable. Plausibly, the problem could solve itself in time.
mkl 7y ago
> Plastic needs to be treated like asbestos: useful, but the uses do not justify the risk in most cases. Asbestos kills people. What plastic risk are you referring to, environmental pollution?
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >Asbestos kills people. What plastic risk are you referring to, environmental pollution? Plastic likely has all sorts of medical complications, that we will probably start to see manifest here in the near future now that it is now in the food and water we consume [1], now in the air we breathe [2] and even in our poop [3]. >Ingested microplastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals—from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) to pesticides—that can compromise immune function and stymie growth and reproduction. Both microplastics and these chemicals may accumulate up the food chain, potentially impacting whole ecosystems, including the health of soils in which we grow our food. Microplastics in the water we drink and the air we breathe can also hit humans directly. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-huma... [1] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/were-literally-eating-and-drinking-plastic-fossil-fuels-are-blame https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/were-literally-eating... [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/microplastics-pollution-falls-from-air-even-mountains/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/micro... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/10/22/guess-what-is-in-your-poop-plastic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/10/22/guess-what-...
  - hsbaut76 7y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted. He is absolutely right. Whilst rich people on hacker News get to eat quality produce, most people aren't as fortunate. They are exposed to higher levels of pollution. I mean, the west basically dumps their trash in South East Asia now with little care or regard. Do you think this doesn't pollute the land, animals and people?
jokoon 7y ago
Yesterday I posted on /r/crazyideas about doing a startup that would design reusable, standard packaging of difference shapes for all possible food forms. It could be made of high quality plastic, glass, maybe stainless steel, etc as long as it can be easily recycled and that brands can put paper stickers on them. Those can be returned/sold back. Someone answered me that most plastics can be recycled because he worked in a recycling plant, meaning this was a bad idea. I linked him a forbes article after a few comments and he stopped answering. It's hard to know if that guy was just astroturfing me.
- _4570 7y ago
  First paragraph - It's a good idea on paper and someone is already trying it. Not just for food by the way. Check out https://loopstore.com/ https://loopstore.com/ Second paragraph seems a little conspiracy theorist-y to be honest!
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    > Second paragraph seems a little conspiracy theorist-y to be honest! I agree, though it's always worth remembering 1) that AI and automated marketing and responses will only get better as time goes on, and 2) there are a lot of unemployed people who can, could, and will shill for things on the internet. If there is a profit motive 1 & 2 will likely happen. The problem is separating idiots from deliberate misinformation.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
We need to look at things in a moderate and reasonable way instead of going from an extreme to the opposite extreme. It used to be that plastic was fantastic. Now we arguably use too much of it so some people go to the other extreme of wanting to get rid of it altogether. The reality is that plastics are great materials that are very useful, the flip side being that they need to be properly disposed of. Yes, they are probably over-used in some cases, e.g. packaging, but that does not mean we should treat plastics "like asbestos". For example, you mention glass bottles: They require a lot of energy to be manufactured, they are heavy (more energy needed to transport them), they require energy, water, and chemicals to be washed. Is that necessarily more environmentally friendly that plastic efficiently recycled? You also mention wax paper, which (as far as I know) is not very recyclable because it's waxed. Probably better to use cardboard or a type of plastic that recycles well (and is actually recycled!)
- Sahhaese 7y ago
  A potential "solution" is to price in the externality and tax the use of plastic in manufacturing. Then the market can decide whether it's "worth" using plastic for disposable water bottles or food wrapping.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    We could, but then we should also tax everything else (e.g. glass bottles) based on objective criteria as there is no reason to single out plastic. Perhaps these criteria could be based on the ease and cost of recycling, with a huge penalty if not recyclable and a bonus if biodegradable/compostable.
    - Sahhaese 7y ago
      Sure, let's do that. And the money raised could be re-invested in technology / r&d to improve and cheapen recycling.
      - post_break 7y ago
spodek 7y ago
Exactly. There is a major, qualitative difference between Reduce, which is strategic and lowers pollution, and Reuse and Recycle, which are tactical and mostly just shuffle pollution around. If your strategy is in place and people support it, use all the tactics you can. But if your strategy is not in place, tactics often backfire. As this article points out, people think they're being virtuous by recycling so they buy plastic profligately -- the opposite of the strategy. I'm starting to think we should change the phrase "Reduce, reuse, recycle" to "Reduce". I treat this more in detail in my Leadership and the Environment podcast episode 183: Reusing and recycling are tactical. Reducing is strategic http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume-6 http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume.... On another note: We can each reduce our consumption and therefore demand significantly, while improving our lives. When I cut out nearly all my packaged food, my food costs went down and quality of life and food went up. The last two times I emptied my garbage were September 2018 and July 2017. Some might say it's hard or only one person, as I would have before experiencing the change, but it was rewarding and improves my life, as it will yours. That it reduced my garbage by about 90% is a side effect. http://joshuaspodek.com/year-emptied-garbage http://joshuaspodek.com/year-emptied-garbage. I'm not saying only individuals should change or suggesting not doing other things. I support institutional change and pricing extraction and waste with taxes since the public pays for the cleanup. But everyone right here right now can cut their consumption and waste, which will lead to faster implementation of institutional change, legislation, etc.
nabla9 7y ago
You can burn plastics into energy or reuse it. Temperature should be high enough to avoid toxic byproducts. Consider: hydrocarbons -> energy vs. hydrocarbons -> plastic product -> possible recycling -> energy. Plastics can also be made from cellulose. If this route is taken and becomes more popular, you could grow stuff, make it into plastics, use it, then bury it to store rid of carbon. Possibly turn plastics it into cubes and drop them into some deep place in ocean without volcanic activity where it stays inert hundreds of millions of years.
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Sure, you can burn plastics -- but releasing even more CO2 is not attractive. There is a lot of talk about ways to sequester carbon -- it seems like throwing away tons of plastic is doing exactly that. Now, I'm sure it could be done in a better way that is currently being done, but burning it seems like non-starter.
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    Plastic as such isn't a safe way to sequester carbon. It may be possible to burn it into charcoal, which would be safe to sequester? But the noxious flue gases would need to be cleaned.
maxerickson 7y ago
What risk?
hyko 7y ago
I would argue that the uses do justify the risks in many cases. Plastic isn’t just one thing, there are myriad polymers and applications for them. I’m not aware of any studies that would place all polymers anywhere near the levels of toxicity of the asbestos family, which has roughly one practical application.
snarf21 7y ago
I think we should figure out how to make bio-plastics. Instead of wasting all this money sorting and recycling them, make them out of things that biodegrade and use the carbon already in the air.
hammock 7y ago
Wax paper is made of petrochemicals nowadays...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wormseed 7y ago

What's wrong with putting plastic in landfills?

JulianMorrison 7y ago
It doesn't stay there. And microplastic looks very likely to be an asbestos-level menace up and down the food chain, including to humans. The more it breaks down, the worse it is. The only safe way to dispose of plastic is incineration, adding to the carbon dioxide problem. The best way to avoid this is not to make it.
- wormseed 7y ago
  It does just stay there in a well run landfill, and microplastics mostly either come from tyres and cosmetics, or plastics that aren't disposed of in landfills. There's some poorly run landfills, but how about we campaign to somewhat improve landfills instead of trying to reform all of modern society?
  - sambull 7y ago
    We many just need to reform all of modern society.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    Isn't that like saying nuclear waste is fine if it's in a properly run container. How many years will it take until the plastic is no longer able to get into the food chain?
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    Most landfills aren't well run. They're in third world countries, or places with business-favouring politics, or corrupt. Also, you aren't thinking in deep time. Plastic waste needs to be managed indefinitely if it isn't going to be incinerated, because plastic becomes more dangerous, not less, as it becomes finer particles. Which also penetrate containment more readily.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > Most landfills aren't well run. They're in third world countries, or places with business-favouring politics, or corrupt. We can regulate our own landfills and we can regulate which countries we export to. This is a far more realistic prospect than just banning most plastic products outright, as you suggest. > Plastic waste needs to be managed indefinitely if it isn't going to be incinerated, because plastic becomes more dangerous, not less, as it becomes finer particles. Yes, waste needs to be managed indefinitely, and we will always have to manage waste. We can do that.
- refurb 7y ago
  Asbestos-level? Do you have any sources to back up that micro plastics cause cancer?
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    >Ingested microplastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals—from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) to pesticides—that can compromise immune function and stymie growth and reproduction. Both microplastics and these chemicals may accumulate up the food chain, potentially impacting whole ecosystems, including the health of soils in which we grow our food. Microplastics in the water we drink and the air we breathe can also hit humans directly. And a little more concerning >What matters most is whether these physical and chemical impacts ultimately affect an organism’s growth, reproduction or susceptibility to illness. In a surprising study published in March, not only did fish exposed to microplastics reproduce less but their offspring, who weren’t directly exposed to plastic particles, also had fewer young, suggesting the effects can linger into subsequent generations. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-huma...
    - refurb 7y ago
      So basically nothing like asbestos at all?
      - ryanmercer 7y ago
        Asbestos can take 10-80 years to cause cancer based on a cursory Google search while plastics are capable of causing a decline in fertility rates for at least two generations as well as begin to immediately interfere with hormone levels/production. It took decades to understand asbestos was bad as it is and even then it took direct exposure (generally with you working with the stuff). Plastic is building up in the environment daily, and the levels have only really start to increase. Plastic is also effectively forever, there is no practical plastic abatement like there is with asbestos. One great way of dealing with asbestos removal is keeping it damp, microplastics though are just going to spread with water. Microplastics are in the air and water, it's effectively falling like snow from the sky which is documented in the NatGeo article I linked. Concentrations of microplastics is only going to go up as more and more of the plastic we've created starts to break down into smaller and smaller pieces. When you get small enough, like nano-scale, particles can get extremely dangerous as they can cross the cell membrane. Plastic pollution is likely going to be far worse than asbestos and for incredibly more species.
- zajio1am 7y ago
  AFAIK plastics degrade and break down primarily due tue UV light. If you have plastics hidden under earth, it has great durability.
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    Which just defers the problem. What's underground will eventually be returned to the surface by [insert geological event here]. What will a landfill be in 10,000 years time?
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > What will a landfill be in 10,000 years time? Someone else's problem. In all seriousness, by then either we have solved waste disposal through automation, or we will be living in landfills.
    - dTal 7y ago
      Deferring the problem seems like a viable strategy in this case. Plastic recycling seems like the kind of thing that technology might have something to say about eventually - especially if the plastic is already conveniently sorted into its own dedicated place. If petroleum demand falls to the point where oil wells shut down, and there's huge piles of plastic ready for the taking just under the surface, the economics of digging it up become more and more favorable. Plausibly, the problem could solve itself in time.

mkl 7y ago

> Plastic needs to be treated like asbestos: useful, but the uses do not justify the risk in most cases. Asbestos kills people. What plastic risk are you referring to, environmental pollution?

ryanmercer 7y ago
>Asbestos kills people. What plastic risk are you referring to, environmental pollution? Plastic likely has all sorts of medical complications, that we will probably start to see manifest here in the near future now that it is now in the food and water we consume [1], now in the air we breathe [2] and even in our poop [3]. >Ingested microplastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals—from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) to pesticides—that can compromise immune function and stymie growth and reproduction. Both microplastics and these chemicals may accumulate up the food chain, potentially impacting whole ecosystems, including the health of soils in which we grow our food. Microplastics in the water we drink and the air we breathe can also hit humans directly. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-huma... [1] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/were-literally-eating-and-drinking-plastic-fossil-fuels-are-blame https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/were-literally-eating... [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/microplastics-pollution-falls-from-air-even-mountains/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/micro... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/10/22/guess-what-is-in-your-poop-plastic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/10/22/guess-what-...
- hsbaut76 7y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted. He is absolutely right. Whilst rich people on hacker News get to eat quality produce, most people aren't as fortunate. They are exposed to higher levels of pollution. I mean, the west basically dumps their trash in South East Asia now with little care or regard. Do you think this doesn't pollute the land, animals and people?

jokoon 7y ago

Yesterday I posted on /r/crazyideas about doing a startup that would design reusable, standard packaging of difference shapes for all possible food forms. It could be made of high quality plastic, glass, maybe stainless steel, etc as long as it can be easily recycled and that brands can put paper stickers on them. Those can be returned/sold back. Someone answered me that most plastics can be recycled because he worked in a recycling plant, meaning this was a bad idea. I linked him a forbes article after a few comments and he stopped answering. It's hard to know if that guy was just astroturfing me.

_4570 7y ago
First paragraph - It's a good idea on paper and someone is already trying it. Not just for food by the way. Check out https://loopstore.com/ https://loopstore.com/ Second paragraph seems a little conspiracy theorist-y to be honest!
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  > Second paragraph seems a little conspiracy theorist-y to be honest! I agree, though it's always worth remembering 1) that AI and automated marketing and responses will only get better as time goes on, and 2) there are a lot of unemployed people who can, could, and will shill for things on the internet. If there is a profit motive 1 & 2 will likely happen. The problem is separating idiots from deliberate misinformation.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

We need to look at things in a moderate and reasonable way instead of going from an extreme to the opposite extreme. It used to be that plastic was fantastic. Now we arguably use too much of it so some people go to the other extreme of wanting to get rid of it altogether. The reality is that plastics are great materials that are very useful, the flip side being that they need to be properly disposed of. Yes, they are probably over-used in some cases, e.g. packaging, but that does not mean we should treat plastics "like asbestos". For example, you mention glass bottles: They require a lot of energy to be manufactured, they are heavy (more energy needed to transport them), they require energy, water, and chemicals to be washed. Is that necessarily more environmentally friendly that plastic efficiently recycled? You also mention wax paper, which (as far as I know) is not very recyclable because it's waxed. Probably better to use cardboard or a type of plastic that recycles well (and is actually recycled!)

Sahhaese 7y ago
A potential "solution" is to price in the externality and tax the use of plastic in manufacturing. Then the market can decide whether it's "worth" using plastic for disposable water bottles or food wrapping.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  We could, but then we should also tax everything else (e.g. glass bottles) based on objective criteria as there is no reason to single out plastic. Perhaps these criteria could be based on the ease and cost of recycling, with a huge penalty if not recyclable and a bonus if biodegradable/compostable.
  - Sahhaese 7y ago
    Sure, let's do that. And the money raised could be re-invested in technology / r&d to improve and cheapen recycling.
    - post_break 7y ago

spodek 7y ago

Exactly. There is a major, qualitative difference between Reduce, which is strategic and lowers pollution, and Reuse and Recycle, which are tactical and mostly just shuffle pollution around. If your strategy is in place and people support it, use all the tactics you can. But if your strategy is not in place, tactics often backfire. As this article points out, people think they're being virtuous by recycling so they buy plastic profligately -- the opposite of the strategy. I'm starting to think we should change the phrase "Reduce, reuse, recycle" to "Reduce". I treat this more in detail in my Leadership and the Environment podcast episode 183: Reusing and recycling are tactical. Reducing is strategic http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume-6 http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume.... On another note: We can each reduce our consumption and therefore demand significantly, while improving our lives. When I cut out nearly all my packaged food, my food costs went down and quality of life and food went up. The last two times I emptied my garbage were September 2018 and July 2017. Some might say it's hard or only one person, as I would have before experiencing the change, but it was rewarding and improves my life, as it will yours. That it reduced my garbage by about 90% is a side effect. http://joshuaspodek.com/year-emptied-garbage http://joshuaspodek.com/year-emptied-garbage. I'm not saying only individuals should change or suggesting not doing other things. I support institutional change and pricing extraction and waste with taxes since the public pays for the cleanup. But everyone right here right now can cut their consumption and waste, which will lead to faster implementation of institutional change, legislation, etc.

nabla9 7y ago

You can burn plastics into energy or reuse it. Temperature should be high enough to avoid toxic byproducts. Consider: hydrocarbons -> energy vs. hydrocarbons -> plastic product -> possible recycling -> energy. Plastics can also be made from cellulose. If this route is taken and becomes more popular, you could grow stuff, make it into plastics, use it, then bury it to store rid of carbon. Possibly turn plastics it into cubes and drop them into some deep place in ocean without volcanic activity where it stays inert hundreds of millions of years.

tasty_freeze 7y ago
Sure, you can burn plastics -- but releasing even more CO2 is not attractive. There is a lot of talk about ways to sequester carbon -- it seems like throwing away tons of plastic is doing exactly that. Now, I'm sure it could be done in a better way that is currently being done, but burning it seems like non-starter.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  Plastic as such isn't a safe way to sequester carbon. It may be possible to burn it into charcoal, which would be safe to sequester? But the noxious flue gases would need to be cleaned.

maxerickson 7y ago

What risk?

hyko 7y ago

I would argue that the uses do justify the risks in many cases. Plastic isn’t just one thing, there are myriad polymers and applications for them. I’m not aware of any studies that would place all polymers anywhere near the levels of toxicity of the asbestos family, which has roughly one practical application.

snarf21 7y ago

I think we should figure out how to make bio-plastics. Instead of wasting all this money sorting and recycling them, make them out of things that biodegrade and use the carbon already in the air.

hammock 7y ago

Wax paper is made of petrochemicals nowadays...