11 ms·

Worms fail to thrive in soil containing microplastics: study

248 points by JulianMorrison 7y ago

skybrian 7y ago
Abstract is here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304# https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304# (I didn't see an ungated version.) I wonder what concentration they used?
- lixtra 7y ago
  > All mesocosms received 1060 g of the sieved soil to reach a dry bulk density of 1.1 g/cm^3. As such, mesocosms treated with microplastics received 1 g/kg dry soil of HDPE or PLA (0.1% w/w), whereas those treated with synthetic fibers received 10 mg/kg of dry soil (0.001% w/w).
  - noname120 7y ago
    Do you know how this compares to the real-life concentrations in soil?
    - zaroth 7y ago
      This seems like the crucial question. It’s quite interesting to determine something like the LD50 of microplastic in earthworms and grasses which grow in that soil. It would be great if we could see a log-graph of plastic density versus when the effect drops off. It’s also a good question to ask if it’s the plastic itself, or the impact of the plastic on pH. So for example if they added lime to keep the pH the same in both samples, does the effect in the plastic laced sample persist? 0.1% by mass seems like an incredibly high level. A cubic yard of topsoil (100 sq feet at a depth of 3 inches) weights about 1,000 pounds so 10 pounds of diffuse plastic in that area would be extraordinary.
      - rflrob 7y ago
        0.1% of 1000 lbs is 1 pound, but that’s still the equivalent of ~10 empty 2L bottles.
anigbrowl 7y ago
You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters, who are perfectly content to wreck the biosphere for everyone else as long as they get theirs. Existing economic incentives are perverse and many people will fight tooth and nail to maintain their ability to extract economic rents rather than sacrifice for the public good.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  > You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters I think this is the problem. It’s not them doing it, it’s us. We need to change what we are doing.
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    No, it's definitely them doing it, and we are enabling it. These aren't mutually exclusive problems.
    - ehnto 7y ago
      You're both being pretty vague, but I think it is useful to remember rhat ultimately "they" are indeed part of "us". The people who influence individual companies decisions to continue to produce waste have to go home to a neighbourhood, move within the community, and can be influenced by that community. The people enabling it are the consumers, but also the thousands of smaller companies buying and producing plastic packaging, who have a much bigger say than the small amount of consumers you can convince to give up their luxuries.
    - atoav 7y ago
      A common source for microplastic is the abration of synthetic textiles and rubber. So unless you only wear unmixed nature fibre and walk in straw sandals you have to assume that you might also produce microplastic even if you never drive a car, take a bus or anything with wheels not made of steel or wood. This is why we need to deal with the issue as a society, instead of blaming it onto individuals. We did precisely that for decades now and it doesn’t seem to work.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
DoreenMichele 7y ago
Failure to thrive is an ill-defined term that strikes me as a tad histrionic in this title. The article indicates worms lost 3% of their weight in contaminated soil versus a control group that gained 5%. It's not the dramatic figure I was expecting from the title. Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10% of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three weeks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_to_thrive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_to_thrive
- simion314 7y ago
  >Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10% of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three weeks. I am not sure if the comparison is relevant here, the numbers are not large but they are significant, something is wrong and it needs investigation. You losing 5% weight may be nothing but if you in the same time have constant pain because of damage do your digestive track is not pleasant at all. I am wondering if similar tests was done on rats?. -- I google it and it causes cancer
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  It is a small effect, what should raise alarms for the p-problems. But it is a very important effect, so if it is real, it is something to be very concerned about.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
andybak 7y ago
The plastics stuff is worrying but I am concerned it will divert attention away from global warming. One issue is "hmmmm. this isn't good" whilst the other is "hey people, we should probably start thinking about panic mode about now". Some people will argue that the solution to both is similar and linked but I'm not so sure.
- Swenrekcah 7y ago
  It seems to me that both issues are very frightening and deserve our attention. Climate change is fucking up the systems we humans and many other animals rely on, which will kill off many species although as a species we will likely survive. But plastics pollution seems to be literally poisoning every possible corner of the ecosystem, which might be a greater hazard to humans in the long run. Regarding plastics, it could be a solution to put a very hefty tax on plastic, that's partially refundable if you return it to recycling/proper disposal. This might reduce the incentives to produce single-use items out of plastic, but would not ban it (because for some use cases plastics is perhaps the only viable option, not just the cheapest).
  - mrob 7y ago
    I think the biggest threat of plastics pollution is loss of our ability to use plastics as a long-term building/manufacturing material. Very few microbes can metabolize plastics now, but not zero, and the ability will only spread as plastics (and especially high surface-area to volume ratio microplastics) become more common in the wild. Microbes evolve fast, and they have access to horizontal gene transfer. Heavily fluorinated plastics might survive but I expect all cheap plastics will end up easily biodegradable. It's potentially a major inconvenience, but if we pretend it's as big a threat as CO2 pollution then civilization will have collapsed before it happens, so that's one way to avoid the problem.
    - Merrill 7y ago
      "Mutant 59: The Plastic Eater" - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0081RLFEY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0081RLFEY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect Science fiction from 1971. The main effect hypothesized was the disintegration of electrical insulation, which destroyed power distribution, communications, and electronics.
derpherpsson 7y ago
My grandfather says crazy stuff like "oh, but we will be in the grave long before this turns into a problem" whenever topics like this emerge at the dinner table. There is a little psychopath in each one of us.
- dpau 7y ago
  unfortunately that's not psychopathy, it's just humanity
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  This is anecdotal, but your grandfather's attitude is entirely consistent with the pattern of people generally giving less of a fuck as they age, starting around their 50s or 60s.
  - WanderPanda 7y ago
    Which is a problem as people are wasting 50 years of their life giving fucks all the time.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  The Earth is antifragile. Studies are often hyperbolized and exaggerated. There's no evidence of some world wide decline in earthworm population. Local populations can be impacted, but far more damaging is tilling and the commercial farm practices: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508095152.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508095152.h...
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Why don't you respond with 'you will, I won't' and see what sort of response you get? While I don't want to promote disharmony at the dinner table, your grandfather's gloom at his looming mortality is no excuse for endorsing the diminution of your life expectancy. That said, such frankness might well result in him allocating any legacy away from you in his will.
andy_ppp 7y ago
I’m always skeptical, was the original study a realistic amount of micro plastics in the next 20 years or is it a totally artificial amount for funding and headlines?
- sp332 7y ago
  In a BBC interview, one of the researchers said that the concentration was quite high, like what you'd find in a contaminated landfill site. I think the research is just starting though, and now that they have an interesting result for high concentrations, they'll start looking at lower ones. So we don't know yet what effect different levels have.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
new299 7y ago
This appears to be the original paper: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 There’s a slightly better summary, which at least references the paper, here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911193303.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911193303.h...
- bArray 7y ago
  Thank you, it's really bad not to link the paper in a news piece, 1) for evidence, 2) for further reading and 3) for accreditation for the hard working researchers/institutions. Do you happen to have access to the paper through the pay wall? I'm interested in the data itself, the abstract certainly doesn't match up to "worms fail to thrive [..]", I want to see some numbers. There are enough environmental disasters on the horizon without the need to manufacture more.
air7 7y ago
Important to note that western countries (almost) don't contribute plastic that ends up in the ocean (that later becomes microplastics) because of modern waste management. [0] Plastic in the oceans comes from poorer countries where a huge population lives next to rivers or beaches and the waste management systems are inadequate. In fact, "90% of plastic polluting our oceans comes from just 10 rivers" [1] Our efforts should be directed there, financially and politically and not locally be it via individual effort or local government pressure. This is a unique type of issue as, generally speaking, enviorment awareness is stronger with liberals yet "meddling" in other countries internal affairs (waste management in this case) is not. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti...
- baxtr 7y ago
  I believed this, too. But it’s apparently not true... See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067350
  - graeme 7y ago
    That doesn't follow. That post argues it's actually us because we export plastics to China for recycling. But China shut that down and we haven't had a surge of western plastics in the oceans. They just go to landfills instead. Much plastic also goes in garbage, not recycling. This doesn't end in the oceans. I wish we'd move our supply chain off plastics for most things. But, the post you linked to isn't very persuasive on ocean plastic.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      I don't think we've had long enough to since China changed its waste acceptance standards to be sure of the long-term ramifications.
- imhoguy 7y ago
  "modern waste management", like sending containers full of unrecyclable garbage to East Europe or Asia?
FrozenVoid 7y ago
Microplastic is in the air you breathe, that is how it gets into the soil. Its a global pollution problem that isn't confined to "few bad countries" or "polluted rivers" somewhere in Asia. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-14/microplastic-is-significant-source-of-air-pollution https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-14/micropl... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468584417300119 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246858441... https://inhabitat.com/microplastic-rain-new-study-reveals-microplastics-are-in-the-air/ https://inhabitat.com/microplastic-rain-new-study-reveals-mi... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/microplastics-pollution-falls-from-air-even-mountains/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/micro... https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/713561484/microplastic-found-even-in-the-air-in-frances-pyrenees-mountains https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/713561484/microplastic-found-... https://livelovefruit.com/breathing-in-microplastic/ https://livelovefruit.com/breathing-in-microplastic/
nkurz 7y ago
The paper looks to be "Effects of Microplastics in Soil Ecosystems: Above and Below Ground" by Bas Boots, Connor William Russell, and Dannielle Senga Green. The abstract is here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 And the full paper here: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 After a quick skim, it looks like a well written paper with a small dataset. They took 40 1.2L plastic pots and filled them with 1kg of local soil. In 10 of the pots, they then added 1 g of PLA microplastic; in another 10 they added 1 g of HDPE microplastic; in another 10 they added 10 mg of acrylic and nylon fibers collected from a washing machine; and in the last 10 they added nothing. In half of the pots (5) from each of the 4 categories, they then planted ryegrass. Then they added 2 earthworms to each of the 40 pots, waited for a month, and then measured the results. They found (Figure 3) that the 10 earthworms in the 5 unplanted control (no plastic) gained about 5% weight, that the 10 earthworms in the 5 planted HDPE containers lost about 5% of their weight, and all the rest had no significant change. Overall, it seems like a solid paper, with all the information one would need for a replication attempt. Nicely, they report the average weights for the two each of the individual pots, but unfortunately they don't seem to report the intra-pot variation of the individual worms, which would be helpful to know in assessing the likelihood of replication. The Guardian article, though, which mentions only the two "significant" results and ignores the 6 results that showed no particular difference, seems more intent on generically sowing fear than on informing the public about recent scientific results. I guess it's better to have a soft-science article like this than another "did you see what the idiot tweeted", but sometimes I'm not sure. ps. Did you know that in much of the northern US, all of the native earthworms were killed by the glaciers, and that practically all the current earthworms in these areas are invasives? The northern hardwood forests evolved without these earthworms, and may in fact be harmed by their presence: http://theconversation.com/silent-partners-are-earthworms-creating-pathways-for-invasive-plants-77848 http://theconversation.com/silent-partners-are-earthworms-cr.... I wonder if the same true for England (where the study was done) since it was also mostly glaciated?
- Forge36 7y ago
  Thank you for sharing a source on how earthworms are invasive (I'd heard the claim, but not a source). I remember a Park ranger talking about flowers in Minnesota which didn't grow as well because of earthworms and were thus Endangered. I wonder how these flowers would do if Plastics were added to their soil. I can't recall the name of the flower, but that the reason they couldn't flourish was that Earthworms were eating the nutrients they needed to grow. I found two sources https://kstp.com/news/u-of-m-researchers-find-earthworms-are-threatening-minnesota-state-flower-lady-slipper-/5431231/ https://kstp.com/news/u-of-m-researchers-find-earthworms-are... And https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000904130558.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000904130558.h... I don't believe this is the same flower (I feel like I'd remember the state flower). So the impact of earthworms is interesting, as I'd never heard of a way (or suggestion to) treat and remove earthworms from an ecosystem.
scottlocklin 7y ago
Cue 50 posts about how "we're all in this together" talking about irrelevancies like recycling their supermarket plastic bags and using metal water containers. No. The consumer end source of the problem comes from tires and the use of synthetic fabrics. As far as I know there is no effort at all to do anything about tires (using regular vulcanized rubber presumably would help). Synthetic fabrics, you actually can do something about. Stop buying them; your spandex pants are destroying the environment. The other sources are pellets and coatings used industrially. https://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IUCN-report-Primary-microplastics-in-the-oceans.pdf https://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IUCN-rep...
- forgotmypw 7y ago
  What about sneakers?
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  What about airless tires? I havent looked deeply into them but they sound like they would not be as profitable since you will be less likely to change tires due to a nail certainly reducing sales. But I am not sure what kind of cars these tires compliment and what kind of driving they are not for. https://www.bridgestonetire.com/tread-and-trend/tire-talk/airless-concept-tires https://www.bridgestonetire.com/tread-and-trend/tire-talk/ai...
  - legulere 7y ago
    The problem of tires is wear. Everything that's not on your tire anymore is microplastics now.
    - giancarlostoro 7y ago
      Understandable, I hadn't looked into them as much or the subject matter. I'm curious if airless tires with similar design but different material could be made.
  - partialrecall 7y ago
Jeff_Brown 7y ago
How much of the plastic were they exposed to -- the kind of amount you'd find on a farm, or some kind of experimental super-plastic-dirt?

Abstract is here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304# https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304# (I didn't see an ungated version.) I wonder what concentration they used?

lixtra 7y ago
> All mesocosms received 1060 g of the sieved soil to reach a dry bulk density of 1.1 g/cm^3. As such, mesocosms treated with microplastics received 1 g/kg dry soil of HDPE or PLA (0.1% w/w), whereas those treated with synthetic fibers received 10 mg/kg of dry soil (0.001% w/w).
- noname120 7y ago
  Do you know how this compares to the real-life concentrations in soil?
  - zaroth 7y ago
    This seems like the crucial question. It’s quite interesting to determine something like the LD50 of microplastic in earthworms and grasses which grow in that soil. It would be great if we could see a log-graph of plastic density versus when the effect drops off. It’s also a good question to ask if it’s the plastic itself, or the impact of the plastic on pH. So for example if they added lime to keep the pH the same in both samples, does the effect in the plastic laced sample persist? 0.1% by mass seems like an incredibly high level. A cubic yard of topsoil (100 sq feet at a depth of 3 inches) weights about 1,000 pounds so 10 pounds of diffuse plastic in that area would be extraordinary.
    - rflrob 7y ago
      0.1% of 1000 lbs is 1 pound, but that’s still the equivalent of ~10 empty 2L bottles.

anigbrowl 7y ago

You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters, who are perfectly content to wreck the biosphere for everyone else as long as they get theirs. Existing economic incentives are perverse and many people will fight tooth and nail to maintain their ability to extract economic rents rather than sacrifice for the public good.

lostlogin 7y ago
> You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters I think this is the problem. It’s not them doing it, it’s us. We need to change what we are doing.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  No, it's definitely them doing it, and we are enabling it. These aren't mutually exclusive problems.
  - ehnto 7y ago
    You're both being pretty vague, but I think it is useful to remember rhat ultimately "they" are indeed part of "us". The people who influence individual companies decisions to continue to produce waste have to go home to a neighbourhood, move within the community, and can be influenced by that community. The people enabling it are the consumers, but also the thousands of smaller companies buying and producing plastic packaging, who have a much bigger say than the small amount of consumers you can convince to give up their luxuries.
  - atoav 7y ago
    A common source for microplastic is the abration of synthetic textiles and rubber. So unless you only wear unmixed nature fibre and walk in straw sandals you have to assume that you might also produce microplastic even if you never drive a car, take a bus or anything with wheels not made of steel or wood. This is why we need to deal with the issue as a society, instead of blaming it onto individuals. We did precisely that for decades now and it doesn’t seem to work.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Failure to thrive is an ill-defined term that strikes me as a tad histrionic in this title. The article indicates worms lost 3% of their weight in contaminated soil versus a control group that gained 5%. It's not the dramatic figure I was expecting from the title. Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10% of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three weeks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_to_thrive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_to_thrive

simion314 7y ago
>Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10% of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three weeks. I am not sure if the comparison is relevant here, the numbers are not large but they are significant, something is wrong and it needs investigation. You losing 5% weight may be nothing but if you in the same time have constant pain because of damage do your digestive track is not pleasant at all. I am wondering if similar tests was done on rats?. -- I google it and it causes cancer
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
marcosdumay 7y ago
It is a small effect, what should raise alarms for the p-problems. But it is a very important effect, so if it is real, it is something to be very concerned about.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

andybak 7y ago

The plastics stuff is worrying but I am concerned it will divert attention away from global warming. One issue is "hmmmm. this isn't good" whilst the other is "hey people, we should probably start thinking about panic mode about now". Some people will argue that the solution to both is similar and linked but I'm not so sure.

Swenrekcah 7y ago
It seems to me that both issues are very frightening and deserve our attention. Climate change is fucking up the systems we humans and many other animals rely on, which will kill off many species although as a species we will likely survive. But plastics pollution seems to be literally poisoning every possible corner of the ecosystem, which might be a greater hazard to humans in the long run. Regarding plastics, it could be a solution to put a very hefty tax on plastic, that's partially refundable if you return it to recycling/proper disposal. This might reduce the incentives to produce single-use items out of plastic, but would not ban it (because for some use cases plastics is perhaps the only viable option, not just the cheapest).
- mrob 7y ago
  I think the biggest threat of plastics pollution is loss of our ability to use plastics as a long-term building/manufacturing material. Very few microbes can metabolize plastics now, but not zero, and the ability will only spread as plastics (and especially high surface-area to volume ratio microplastics) become more common in the wild. Microbes evolve fast, and they have access to horizontal gene transfer. Heavily fluorinated plastics might survive but I expect all cheap plastics will end up easily biodegradable. It's potentially a major inconvenience, but if we pretend it's as big a threat as CO2 pollution then civilization will have collapsed before it happens, so that's one way to avoid the problem.
  - Merrill 7y ago
    "Mutant 59: The Plastic Eater" - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0081RLFEY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0081RLFEY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect Science fiction from 1971. The main effect hypothesized was the disintegration of electrical insulation, which destroyed power distribution, communications, and electronics.

derpherpsson 7y ago

My grandfather says crazy stuff like "oh, but we will be in the grave long before this turns into a problem" whenever topics like this emerge at the dinner table. There is a little psychopath in each one of us.

dpau 7y ago
unfortunately that's not psychopathy, it's just humanity
EForEndeavour 7y ago
This is anecdotal, but your grandfather's attitude is entirely consistent with the pattern of people generally giving less of a fuck as they age, starting around their 50s or 60s.
- WanderPanda 7y ago
  Which is a problem as people are wasting 50 years of their life giving fucks all the time.
chrisco255 7y ago
The Earth is antifragile. Studies are often hyperbolized and exaggerated. There's no evidence of some world wide decline in earthworm population. Local populations can be impacted, but far more damaging is tilling and the commercial farm practices: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508095152.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508095152.h...
anigbrowl 7y ago
Why don't you respond with 'you will, I won't' and see what sort of response you get? While I don't want to promote disharmony at the dinner table, your grandfather's gloom at his looming mortality is no excuse for endorsing the diminution of your life expectancy. That said, such frankness might well result in him allocating any legacy away from you in his will.

andy_ppp 7y ago

I’m always skeptical, was the original study a realistic amount of micro plastics in the next 20 years or is it a totally artificial amount for funding and headlines?

sp332 7y ago
In a BBC interview, one of the researchers said that the concentration was quite high, like what you'd find in a contaminated landfill site. I think the research is just starting though, and now that they have an interesting result for high concentrations, they'll start looking at lower ones. So we don't know yet what effect different levels have.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

new299 7y ago

This appears to be the original paper: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 There’s a slightly better summary, which at least references the paper, here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911193303.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911193303.h...

bArray 7y ago
Thank you, it's really bad not to link the paper in a news piece, 1) for evidence, 2) for further reading and 3) for accreditation for the hard working researchers/institutions. Do you happen to have access to the paper through the pay wall? I'm interested in the data itself, the abstract certainly doesn't match up to "worms fail to thrive [..]", I want to see some numbers. There are enough environmental disasters on the horizon without the need to manufacture more.

air7 7y ago

Important to note that western countries (almost) don't contribute plastic that ends up in the ocean (that later becomes microplastics) because of modern waste management. [0] Plastic in the oceans comes from poorer countries where a huge population lives next to rivers or beaches and the waste management systems are inadequate. In fact, "90% of plastic polluting our oceans comes from just 10 rivers" [1] Our efforts should be directed there, financially and politically and not locally be it via individual effort or local government pressure. This is a unique type of issue as, generally speaking, enviorment awareness is stronger with liberals yet "meddling" in other countries internal affairs (waste management in this case) is not. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti...

baxtr 7y ago
I believed this, too. But it’s apparently not true... See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067350
- graeme 7y ago
  That doesn't follow. That post argues it's actually us because we export plastics to China for recycling. But China shut that down and we haven't had a surge of western plastics in the oceans. They just go to landfills instead. Much plastic also goes in garbage, not recycling. This doesn't end in the oceans. I wish we'd move our supply chain off plastics for most things. But, the post you linked to isn't very persuasive on ocean plastic.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    I don't think we've had long enough to since China changed its waste acceptance standards to be sure of the long-term ramifications.
imhoguy 7y ago
"modern waste management", like sending containers full of unrecyclable garbage to East Europe or Asia?

FrozenVoid 7y ago

Microplastic is in the air you breathe, that is how it gets into the soil. Its a global pollution problem that isn't confined to "few bad countries" or "polluted rivers" somewhere in Asia. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-14/microplastic-is-significant-source-of-air-pollution https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-14/micropl... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468584417300119 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246858441... https://inhabitat.com/microplastic-rain-new-study-reveals-microplastics-are-in-the-air/ https://inhabitat.com/microplastic-rain-new-study-reveals-mi... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/microplastics-pollution-falls-from-air-even-mountains/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/micro... https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/713561484/microplastic-found-even-in-the-air-in-frances-pyrenees-mountains https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/713561484/microplastic-found-... https://livelovefruit.com/breathing-in-microplastic/ https://livelovefruit.com/breathing-in-microplastic/

nkurz 7y ago

The paper looks to be "Effects of Microplastics in Soil Ecosystems: Above and Below Ground" by Bas Boots, Connor William Russell, and Dannielle Senga Green. The abstract is here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 And the full paper here: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304 After a quick skim, it looks like a well written paper with a small dataset. They took 40 1.2L plastic pots and filled them with 1kg of local soil. In 10 of the pots, they then added 1 g of PLA microplastic; in another 10 they added 1 g of HDPE microplastic; in another 10 they added 10 mg of acrylic and nylon fibers collected from a washing machine; and in the last 10 they added nothing. In half of the pots (5) from each of the 4 categories, they then planted ryegrass. Then they added 2 earthworms to each of the 40 pots, waited for a month, and then measured the results. They found (Figure 3) that the 10 earthworms in the 5 unplanted control (no plastic) gained about 5% weight, that the 10 earthworms in the 5 planted HDPE containers lost about 5% of their weight, and all the rest had no significant change. Overall, it seems like a solid paper, with all the information one would need for a replication attempt. Nicely, they report the average weights for the two each of the individual pots, but unfortunately they don't seem to report the intra-pot variation of the individual worms, which would be helpful to know in assessing the likelihood of replication. The Guardian article, though, which mentions only the two "significant" results and ignores the 6 results that showed no particular difference, seems more intent on generically sowing fear than on informing the public about recent scientific results. I guess it's better to have a soft-science article like this than another "did you see what the idiot tweeted", but sometimes I'm not sure. ps. Did you know that in much of the northern US, all of the native earthworms were killed by the glaciers, and that practically all the current earthworms in these areas are invasives? The northern hardwood forests evolved without these earthworms, and may in fact be harmed by their presence: http://theconversation.com/silent-partners-are-earthworms-creating-pathways-for-invasive-plants-77848 http://theconversation.com/silent-partners-are-earthworms-cr.... I wonder if the same true for England (where the study was done) since it was also mostly glaciated?

Forge36 7y ago
Thank you for sharing a source on how earthworms are invasive (I'd heard the claim, but not a source). I remember a Park ranger talking about flowers in Minnesota which didn't grow as well because of earthworms and were thus Endangered. I wonder how these flowers would do if Plastics were added to their soil. I can't recall the name of the flower, but that the reason they couldn't flourish was that Earthworms were eating the nutrients they needed to grow. I found two sources https://kstp.com/news/u-of-m-researchers-find-earthworms-are-threatening-minnesota-state-flower-lady-slipper-/5431231/ https://kstp.com/news/u-of-m-researchers-find-earthworms-are... And https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000904130558.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000904130558.h... I don't believe this is the same flower (I feel like I'd remember the state flower). So the impact of earthworms is interesting, as I'd never heard of a way (or suggestion to) treat and remove earthworms from an ecosystem.

scottlocklin 7y ago

Cue 50 posts about how "we're all in this together" talking about irrelevancies like recycling their supermarket plastic bags and using metal water containers. No. The consumer end source of the problem comes from tires and the use of synthetic fabrics. As far as I know there is no effort at all to do anything about tires (using regular vulcanized rubber presumably would help). Synthetic fabrics, you actually can do something about. Stop buying them; your spandex pants are destroying the environment. The other sources are pellets and coatings used industrially. https://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IUCN-report-Primary-microplastics-in-the-oceans.pdf https://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IUCN-rep...

forgotmypw 7y ago
What about sneakers?
giancarlostoro 7y ago
What about airless tires? I havent looked deeply into them but they sound like they would not be as profitable since you will be less likely to change tires due to a nail certainly reducing sales. But I am not sure what kind of cars these tires compliment and what kind of driving they are not for. https://www.bridgestonetire.com/tread-and-trend/tire-talk/airless-concept-tires https://www.bridgestonetire.com/tread-and-trend/tire-talk/ai...
- legulere 7y ago
  The problem of tires is wear. Everything that's not on your tire anymore is microplastics now.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    Understandable, I hadn't looked into them as much or the subject matter. I'm curious if airless tires with similar design but different material could be made.
- partialrecall 7y ago

Jeff_Brown 7y ago

How much of the plastic were they exposed to -- the kind of amount you'd find on a farm, or some kind of experimental super-plastic-dirt?