3 ms·
The first article is full of 'could'. Where's the 'undeniable' bit at the quantities we're talking about? The second article is large pieces of plastic, not sma
by neilwilson 7y ago
The first article is full of 'could'. Where's the 'undeniable' bit at the quantities we're talking about? The second article is large pieces of plastic, not small pieces?
- titzer 7y agoWe could have a really long exchange about this but instead I'll just ask you what you think happens to big pieces of plastic over time. The answer is that they just keep getting ground down, killing over and over as they work their way down the foodchain, killing smaller and smaller organisms, until they eventually end up nanometer-sized. Nothing digests them. Who knows what those do to individual cells. You should be worried.
- neilwilson 7y agoWe need to have a long exchange over this. My null-hypothesis - supported by the evidence you have provided - is that the large plastic is doing the killing and when it gets small it passes through with little effect - like grains of sand. Because clearly grains of sand are bigger than nanometer and they don't block up digestive tracts. The albatross didn't die from endocrine disruption did it. That's how science works. From your evidence my null hypothesis is proven. We should know what it does to individual cells - particularly if we are creating scare stories around it.