11 ms·

Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

151 points by lerie1982 6y ago

jessaustin 6y ago
It's in air, it's in water, it's in food... ultimately, it's also in us.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Watched dark waters last night. Pretty unreal how these companies behaved. https://imdb.com/title/tt9071322/ https://imdb.com/title/tt9071322/
  - elevenoh 6y ago
    I'm amazed at the current health externalities companies aren't held accountable for.
  - doitLP 6y ago
    Please keep in mind biopics and historical films are fictionalized movie and not documentaries but entertainment. Link to NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
rhacker 6y ago
So are the chemicals we place on fields of food. Everything we're doing is toxic. We think the earth can support 7 or 8 billion people but in the current ways of doing things, it can probably only do so for another 100 years maximum.
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > So are the chemicals we place on fields of food. Everything we're doing is toxic. We think the earth can support 7 or 8 billion people but in the current ways of doing things, it can probably only do so for another 100 years maximum. I gave it more like 300 years back in 2008, whereas Hawking gave it closer to 100 by which time he said if we're not multi-planetary we'll will have destroyed the Earth sue to our collective myopic behaviour; the time frame may differ but sentiment is the ultimately same: Humanity needed this reality check we've had with COVID, what we do from here on out may determine the fate of our entire Species' fate. And we should act accordingly.
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  Earth does not really care (:
scottlocklin 6y ago
I don't like plastic in the air any more than anyone else does, but 1) stop wearing those stupid fucking polyester hoodies (and other artificial fibers; aka your socks, gym shirts and underpants) -that's where most of it comes from. I'm looking at you, SF hacker nerds. 2) Even assuming the entire population of the Western US breathed all that plastic waste in and it was permanently deposited in the lungs: 1000e3 kg/ 100e6 people = 0.01kg or 10g plastic each person accumulated in their lungs. In a year. Pretty sure I have more shit in my lungs from being around diesel engines for a few days, or, like being around potheads.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  10mg per year is potentially a much bigger problem due to biological magnification - i.e. everything below us in the food chain is exposed to the same 10mg per year, so we accumulate the sum of whatever our food sources have consumed.
  - scottlocklin 6y ago
    You aren't absorbing 10g, 10mg or 1mg of plastic in your lungs every year. Most of it is falling on the ground and being turned into dirt. It's gross and people should do something about it, but it is a neurotic worry rather than a real problem. Most accounts (including this one) even have the temerity to try to link plastic bottles to it (which, also gross, are not a problem as far as plastic fibers in the environment goes) because it freaks people out; so they buy a metal drinking container they shove in their plastic hoodies, which will eventually become a few pounds of environmental plastic fiber pollution.
    - weaksauce 6y ago
      > It's gross and people should do something about it, but it is a neurotic worry rather than a real problem. I wonder if it is going to be more like lead where at the time it was thought to be benignish and as the evidence mounted it was clear just how destructive it was.
minerjoe 6y ago
In some just universe, oil == pure evil. It's underground for a reason and poking a million painful needles into Mother Earth to suck it out and spew it into every biome is bound to have implications on our own health. As above, so below.
- mey 6y ago
  Oil has horrible consequences, but your rational for it being evil by being out of "reach" isn't very enlightening. By your logic we should not tap aquifers for drinking water, but mass desalination is fine. Instead, oil is bad because. It's not renewable, it's refinement/combustion is readily linked to cancer and other deadly/health issues, extraction/transport routinely kills ecosystems/creates toxic waste sites.
  - na85 6y ago
    Mass desalination via solar energy seems like it would be a huge win for the environment. Plus you could sell the salt. I wonder if it's feasible.
    - ggm 6y ago
      Desal plants cause localised brine concentration and screw ecology. If you built them at Salinas (salt pans) maybe that would be ok, and we'd get more flamingoes once the brine shrimp population rose. So you need strong solar and large flat expanses. North Africa? There was a serious proposal to sell solar power to Europe from north Africa. Maybe this is the triple play?
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        I've looked at Desalination in Southern California. One thing they're trying is to mix the saline water with waste water discharge. One assumes that's better. Other thing I found when poking about is the energy expenditure for some of LA's water sources is close to that of desalination. I think I'm firmly down on the side of I'm against desalination if it just means more water for almonds. For desalination if it means replacing expensive imported water sources and leaving more water for what's left of the states natural environment. I feel like things are complicated with a inescapable level of fucked.
hoppla 6y ago
Our era will be known as the plastic age
elevenoh 6y ago
"Rocky Mountain National Park, which had the greatest amount of microplastics among the national parks and wilderness areas in the study" Surprised to see Colorado so affected.
- sojournerc 6y ago
  That is surprising, especially considering that it's on the continental divide and has mostly headwaters. I live a bit south of there in the mountains, also close to the divide. A lot of our precip, especially in winter, is moisture carried by the jet stream from the north pacific that gets caught on the mountains. Could be the source, but that's a wild guess.
spodek 6y ago
We can legislate to stop producing it, or drastically reduce it. We did so with CFCs to stop destroying the ozone layer. The doomsayers weren't the scientists who predicted the problems, but those who said we'd lose refrigeration etc. They were wrong. Legislation helped the ozone layer and society did fine. The same will happen if we legislate on plastic as we did on CFCs.
- dwighttk 6y ago
  plastic is a slightly larger category than CFCs
  - lowdose 6y ago
    Any other "solution" results in a local maximum. If I learned one thing last years of all the denying is that you cannot put the bar high enough especially when it concerns long term planning of the ecosystem of Earth. Just realize where we would be today if climate change was taken seriously in the 1960's. Let's not make that same mistake with plastic all over again.
kilroy123 6y ago
What is the solution? Maybe massive taxes for manufacturing plastics for consumer uses? Just brainstorming here. It seems like the incentives need to align somehow.
- pas 6y ago
  Yes. Carbon tax, plastic tax. Basically we're still in the full denial phase. We need more energy, and we need clean energy. (Because ultimately every problem with plastics and pollution is solvable via spending more energy.) And some serious transformation. * Tyres? Make them out of biodegradable organic materials. Maybe they'll need to be replaced every year, and they'll cost more, that's why the pollution tax has to make the safe/sane/eco/green version competitive. (Also more investment in infrastructure, mass transit, denser cities, more walking, etc.) Urbanization is already ongoing, but somehow instead of building efficient dense cities many countries on Earth are just building sprawling slums and/or suburbs. (Plus we need carbon-efficient concrete and a more carbon-efficient construction industry as a whole.) * Synthetic fibers. Cotton. Sure, but you'll need non-polluting cotton farms, so closed loop energy intensive [indoor/vertical] farms. * Plastic packaging. Meh, just use biodegradable alternative packaging. Eg. paper. (Heavier, needs more energy to transport.) * Plastic bottles. Use aluminum cans. Again, heavier, plus needs more energy to manufacture, but endlessly recyclable. * Plastic pigments in paint. Meh, find biodegradable alternative or stop using them.
effnorwood 6y ago
They don’t
stunt 6y ago
It’s crazy how much waste we produce. You only realize that after you start separating your trash for recycling.
carapace 6y ago
Biodegradable plastic has been a thing since the late 70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic My dad once showed me transparent cellulose-based plastic envelopes you could eat. They didn't taste like anything but were totally non-toxic. That was in the 80's.

151 points by lerie1982 6y ago

jessaustin 6y ago

It's in air, it's in water, it's in food... ultimately, it's also in us.

waheoo 6y ago
Watched dark waters last night. Pretty unreal how these companies behaved. https://imdb.com/title/tt9071322/ https://imdb.com/title/tt9071322/
- elevenoh 6y ago
  I'm amazed at the current health externalities companies aren't held accountable for.
- doitLP 6y ago
  Please keep in mind biopics and historical films are fictionalized movie and not documentaries but entertainment. Link to NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...

rhacker 6y ago

So are the chemicals we place on fields of food. Everything we're doing is toxic. We think the earth can support 7 or 8 billion people but in the current ways of doing things, it can probably only do so for another 100 years maximum.

Melting_Harps 6y ago
> So are the chemicals we place on fields of food. Everything we're doing is toxic. We think the earth can support 7 or 8 billion people but in the current ways of doing things, it can probably only do so for another 100 years maximum. I gave it more like 300 years back in 2008, whereas Hawking gave it closer to 100 by which time he said if we're not multi-planetary we'll will have destroyed the Earth sue to our collective myopic behaviour; the time frame may differ but sentiment is the ultimately same: Humanity needed this reality check we've had with COVID, what we do from here on out may determine the fate of our entire Species' fate. And we should act accordingly.
vbezhenar 6y ago
Earth does not really care (:

scottlocklin 6y ago

I don't like plastic in the air any more than anyone else does, but 1) stop wearing those stupid fucking polyester hoodies (and other artificial fibers; aka your socks, gym shirts and underpants) -that's where most of it comes from. I'm looking at you, SF hacker nerds. 2) Even assuming the entire population of the Western US breathed all that plastic waste in and it was permanently deposited in the lungs: 1000e3 kg/ 100e6 people = 0.01kg or 10g plastic each person accumulated in their lungs. In a year. Pretty sure I have more shit in my lungs from being around diesel engines for a few days, or, like being around potheads.

faitswulff 6y ago
10mg per year is potentially a much bigger problem due to biological magnification - i.e. everything below us in the food chain is exposed to the same 10mg per year, so we accumulate the sum of whatever our food sources have consumed.
- scottlocklin 6y ago
  You aren't absorbing 10g, 10mg or 1mg of plastic in your lungs every year. Most of it is falling on the ground and being turned into dirt. It's gross and people should do something about it, but it is a neurotic worry rather than a real problem. Most accounts (including this one) even have the temerity to try to link plastic bottles to it (which, also gross, are not a problem as far as plastic fibers in the environment goes) because it freaks people out; so they buy a metal drinking container they shove in their plastic hoodies, which will eventually become a few pounds of environmental plastic fiber pollution.
  - weaksauce 6y ago
    > It's gross and people should do something about it, but it is a neurotic worry rather than a real problem. I wonder if it is going to be more like lead where at the time it was thought to be benignish and as the evidence mounted it was clear just how destructive it was.

minerjoe 6y ago

In some just universe, oil == pure evil. It's underground for a reason and poking a million painful needles into Mother Earth to suck it out and spew it into every biome is bound to have implications on our own health. As above, so below.

mey 6y ago
Oil has horrible consequences, but your rational for it being evil by being out of "reach" isn't very enlightening. By your logic we should not tap aquifers for drinking water, but mass desalination is fine. Instead, oil is bad because. It's not renewable, it's refinement/combustion is readily linked to cancer and other deadly/health issues, extraction/transport routinely kills ecosystems/creates toxic waste sites.
- na85 6y ago
  Mass desalination via solar energy seems like it would be a huge win for the environment. Plus you could sell the salt. I wonder if it's feasible.
  - ggm 6y ago
    Desal plants cause localised brine concentration and screw ecology. If you built them at Salinas (salt pans) maybe that would be ok, and we'd get more flamingoes once the brine shrimp population rose. So you need strong solar and large flat expanses. North Africa? There was a serious proposal to sell solar power to Europe from north Africa. Maybe this is the triple play?
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      I've looked at Desalination in Southern California. One thing they're trying is to mix the saline water with waste water discharge. One assumes that's better. Other thing I found when poking about is the energy expenditure for some of LA's water sources is close to that of desalination. I think I'm firmly down on the side of I'm against desalination if it just means more water for almonds. For desalination if it means replacing expensive imported water sources and leaving more water for what's left of the states natural environment. I feel like things are complicated with a inescapable level of fucked.

hoppla 6y ago

Our era will be known as the plastic age

elevenoh 6y ago

"Rocky Mountain National Park, which had the greatest amount of microplastics among the national parks and wilderness areas in the study" Surprised to see Colorado so affected.

sojournerc 6y ago
That is surprising, especially considering that it's on the continental divide and has mostly headwaters. I live a bit south of there in the mountains, also close to the divide. A lot of our precip, especially in winter, is moisture carried by the jet stream from the north pacific that gets caught on the mountains. Could be the source, but that's a wild guess.

spodek 6y ago

We can legislate to stop producing it, or drastically reduce it. We did so with CFCs to stop destroying the ozone layer. The doomsayers weren't the scientists who predicted the problems, but those who said we'd lose refrigeration etc. They were wrong. Legislation helped the ozone layer and society did fine. The same will happen if we legislate on plastic as we did on CFCs.

dwighttk 6y ago
plastic is a slightly larger category than CFCs
- lowdose 6y ago
  Any other "solution" results in a local maximum. If I learned one thing last years of all the denying is that you cannot put the bar high enough especially when it concerns long term planning of the ecosystem of Earth. Just realize where we would be today if climate change was taken seriously in the 1960's. Let's not make that same mistake with plastic all over again.

kilroy123 6y ago

What is the solution? Maybe massive taxes for manufacturing plastics for consumer uses? Just brainstorming here. It seems like the incentives need to align somehow.

pas 6y ago
Yes. Carbon tax, plastic tax. Basically we're still in the full denial phase. We need more energy, and we need clean energy. (Because ultimately every problem with plastics and pollution is solvable via spending more energy.) And some serious transformation. * Tyres? Make them out of biodegradable organic materials. Maybe they'll need to be replaced every year, and they'll cost more, that's why the pollution tax has to make the safe/sane/eco/green version competitive. (Also more investment in infrastructure, mass transit, denser cities, more walking, etc.) Urbanization is already ongoing, but somehow instead of building efficient dense cities many countries on Earth are just building sprawling slums and/or suburbs. (Plus we need carbon-efficient concrete and a more carbon-efficient construction industry as a whole.) * Synthetic fibers. Cotton. Sure, but you'll need non-polluting cotton farms, so closed loop energy intensive [indoor/vertical] farms. * Plastic packaging. Meh, just use biodegradable alternative packaging. Eg. paper. (Heavier, needs more energy to transport.) * Plastic bottles. Use aluminum cans. Again, heavier, plus needs more energy to manufacture, but endlessly recyclable. * Plastic pigments in paint. Meh, find biodegradable alternative or stop using them.

effnorwood 6y ago

They don’t

stunt 6y ago

It’s crazy how much waste we produce. You only realize that after you start separating your trash for recycling.

carapace 6y ago

Biodegradable plastic has been a thing since the late 70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic My dad once showed me transparent cellulose-based plastic envelopes you could eat. They didn't taste like anything but were totally non-toxic. That was in the 80's.