3 ms·

Sounds like a completely made up figure.

• bonoboTP 6y ago
  Yeah but how do you make an article out of "many face masks will..."? Like what is many? Dozens or billions? 1.56 is for sure false precision though. I assume there can be easily an order of magnitude uncertainty in that.
• frankbreetz 6y ago
  >>The report used a global production estimate of 52 billion masks being manufactured in 2020, a conservative loss rate of 3%, and the average weight of 3 to 4 grams for a single-use polypropylene surgical face mask to arrive at the estimate. It sounds like and estimate
  • eznzt 6y ago
    i.e. made up. A loss rate of 3% why?
    • zamadatix 6y ago
      The paper cites a study that estimates 3% of global annual plastic waste ends up in the ocean and goes with that figure. This seems to be much better researched than your reasoning it was simply made up.
  • greenshackle2 6y ago
    I found no justification for the 3% figure in the actual report. EDIT: my bad, the justification is a 3% estimated rate for all plastics globally.
    • spurgu 6y ago
      People throw away trash (empty soda bottles, candy wraps etc) a lot easier than they'd throw away a device meant to protect their (and others) health. The real number has to be waaay below 1%.
      • roywiggins 6y ago
        Surgical masks are disposable for a reason, they eventually get dirty, damp, and smelly. They can't ordinarily be cleaned, so they go in the trash. It's not at all weird if a single-digit percentage point of a disposable item doesn't make it into a proper landfill.
        • spurgu 6y ago
          According to the article: > They enter oceans when they are littered, when waste management systems are inadequate or non-existent, or when these systems become overwhelmed due to increased volumes of waste. I was arguing that because of the first reason (litter) face masks are thrown into nature way less compared to other plastics in general. It's unfortunately relatively common to just throw away plastic bottles after use, as well as when eating candy. Those are the two most common pieces of litter I see everywhere. Go have a look at a pile of litter somewhere and try to estimate the percentage of masks among the plastic. That was the point I was trying to make. For the two latter reasons (mismanagement of waste) the end result would probably be more or less the same regardless of the type. Ultimately the real percentage of facemasks depends on the ratio between these "means of loss". And even though from my (western) perspective trash doesn't end up in the sea when thrown away, there are countries like India and other developing or poor countries that might make the littering statistic insignificant. On the other hand they are also unlikely to use masks to the same extent as in the western world...
• josefresco 6y ago
  "The report used a global production estimate of 52 billion masks being manufactured in 2020, a conservative loss rate of 3%" However I didn't see a link to the report itself which prevents me from speaking on the methodology of the loss rate value.
  • greenshackle2 6y ago
    The report is available at the end of the page. It's some awful embedded PDF reader thing.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]