5 ms·

> re-buried it in landfills, there's barely any observable downsides Please elaborate. Its not like we are in a world crisis where marine life is dying and eve

> re-buried it in landfills, there's barely any observable downsides Please elaborate. Its not like we are in a world crisis where marine life is dying and even humans are found to have more and more micro plastics in our bodies. You do know that landfills are not nuclear disposal facilities, right? Nature will process that plastic in unimaginable ways, which will lead to unforseen consequences. Consequences we see today, hence why people want to move away from single use plastic.

RC_ITR 4y ago
>Its not like we are in a world crisis where marine life is dying I'm begging you to look into how plastic gets into the ocean. It's "recycling" it, not landfill escape. Additionally, you're missing the entire point - the current problem is primarily how we dispose of plastic which is what I'm trying to help people understand. We could avoid most of what you're talking about if we put forth even minimal effort to contain our plastic waste! Sure, a counter-factual world where everything runs on abundant solar power should also be a world without plastic, but good luck getting there. As of today we burn fuel and put carbon into our atmospheric well to move shit around, and we do that the least when we use plastic Full stop. You may disagree, but putting more carbon into our atmospheric and oceanic wells is the #1 problem facing humanity right now by a mile and more plastic is a means to slow the rate at which we are doing that. I'm glad you care about the environment, but please please please pivot your concerns hardcore to the climate. It may feel like a less solvable problem than plastic (and I know it sucks to care about unsolvable problems), but its 1000x more impactful. >even humans are found to have more and more micro plastics in our bodies. Still waiting to read the research on why this is so dangerous. Maybe it is, but show me the data! Meanwhile, I know burning any incremental fuel is very very bad. And again, don't you think plastic in the ocean subject to constant kinetic energy is much more of a problem than stationary plastic? >You do know that landfills are not nuclear disposal facilities, right? You realize plastic doesn't emit gamma radiation, right? >Nature will process that plastic in unimaginable ways, which will lead to unforseen consequences. Consequences we see today, hence why people want to move away from single use plastic. Again, we test nukes underground (because we live in the atmosphere not the crust). I agree that 'nature' decomposes plastic, but most 'nature' is in the atmosphere! The thing that we are ruining the fastest and need to protect the most (even though its invisible and humans hate invisible things)!
- ranguna 4y ago
  > put forth even minimal effort to contain our plastic waste! Partially agree, that minimal effort is to educate billions of people and governments around the world. And thus, I'll use your own words: > but good luck getting there --- > burn fuel and put carbon into our atmospheric well to move shit around, and we do that the least when we use plastic "we do that the least when we use plastic" - How so? > You may disagree, but putting more carbon into our atmospheric and oceanic wells is the #1 problem facing humanity right now by a mile and more plastic is a means to slow the rate at which we are doing that. 1st I do not disagree that reducing pollution is a priority. 2nd I don't see how "more plastic" leads to "slow the rate" of carbon production emissions. > research on why this is so dangerous. Interesting, can't give you the research because I don't have it. But I'll go with my gut feeling that this is very similar to the "forever chemicals" that increased general cancerinogenic risks chances world wide, but again, can't give any research, there might be some papers out there but I never searched for them. > plastic doesn't emit gamma radiation It does not, but it breaks down to unimaginable micro pieces of plastic that get scattered around naturally if not properly isolated. > most 'nature' is in the atmosphere Nature is everywhere and we should make an effort to solve this on all fronts. Not fix things on one side and make things worse on the other.

RC_ITR 4y ago

>Its not like we are in a world crisis where marine life is dying I'm begging you to look into how plastic gets into the ocean. It's "recycling" it, not landfill escape. Additionally, you're missing the entire point - the current problem is primarily how we dispose of plastic which is what I'm trying to help people understand. We could avoid most of what you're talking about if we put forth even minimal effort to contain our plastic waste! Sure, a counter-factual world where everything runs on abundant solar power should also be a world without plastic, but good luck getting there. As of today we burn fuel and put carbon into our atmospheric well to move shit around, and we do that the least when we use plastic Full stop. You may disagree, but putting more carbon into our atmospheric and oceanic wells is the #1 problem facing humanity right now by a mile and more plastic is a means to slow the rate at which we are doing that. I'm glad you care about the environment, but please please please pivot your concerns hardcore to the climate. It may feel like a less solvable problem than plastic (and I know it sucks to care about unsolvable problems), but its 1000x more impactful. >even humans are found to have more and more micro plastics in our bodies. Still waiting to read the research on why this is so dangerous. Maybe it is, but show me the data! Meanwhile, I know burning any incremental fuel is very very bad. And again, don't you think plastic in the ocean subject to constant kinetic energy is much more of a problem than stationary plastic? >You do know that landfills are not nuclear disposal facilities, right? You realize plastic doesn't emit gamma radiation, right? >Nature will process that plastic in unimaginable ways, which will lead to unforseen consequences. Consequences we see today, hence why people want to move away from single use plastic. Again, we test nukes underground (because we live in the atmosphere not the crust). I agree that 'nature' decomposes plastic, but most 'nature' is in the atmosphere! The thing that we are ruining the fastest and need to protect the most (even though its invisible and humans hate invisible things)!

ranguna 4y ago
> put forth even minimal effort to contain our plastic waste! Partially agree, that minimal effort is to educate billions of people and governments around the world. And thus, I'll use your own words: > but good luck getting there --- > burn fuel and put carbon into our atmospheric well to move shit around, and we do that the least when we use plastic "we do that the least when we use plastic" - How so? > You may disagree, but putting more carbon into our atmospheric and oceanic wells is the #1 problem facing humanity right now by a mile and more plastic is a means to slow the rate at which we are doing that. 1st I do not disagree that reducing pollution is a priority. 2nd I don't see how "more plastic" leads to "slow the rate" of carbon production emissions. > research on why this is so dangerous. Interesting, can't give you the research because I don't have it. But I'll go with my gut feeling that this is very similar to the "forever chemicals" that increased general cancerinogenic risks chances world wide, but again, can't give any research, there might be some papers out there but I never searched for them. > plastic doesn't emit gamma radiation It does not, but it breaks down to unimaginable micro pieces of plastic that get scattered around naturally if not properly isolated. > most 'nature' is in the atmosphere Nature is everywhere and we should make an effort to solve this on all fronts. Not fix things on one side and make things worse on the other.