3 ms·

It's a lot about recycling and very little about how it's poisoning human beings. I have a lot of unpopular opinions about plastic. I personally think it's not

It's a lot about recycling and very little about how it's poisoning human beings. I have a lot of unpopular opinions about plastic. I personally think it's not that big of a deal. Benzine compounds are naaty, but they're in your drinking water. I don't like them. But most plastic is organic compounds since it comes from oil. There are already microbes metabolizing it in the wild, and it's a rich energy source that most organisms aren't using, you can expect that adapted niche to be filled very quickly by those organisms. Additionally, I think there's too much of an aversion to burning it. Whether its for disposal or for fuel via depolymerization, I think we need to be burning more plastic. If you're worried about CO2 bear in mind, this stuff is in the environment and will decompose eventually. Overall I'm not that concerned about it, besides some things like PFAS and benzine compounds. And all that said, I'd bet money I dispose of significantly less plastic than the average European. First is water bottles. I don't do water bottles. I use those 5 gallon jugs and a hand pump dispenser on amazon, it works like a super soaker or a garden sprayer. That alone has me ahead of most Americans. Beyond that I prefer paper bags, and glass over plastic containers. It's just lifestyle decisions, I hardly care but I do it, it's not even effort at this point, it's just different habits. If you care and can't be bothered and I don't care and do it, do you really care? Avoiding single use plastic in your household is not really all that hard, things you can't avoid like linings in cans and what not aren't the problem, grocery bags and water bottles are the big ones, and you can do other things like never buy teflon, which I also do.

maccard 3y ago
> But most plastic is organic compounds since it comes from oil. It being an organic compound doesn't mean it's safe or something we should ignore. Asbestos is an organic compound with wildly useful properties. > Additionally, I think there's too much of an aversion to burning it. At home, its a terrible idea - it's super duper toxic a d leave a horrific nasty waste to dispose of. In a commercial setting maybe, but I'm not convinced it's going to be handled correctly without serious regulation. > And all that said, I'd bet money I dispose of significantly less plastic than the average European. First is water bottles. I don't do water bottles. I use those 5 gallon jugs and a hand pump dispenser on amazon, it works like a super soaker or a garden sprayer. That alone has me ahead of most Americans. Eh, are you comparing to Europeans or Americans? I don't have stats handy but tap water is potable and suitable for a large number of uses. No need for any plastic. > Avoiding single use plastic in your household is not really all that hard, things you can't avoid like linings in cans and what not aren't the problem, grocery bags and water bottles are the big ones, and you can do other things like never buy teflon, which I also do. You can't just decide the plastics that you use aren't the problem. Avoiding single use plastics might not be hard for you, I live within shopping distance of 3 supermarkets all of whom package most of their fruit and veg in single use plastics. That's my number one source of plastics, and there's nothing I can do about it.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Asbestos is not an organic compound, asbestos is a silicate mineral fiber. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos
  - maccard 3y ago
    Apologies, I misspoke, you're right. My google-fu this morning was weak and I didn't fact check. That said, here [0] is a list of different dangerous organic compounds - Asbestos was a (poor) example. [0] https://defineinstruments.com/blog/epas-list-of-volatile-organic-compounds-in-order-of-toxicity/ https://defineinstruments.com/blog/epas-list-of-volatile-org...
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  I'm talking about how it will degrade into carbon dioxide and what not as microbes learn to decompose it, so long term it's no worse than burning. In rural places a lot of people burn their trash in pits. Just don't stand over it while it's burning and you'll be fine. Id argue this is significantly less bad than it piling up in the ocean. I'm comparing to Europeans and Americans. I don't drink tap water, I refill 5 gallon jugs.
altacc 3y ago
Once you factor in the time scales involved, your justifications for why plastic isn't much of a problem disappear. There is no significant decomposition of plastic by microbes in the wild. Nature will fill niches but there's no evidence or guarantee that microorganisms will ever develop a significant and widespread enough ability to degrade plastic. There are microbes that literally eat rocks, but there are still plenty of rooks in the world. Nature developing this ability to a significant level will take a very long time. Plastics have been around for several human lifetimes and millions of microbial lifetimes and we only see hints. Even if we take an optimistic view, there will be multiple human lifetimes very badly affected by plastic pollution. We probably also don't want a microbe that is so effective at eating plastic, seeing how much we rely on it. At the first sight of a truly plastic eating microbe, manufacturers will start making plastic immune to organic degradation and the cycle starts again. Same with burning, you can't say it'd end up as CO2 anyway as one is an immediate effect and the other theoretical and very long term. I do agree that "energy recovery" as it is often called is better than landfill disposal but it is the lesser of evils. It's not always clear that not using plastic is a net benefit as its use might be reducing other environmental effects. In which case I agree that using minimal plastic and then using it for power generation is an option.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  There's no significant microbe decomposition yet. Fact is, there are microbes that do it, it is an abundant energy source, and so you'd expect these microbes to fill that niche quickly. Failing that, we will engineer some. I think the current common wisdom timelines for plastic decomposition are wildly wrong and based on old evidence and understanding, I think within 100 years lack of durability of plastics due to decomposition is actually going to become a problem. I would hope someone would engineer plastics that can resist it, the reason single use plastics are so ubiquitous is because they're cheap, not because theyre long lasting, you don't need grocery bags to last a thousand years, so long lasting plastics for durable applications and plastics for which microbes exist to decompose them for single use would be ideal.

maccard 3y ago

> But most plastic is organic compounds since it comes from oil. It being an organic compound doesn't mean it's safe or something we should ignore. Asbestos is an organic compound with wildly useful properties. > Additionally, I think there's too much of an aversion to burning it. At home, its a terrible idea - it's super duper toxic a d leave a horrific nasty waste to dispose of. In a commercial setting maybe, but I'm not convinced it's going to be handled correctly without serious regulation. > And all that said, I'd bet money I dispose of significantly less plastic than the average European. First is water bottles. I don't do water bottles. I use those 5 gallon jugs and a hand pump dispenser on amazon, it works like a super soaker or a garden sprayer. That alone has me ahead of most Americans. Eh, are you comparing to Europeans or Americans? I don't have stats handy but tap water is potable and suitable for a large number of uses. No need for any plastic. > Avoiding single use plastic in your household is not really all that hard, things you can't avoid like linings in cans and what not aren't the problem, grocery bags and water bottles are the big ones, and you can do other things like never buy teflon, which I also do. You can't just decide the plastics that you use aren't the problem. Avoiding single use plastics might not be hard for you, I live within shopping distance of 3 supermarkets all of whom package most of their fruit and veg in single use plastics. That's my number one source of plastics, and there's nothing I can do about it.

XorNot 3y ago
Asbestos is not an organic compound, asbestos is a silicate mineral fiber. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos
- maccard 3y ago
  Apologies, I misspoke, you're right. My google-fu this morning was weak and I didn't fact check. That said, here [0] is a list of different dangerous organic compounds - Asbestos was a (poor) example. [0] https://defineinstruments.com/blog/epas-list-of-volatile-organic-compounds-in-order-of-toxicity/ https://defineinstruments.com/blog/epas-list-of-volatile-org...
friend_and_foe 3y ago
I'm talking about how it will degrade into carbon dioxide and what not as microbes learn to decompose it, so long term it's no worse than burning. In rural places a lot of people burn their trash in pits. Just don't stand over it while it's burning and you'll be fine. Id argue this is significantly less bad than it piling up in the ocean. I'm comparing to Europeans and Americans. I don't drink tap water, I refill 5 gallon jugs.

altacc 3y ago

Once you factor in the time scales involved, your justifications for why plastic isn't much of a problem disappear. There is no significant decomposition of plastic by microbes in the wild. Nature will fill niches but there's no evidence or guarantee that microorganisms will ever develop a significant and widespread enough ability to degrade plastic. There are microbes that literally eat rocks, but there are still plenty of rooks in the world. Nature developing this ability to a significant level will take a very long time. Plastics have been around for several human lifetimes and millions of microbial lifetimes and we only see hints. Even if we take an optimistic view, there will be multiple human lifetimes very badly affected by plastic pollution. We probably also don't want a microbe that is so effective at eating plastic, seeing how much we rely on it. At the first sight of a truly plastic eating microbe, manufacturers will start making plastic immune to organic degradation and the cycle starts again. Same with burning, you can't say it'd end up as CO2 anyway as one is an immediate effect and the other theoretical and very long term. I do agree that "energy recovery" as it is often called is better than landfill disposal but it is the lesser of evils. It's not always clear that not using plastic is a net benefit as its use might be reducing other environmental effects. In which case I agree that using minimal plastic and then using it for power generation is an option.

friend_and_foe 3y ago
There's no significant microbe decomposition yet. Fact is, there are microbes that do it, it is an abundant energy source, and so you'd expect these microbes to fill that niche quickly. Failing that, we will engineer some. I think the current common wisdom timelines for plastic decomposition are wildly wrong and based on old evidence and understanding, I think within 100 years lack of durability of plastics due to decomposition is actually going to become a problem. I would hope someone would engineer plastics that can resist it, the reason single use plastics are so ubiquitous is because they're cheap, not because theyre long lasting, you don't need grocery bags to last a thousand years, so long lasting plastics for durable applications and plastics for which microbes exist to decompose them for single use would be ideal.