4 ms·

if only there was actually any good evidence of microplastic impact on health instead of a moral panic. microplastics will sink to the bottom of the sea and get

if only there was actually any good evidence of microplastic impact on health instead of a moral panic. microplastics will sink to the bottom of the sea and get buried under dirt on land, becoming part of the geology anyhow. for something with no clear evidence of harm, is it really worth replacing it with materials that require multipliers more fossil fuels to produce, increase carbon emissions, which are very much proven to cause harm to both human health and ecosystems?

gibolt 3y ago
Animals consume them. We consume animals. They re-enter the cycle and repeat. They are made of fossil fuels, while alternative netting are not.
rex_lupi 3y ago
Microplastics is hardly the only concern about plastic nets. In garbage patches, nets are a major constituent. Marine animals, small and big, get strangled in the nets. Marine animals indirectly consume plastic nets which doesn't get passed on with feces and they die of gastric obstruction.
- dappermanneke 3y ago
  that is basically a fringe issue considering 80% or so of plastic pollution in the ocean comes from mismanaged waste streams in the third world. fix that and I’m sure marine animals will have a much easier time avoiding the rest certainly the question is: every plastic alternative tends to have higher impacts with regards to emissions to produce it or transport it. knowing that netting is only a minor contributor to plastic pollution, it is worth trying to solve plastic pollution by worsening the problem of carbon emissions? everything is a trade-off, to solve one problem you have to contribute to another
  - rex_lupi 3y ago
    The problem isn't plastic, the problem is everyone throwing it onto the oceans. And blaming the "third world" isn't gonna help
    - dappermanneke 3y ago
      it’s not everyone, it is specifically poorer countries that contribute the vast majority to plastic pollution in the ocean via waste mismanagement. if you want an issue to be solved, it helps to look up and understand the specifics first! e: since you basically asked https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-waste-trade https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-waste-trade
      - aziaziazi 3y ago
        Google “global waste trade”, it’s the same mafiosi level as carbon credits: rich countries proclaims to have clean hands because someone in another juridiction accept their money. Waste management is also a joke within the rich countries: landfills still exists and those recycling program seems nice on a consumer (=voter) side: you have a colored special bin, state flyers tells you how recycling (is supposed to) work and buy sometimes a (partially) recycled bootle or pullover. In practice 5% of stuff put in the bin is recycled, the rest goes to landfill or incinerators.
        eonwe 3y ago
        Both landfills and incinerators are good places for waste as long as they're not next to water bodies. They don't contribute to the waste in oceans that this sub-thread seemed to be about.
        aziaziazi 3y ago
        They do: landfill are surrounded by fence and/or buried but most (not all) plastics degrades due to heat, sun, rain, ph of other materials and micro organism. Then all of those little flakes - fly away with the wind - are carried down the groundwater by rain. This is called leachate Modern landfills are protected by liners but those have a lifespan and eventually any of them could leak.
- davidjade 3y ago
  Foremost I am absolutely of the opinion that plastic in the ocean is not a good thing. But I was surprised to hear that at this point, according to at least one person that studies this, removal may have consequences as well. It’s been there long enough for new eco systems to evolve. This was rather enlightening in that nothing is as simple as it seems. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unexplainable/id1554578197?i=1000545025793 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unexplainable/id155457...
K0balt 3y ago
Micro plastics break down into nanoplastics , many of which can function as hormone analogs in organisms.
- dappermanneke 3y ago
  that is simply false but it does demonstrate the level of understanding the general public, including HN, has on this issue. nanoplastics, once again, have no proven health effects. what does at least have some attested health effects are the various plasticiser additives in plastic. the only actual health concern with plastics is and has always been: will they leach plasticisers into for example food? it only takes a very small amount of thinking to realise that suspended micro and nanoplastics in a solvent volume as great as the damn ocean likely means even if the dreaded micro and nanoplastics make it into your system they will be long devoid of any soluble plasticisers, especially if those happen to be degraded by the sun or brackish conditions
  - flir 3y ago
    Here's two studies that show changes in the gut microbiota of fish on exposure to micro- and nano-plastics. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32361245/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32361245/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33199151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33199151/ But it's probably fine.
  - K0balt 3y ago
    “Proven health effects” is a really high bar. Universal, long term, planetary contamination with a synthetic organic polymer seems like exactly the kind of situation that would warrant an abundance of caution rather than requiring conclusive proof of harm. That said, perhaps the many studies I have seen showing that multiple plastics have hormone like effects on biological systems en vitro, especially when presented in fine particulate form were just wrong. Honestly could be. But I’ve seen an awful lot of them supporting the biological activity of plastics and plastic decomposites, and only a couple suggesting failures of replication. I’ll have to take a look into it again. Have you seen papers that strongly support biological neutrality in fine plastic particulates and decomposites?
closewith 3y ago
Yes, let's just irrevocably pollute ourselves and our landscape until proven unsafe. This strategy has never failed us before.
- dappermanneke 3y ago
  well it’s only been 70 years or so since we’ve started using plastics at scale, and at least half that we’ve had some form of microplastics widespread in the environment. any day now
  - Retric 3y ago
    Not everything is life or death, plastics have been linked to hormonal/fertility issues. Micro plastics do cause problems but it’s systemic at this point. The issue with pollution is it frequently becomes very hard to notice that everything is slightly worse. People used to think smoking was heathy as crazy as it sounds, but when most people experienced smoking related issues such issues where normal.
jwilk 3y ago
> microplastics will sink to the bottom of the sea Huh?
willis936 3y ago
Fear of microplastics is not a moral panic. A moral panic would be if we knew microplastics were harmless (making it irrational) and if microplastics were humans (point to a single moral panic were the subject was not human). Also, the fear is rational when it's a conscientious observation of "we've made a change to the environment we don't understand".
aziaziazi 3y ago
Have you seen the current #1 article on HN ? > New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37306427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37306427
- dappermanneke 3y ago
  is this really the first MDPI published article where people spent their grant money injecting random stuff into mice HN has seen?

gibolt 3y ago

Animals consume them. We consume animals. They re-enter the cycle and repeat. They are made of fossil fuels, while alternative netting are not.

rex_lupi 3y ago

Microplastics is hardly the only concern about plastic nets. In garbage patches, nets are a major constituent. Marine animals, small and big, get strangled in the nets. Marine animals indirectly consume plastic nets which doesn't get passed on with feces and they die of gastric obstruction.

dappermanneke 3y ago
that is basically a fringe issue considering 80% or so of plastic pollution in the ocean comes from mismanaged waste streams in the third world. fix that and I’m sure marine animals will have a much easier time avoiding the rest certainly the question is: every plastic alternative tends to have higher impacts with regards to emissions to produce it or transport it. knowing that netting is only a minor contributor to plastic pollution, it is worth trying to solve plastic pollution by worsening the problem of carbon emissions? everything is a trade-off, to solve one problem you have to contribute to another
- rex_lupi 3y ago
  The problem isn't plastic, the problem is everyone throwing it onto the oceans. And blaming the "third world" isn't gonna help
  - dappermanneke 3y ago
    it’s not everyone, it is specifically poorer countries that contribute the vast majority to plastic pollution in the ocean via waste mismanagement. if you want an issue to be solved, it helps to look up and understand the specifics first! e: since you basically asked https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-waste-trade https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-waste-trade
    - aziaziazi 3y ago
      Google “global waste trade”, it’s the same mafiosi level as carbon credits: rich countries proclaims to have clean hands because someone in another juridiction accept their money. Waste management is also a joke within the rich countries: landfills still exists and those recycling program seems nice on a consumer (=voter) side: you have a colored special bin, state flyers tells you how recycling (is supposed to) work and buy sometimes a (partially) recycled bootle or pullover. In practice 5% of stuff put in the bin is recycled, the rest goes to landfill or incinerators.
      - eonwe 3y ago
        Both landfills and incinerators are good places for waste as long as they're not next to water bodies. They don't contribute to the waste in oceans that this sub-thread seemed to be about.
        aziaziazi 3y ago
        They do: landfill are surrounded by fence and/or buried but most (not all) plastics degrades due to heat, sun, rain, ph of other materials and micro organism. Then all of those little flakes - fly away with the wind - are carried down the groundwater by rain. This is called leachate Modern landfills are protected by liners but those have a lifespan and eventually any of them could leak.
davidjade 3y ago
Foremost I am absolutely of the opinion that plastic in the ocean is not a good thing. But I was surprised to hear that at this point, according to at least one person that studies this, removal may have consequences as well. It’s been there long enough for new eco systems to evolve. This was rather enlightening in that nothing is as simple as it seems. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unexplainable/id1554578197?i=1000545025793 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unexplainable/id155457...

K0balt 3y ago

Micro plastics break down into nanoplastics , many of which can function as hormone analogs in organisms.

dappermanneke 3y ago
that is simply false but it does demonstrate the level of understanding the general public, including HN, has on this issue. nanoplastics, once again, have no proven health effects. what does at least have some attested health effects are the various plasticiser additives in plastic. the only actual health concern with plastics is and has always been: will they leach plasticisers into for example food? it only takes a very small amount of thinking to realise that suspended micro and nanoplastics in a solvent volume as great as the damn ocean likely means even if the dreaded micro and nanoplastics make it into your system they will be long devoid of any soluble plasticisers, especially if those happen to be degraded by the sun or brackish conditions
- flir 3y ago
  Here's two studies that show changes in the gut microbiota of fish on exposure to micro- and nano-plastics. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32361245/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32361245/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33199151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33199151/ But it's probably fine.
- K0balt 3y ago
  “Proven health effects” is a really high bar. Universal, long term, planetary contamination with a synthetic organic polymer seems like exactly the kind of situation that would warrant an abundance of caution rather than requiring conclusive proof of harm. That said, perhaps the many studies I have seen showing that multiple plastics have hormone like effects on biological systems en vitro, especially when presented in fine particulate form were just wrong. Honestly could be. But I’ve seen an awful lot of them supporting the biological activity of plastics and plastic decomposites, and only a couple suggesting failures of replication. I’ll have to take a look into it again. Have you seen papers that strongly support biological neutrality in fine plastic particulates and decomposites?

closewith 3y ago

Yes, let's just irrevocably pollute ourselves and our landscape until proven unsafe. This strategy has never failed us before.

dappermanneke 3y ago
well it’s only been 70 years or so since we’ve started using plastics at scale, and at least half that we’ve had some form of microplastics widespread in the environment. any day now
- Retric 3y ago
  Not everything is life or death, plastics have been linked to hormonal/fertility issues. Micro plastics do cause problems but it’s systemic at this point. The issue with pollution is it frequently becomes very hard to notice that everything is slightly worse. People used to think smoking was heathy as crazy as it sounds, but when most people experienced smoking related issues such issues where normal.

jwilk 3y ago

> microplastics will sink to the bottom of the sea Huh?

willis936 3y ago

Fear of microplastics is not a moral panic. A moral panic would be if we knew microplastics were harmless (making it irrational) and if microplastics were humans (point to a single moral panic were the subject was not human). Also, the fear is rational when it's a conscientious observation of "we've made a change to the environment we don't understand".

aziaziazi 3y ago

Have you seen the current #1 article on HN ? > New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37306427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37306427

dappermanneke 3y ago
is this really the first MDPI published article where people spent their grant money injecting random stuff into mice HN has seen?