3 ms·
Not a single mention in the article of their biggest downside, environmental costs.
by throwaway920102 2y ago
Not a single mention in the article of their biggest downside, environmental costs.
- karmakurtisaani 2y agoI would have been interested in the recycling aspect of these materials. We already struggle with plastic and PFAS, should this not be discussed before there's another problem?
- ninininino 2y agoThe same demons who create those materials are responsible for composites.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoThere are many ways to be environmentally costly... Can you be more specific?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- adrianN 2y agoLeave some steel around and it oxidizes away while otherwise being mostly harmless. Leave some carbon fiber embedded in resin around and it leaches endocrine disruptors and eventually turns into a pile of microplastic.
- ninininino 2y agoThe resins used in carbon fiber for example do not biodegrade. New studies are coming out everyday demonstrating that microplastics and nanoplastics of synthetic materials interfere with the Earth's biosphere, in all sorts of ways. DNA transcription errors, hormonal disruption, increase in arterial plaque and heart attack/stroke, etc. Considering the article is largely about composite materials formed using resins, it stands out that no mention is made of synthetic, plastic resins vs the potential for biodegradable, non-accumulating resins. For carbon fiber, a quick google reveals that polyacrylonitrile is the most widely used resin. According to google it is not readily biodegradable: https://www.igtpan.com/Ingles/reciclagem_poliacrilonitrila.asp#:~:text=Polyacrylonitrile%2C%20like%20all%20plastics%20or,in%20the%20soil%20and%20landfills https://www.igtpan.com/Ingles/reciclagem_poliacrilonitrila.a....