9 ms·
Facial scrubs polluting Great Lakes with plastic
- DanBC 13y ago> It's possible fish are eating the pellets, believing them to be eggs, he added. That's worrisome, because plastics tend to absorb pollutants such as PCBs, pesticides and motor oil. The pellets could therefore be poisoning the small fish that larger fish then prey on, and the larger fish are consumed by humans, posing a human health risk. Sometimes the plastic doesn't move through, causing animals to become stuffed with plastic. (http://pacificvoyagers.org/midway-atoll-the-plastic-plight-of-the-albatross http://pacificvoyagers.org/midway-atoll-the-plastic-plight-o...) Good that manfs were quick to say that they'll remove micro-plastics from their products.
- RobAley 13y agoIt's not good. It's most likely the manufacturers were aware of the problems, and decided to do nothing about it (as using plastic beads is likely cheaper) unless they were called out on it. They could then quickly switch to the already pre-planned alternative, making themselves look good in the processes.
- aestra 13y agoIs plastic really cheaper than good old fashion sugar? I think it is more plastics have a ohhhhhh fancy "specially formulated" marketing appeal to them. They put them in clear bottles to show them off, hey look MICROBEADS! Example: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3SVQtbwrvVY/Tk2uks5kLHI/AAAAAAAAGMk/6-GTj08eE2E/s1600/clean+and+clear+morning+burst+facial+scrub+reviews1.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3SVQtbwrvVY/Tk2uks5kLHI/AAAAAAAAGM... See, look? BURSTING BEADS® It's even a registered trademark. They can't say with sugar® or ground walnut® (which is what St. Ives's apricot scrub uses). Doesn't sound high tech enough.
- gohrt 13y agouh, of course they can, "ALL NATURAL CANE FLOWER CRYSTALS"
- HNJohnC 13y agoSugar (or salt as was also proposed on this thread) are quite self evidently not a solution to be used in these products which contain water.
- mturmon 13y agoNo, salt does work as a facial scrub. It does not dissolve because it is in a saturated solution (lots of NaCl, very little H2O). It's kind of fun to use because it scrubs for a while and then just disappears when you rinse with water. Here's an example product: http://www.origins.com/product/3829/10219/Bath-Body/Star-Collection/Salts-of-the-Earth/Salt-Rub/Smoothing-body-scrub/index.tmpl http://www.origins.com/product/3829/10219/Bath-Body/Star-Col...
- specialist 13y agoWorking on boats and cars with my dad, we always cleaned up using sugar and dish soap. Never salt! Because it'd make those scraped knuckles sting! :)
- jlgreco 13y agoJust get the marketing guys to make up something about the stinging letting you know that it's working. ;)
- reeses 13y agoYou need to cruise through the skin care center of your local cosmetics/beauty/whatever store. If you put in only enough water to keep things moving, rather than creating an unsaturated solution, sugar and salt work very nicely. Couple that with the added benefit of being water soluble, cleanup after using the product is especially easy. Scrub and rinse (and gently scrub) until you can't feel the product. It's self-documenting. :-)
- joonix 13y ago"remove by 2017." Wow, how kind of them. How about we stop politely asking our Manufacturer Overlords to stop their destructive activity in 4 years and instead get legislators do their job and ban their use immediately? A local or state politician in the Great Lakes area should have no interest in protecting a manufacturer of these products who is likely in another state or country. Their interest is entirely in favor of protecting the Lakes. And who are these people scrubbing their faces with microscopic plastic beads? What's wrong with good old fashioned coarse salt or sugar? Why do we need more plastic? Can this plastic be inhaled accidentally? Can it leach into the raw scrubbed skin? Who asks these questions?
- icebraining 13y agoTwo years. Only P&G said they'd stop by 2017, the others said 2015.
- negativity 13y agoThey're probably sitting on a stockpile of material, and would have to write it off as a loss. Either that, or they're committed to contracts with suppliers. Note the following from the article: we took science ... to the companies and, without having to spend time and money involved in a policy solution, the companies themselves chose to solve it on their own. This means that, since the behavior is voluntary, they get to do it on their own timeline. In order to force anything to go faster would require some cattle-prod of a law or regulation, with punitive measures that hurt the bottom line through fines and injunctions. Which points to another possibility: They know how long it would actually take to get those kinds of laws enacted and enforced, and they'll only go as fast as that. And don't forget, two years is enough time to forget about this. So in two years, maybe they'll simply do nothing at all.
- astrodust 13y agoIt's just a particular kind of plastic that could be melted down and used for any purpose. There's no stockpile.
- 13y ago
- astrodust 13y agoThey've known about this for years, but only now they're committing to some kind of action. The entire idea of making a product composed partly of plastic that's thrown into the sewer system is patently insane.
- yread 13y agoIf plastics absorb PCBs and pesticides, couldn't we use big (so they can't be swallowed), porous (to increase the surface) pieces of plastic to clean the water?
- eksith 13y agoI think maybe this idea has floated around (no pun intended). There's a nice demo for teachers here : http://www.cmu.edu/gelfand/k12-teachers/polymers/polymer-and-absorption/oil-spill-cleanup.html http://www.cmu.edu/gelfand/k12-teachers/polymers/polymer-and... Ironically the plastic was polypropylene there too.
- astrodust 13y agoDon't use one toxin to clean up another.
- Houshalter 13y agoWhy not? The things can be removed from the water, and even if they weren't, there could still be a net benefit in having one toxin over another.
- astrodust 13y agoHistory is filled with examples of well-intentioned solutions like this going horribly awry. Talk to an Australian about cane toads, for example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia).
- Houshalter 13y agoMaybe so, however that is a fully general counterargument that applies to any attempt to solve any problem ever.
- astrodust 13y agoLet's say you run a barber shop. You could always set the hair on the floor on fire, right? That'll clean it up! What could possibly go wrong? ...or maybe you could just sweep it up.
- bluedino 13y agoI don't think enough is being done to protect the Great Lakes. They are the largest source of fresh water in the entire world. They've been over-fished, the industries of the surrounding area polluted the living hell out of them up until the 1970's, they've been invade by Zebra mussels and the water levels are at record lows. Places I swam as a kid don't even exist any more - the water has moved out a hundred yards from the old shore.
- sneak 13y agoProtect them from what?
- astrodust 13y agoIdiotic comments like this.
- sneak 13y agoNo, I'm serious. None of the things he listed as observing are harmful to the lakes, they are just inconvenient for people. How exactly, and what from, do they need to be protected? Also: why the ad hominem? There was nothing idiotic about my simple question. Stop downvoting and answer the question.
- astrodust 13y agoProtect the lakes from the sorts of abuses they suffered on a massive scale prior to modern environmental regulations were enforced, and from additional threats like microplastics, fertilizer run-off, sewage, contamination from watercraft, future outbreaks of invasive species transported by ocean-going shipping vessels, large-scale diversion for irrigation or urban water consumption, and a host of other things. The way you asked it was like "What problems?" when it's obvious that a water-system that vast needs controls or it'll be abused and ruined for everyone.
- Groxx 13y agoYou mean like these? >over-fished, ... polluted the living hell out of them Zebra mussels you might be able to claim damage the lake, but the complaints against them are certainly primarily based on nuisance, so I'll exclude them.
- mattholtom 13y agoFor those of you inclined to a good skin grinding, an alternative is St. Ives Apricot Scrub. Made from biodegradable ground apricot cores. Also, it feels amazing. There are several off-brand mimics available.
- aestra 13y agoActually it's a small point but the exfoliate in Apricot Scrub is ground walnuts and corn meal. There is only apricot fruit extract in there. Source: http://www.stives.com/Facial-Products/Fresh-Skin/Invigorating-Apricot-Scrub/ http://www.stives.com/Facial-Products/Fresh-Skin/Invigoratin... Full Ingredients: http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/st.-ives-fresh-skin-invigorating-apricot-scrub/ID=prod5564510-product http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/st.-ives-fresh-skin-invigor... Water , Juglans Regia (Walnut) Shell Powder , Glyceryl Stearate , Glycerin , Sodium Laureth Sulfate , Zea Mays (Corn) Kernel Meal , Cocamidopropyl Betaine , Cetearyl Alcohol , Cetyl Alcohol , PEG 100 Stearate , Prunus Armeniaca (Apricot) Fruit Extract , Cetyl Acetate , Polysorbate 60 , Ceteareth 20 , Acetylated Lanolin Alcohol , Carbomer , PPG 2 Methyl Ether , Phenethyl Alcohol , Triethanolamine , Methylisothiazolinone , Fragrance , Titanium Dioxide
- mattholtom 13y agoAh, nicely found! Interesting, I guess the apricot is only there for the scent.
- aestra 13y agoAccording to St. Ives "Apricot Oil is known to hydrate and nourish the skin." Using fruit and other essential oils on the skin is a very very old practice. It might or might not have any actual merit to it. There is some science of the benefits of the topical application of at least one essential oil, tea tree oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_tree_oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_tree_oil
- lostlogin 13y agoTea tree, Manuka, is so great. Grows fast, looks good, smells great, makes excellent fire wood and the honey is showing more and more interesting properties. I need to buy a few more!
- avoutthere 13y agoWhy is this on HN?
- koralatov 13y agoPerhaps because even the members of Hacker News live on planet Earth, and this sort of thing affects them, too?
- eksith 13y agoThe article is listed under the Technology & Science heading and deals with exactly those fields and the environment. In addition, the following key trigger words are present : pollution, plastic, research, science, scientists, PCBs, pesticides & money. Therefore, it matches a Bayesian pattern of interest within the HN community. Happy?
- davyjones 13y agoI really applaud the companies' commitment to phasing out the plastic beads within a few years time.
- negativity 13y agoGrey goo scenarios will start like this. This is like the preview version of a grey goo crisis except with training wheels, where the particles are rendered inert and dead by the time they become pollutants, and don't actually self-replicate in the wild. But the real thing will probably start with some stupid little innocuous product like this, and then explode and catch everyone by surprise in a very short amount of time, instead of this slow-burning sleeper pollution that takes decades to accumulate. (two full decades? was this stuff around in 1993?)
- sehrope 13y ago> L'Oreal, the Body Shop and Johnson & Johnson all committed to phasing out plastic microbeads by 2015, and Proctor & Gamble said it would do so by 2017. Unfortunately there's no mention if "phasing out" means production stops or if consumer sales stop. If the production line at PG is running till 2017 they could have tons of this stuff stockpiled for later sale that could take months or years.
- derekp7 13y agoWith the associated cost of inventory. Unless the replacement formula is significantly more expensive, it doesn't make sense to have years of product sitting there collecting dust.
- sehrope 13y agoThey themselves might not have years worth but it could take a while to flow through the supply chain, get off store shelves, and be out of consumer's hands.
- scoot 13y agoI had no idea! I've just checked my Gillette pre-shave scrub, and while nowhere on the packaging does it mention microbeads, on the contents it lists Polypropylene and Polyethylene. In the bin that goes then, and I won't be buying it again. Shame, I quite liked it.
- ig1 13y agoIt's more environmentally friendly if you use your current supply and not buy any more than if you just throw it away where it'll end up in the water supply in any case.
- robin_reala 13y agoDebatable, if the contents are harming fish after use.
- bcoates 13y agoIf the contents of his trash can are showing up in the water supply we have bigger problems than microbeads.
- wil421 13y agoI never realized that the small beads in hygiene products was actually plastic. How many times have I ingested these over the years and if they are killing fish, what are they doing to my body? I wonder how much pollution these are causing in smaller lakes and rivers?
- madaxe 13y agoWhat I don't understand is why anyone would want to rub their face down with BPA. My girlfriend makes and sells 100% natural face and body scrubs - sea salt, natural oils and bases, no additives. My skin has never been so good. Oh, and the ingredients are much cheaper than their synthetic equivalents. I suppose it all comes down to shelf life. Decentralise or die.
- Groxx 13y agoThis is one thing I hate about most cleaning products. Whatever you're using, it eventually goes to a lake / something. Treatment is great and all, but if it's not designed to be broken down quickly by nature / the treatment, it stays in the lake. That drain cleaner? Meds? Micro-bead face cleanser? It all goes to the same place, often still intact (chemically speaking). And even if you don't add much, millions do, and it does add up. It's enough to drive me to buy as many biodegradable / compostable products as possible. Now if only they weren't so crazy expensive...
- BrandonMarc 13y agoSo if it's so difficult to change all of these products - from soap to toothpaste - why not attempt changing how water-treatment plants work so that they do screen out floating matter?
- beachstartup 13y agodumb question... why don't they just put sand in this stuff?