Fungus breaks down ocean plastic(nioz.nl)
nioz.nl
Fungus breaks down ocean plastic
https://www.nioz.nl/en/news/fungus-breaks-down-ocean-plastic
231 comments
OK, this fungus breaks down polyethylene, which might even find a second use as fuel in combined heat and power stations.
But a large part of microplastics found in aquatic environments is abraison from car tires. So we need more and different fungi ...
[sciencenews](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/car-tires-and-brake-pads...)
[theconversation](https://theconversation.com/how-your-car-sheds-microplastics...)
[springeropen](https://microplastics.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s43...)
But a large part of microplastics found in aquatic environments is abraison from car tires. So we need more and different fungi ...
[sciencenews](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/car-tires-and-brake-pads...)
[theconversation](https://theconversation.com/how-your-car-sheds-microplastics...)
[springeropen](https://microplastics.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s43...)
The car tires thing is proportionally an absurdly huge part!
> In Switzerland, tire wear accounts for an estimated 90 percent of the microplastics released into the environment.
https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releas...
90% (!) of microplastics in Switzerland’s environment are from tire abrasion.
If we hypothetically radically banned cars, we would not only reduce landscape fragmentation, space requirements in public spaces, accidents and risks, damages to humans and animals, costs that are borne by the public, noise pollution and particulate matter air pollution, but also we would cut down microplastic emissions by 10:1!
> In Switzerland, tire wear accounts for an estimated 90 percent of the microplastics released into the environment.
https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releas...
90% (!) of microplastics in Switzerland’s environment are from tire abrasion.
If we hypothetically radically banned cars, we would not only reduce landscape fragmentation, space requirements in public spaces, accidents and risks, damages to humans and animals, costs that are borne by the public, noise pollution and particulate matter air pollution, but also we would cut down microplastic emissions by 10:1!
The scale of tire tread that just gets washed down into waterways seems staggering. It's probably no more egregious than other pollution sources though.
Anyway, the napkin math is 20 million tons of tires manufactured per year. If 1% of that is lost as worn down tread (or sidewalls depending on the driver), then that is 200,000 tons of tire compound particles dispersed into the environment per year.
Anyway, the napkin math is 20 million tons of tires manufactured per year. If 1% of that is lost as worn down tread (or sidewalls depending on the driver), then that is 200,000 tons of tire compound particles dispersed into the environment per year.
That… actually doesn’t seem as bad as I thought it would be. Obviously it’s not going to be evenly spread across the globe, but that’s about (napkin math) 350μg/m^2/year. Even over a century that’s barely a light dusting (to be fair, of toxic/carcinogenic/etc microplastics that are likely much more highly concentrated around major highways and population centres, and their waterways).
I always assumed it was orders of magnitude more than that. But that seems like an amount that, if it were to exist, some sort of bacteria/fungus/algae could actually probably handle.
I always assumed it was orders of magnitude more than that. But that seems like an amount that, if it were to exist, some sort of bacteria/fungus/algae could actually probably handle.
And polyester from clothing.
I don’t know what the fuck Patagonia thinks they’re doing switching to recycled polyester to make their clothing more environmental.
I don’t know what the fuck Patagonia thinks they’re doing switching to recycled polyester to make their clothing more environmental.
Let’s say you have a fishing net that is end-of-life. It can be discarded, in which case it will break down over time into microplastics etc., in the ocean or a landfill.
Or it can be recycled, in which case most of the plastic in the net is fixed into a new physical object.
The second one seems better to me than the first one. Do you disagree? Or is your objection to the continued use of plastics in clothing at all?
Or it can be recycled, in which case most of the plastic in the net is fixed into a new physical object.
The second one seems better to me than the first one. Do you disagree? Or is your objection to the continued use of plastics in clothing at all?
Am I missing something? If the polyester is recycled, then it was going to be disposed of -- and ultimately break down -- anyway.
Using recycled materials of any sort reduces the consumption of new materials. This is a net positive for the environment, absent any extremes in the use of recycled materials. (i.e. extreme energy consumption or harmful chemicals used in the recycling process)
Cotton is what most people think of as a natural fiber, and even its use can entail a high environmental cost.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00476-z
Using recycled materials of any sort reduces the consumption of new materials. This is a net positive for the environment, absent any extremes in the use of recycled materials. (i.e. extreme energy consumption or harmful chemicals used in the recycling process)
Cotton is what most people think of as a natural fiber, and even its use can entail a high environmental cost.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00476-z
Landfilled polyester doesn’t end up as microplastics.
Money. They are making money. That's what it is, and you know it.
As much as I like their clothes I can’t say I’m a fan of their holier than thou attitude. For example when the founder “gave the company away” but was pretty obviously just setting up a tax dodging structure. It’s like pick a lane dude, you can’t be a billionaire and a saint in this life.
Although it may be against popular opinion, I believe making billions without a healthy stock of virtues is unlikely.
Well you just deliberately moved the goalposts. I said billionaires are not saints. You said they have “virtues” by which I assume you mean intelligence and work ethic. Character traits that are typically not included in the definition of a saint.
Isn't using the term "saint" in the first place, moving the goalposts? He never claimed to be one.
Agreed. A “healthy stock of virtues” does not mean a stock of healthy virtues.
We need a few more decades of inflation before anyone can rightly claim to become a billionaire without fucking people over.
We need a few more decades of inflation before anyone can rightly claim to become a billionaire without fucking people over.
Virtues are healthy by definition. There are no unhealthy virtues.
It seems like you are moving the goal posts.
> Virtue: Positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good
Saints were certainly concerned with virtues.
> Virtue: Positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good
Saints were certainly concerned with virtues.
Hard work and skill are only morally good if they have a net positive impact. Plenty of despots were hard working and smart. A lot of people in the crypto industry are very smart, hard working frauds, for example.
You have narrowed my claim to only the virtues of hard work and skill. I’m claiming that it’s unlikely to make billions without being flush with virtues, not just the ones you deem morally neutral.
I stated at the outset that this is not a popular opinion.
I stated at the outset that this is not a popular opinion.
Yeah it’s not popular because it’s clear you’ve never met a rich person in your life
It's not popular cuz there's millions of lazy and bitter poor people for every hard-working rich person. In my experience, it's true.
For the record depending on how you define rich I would probably qualify, at least compared to my age cohort. I’m not bitter about my personal situation, I’m bitter that billionaires buy politicians and externalize costs on others to achieve their wealth. Do all billionaires and the rich who serve them do this? No, obviously not. But plenty do.
[deleted]
Its cheaper.
... or stop using cars for personal transportation where other options are available.
Trains have brakes, too. And horses... well, I guess we can handle cholera these days.
The vast majority of braking done by trains is electrical, ie "regenerative" except lots of trains just burn the generated power in a grid of resistors and dump the heat.
If every mile human beings moved in cars was replaced with two miles taken by train, the world would be a less polluted place.
If every mile human beings moved in cars was replaced with two miles taken by train, the world would be a less polluted place.
One train can move many people at once (especially for peak commute times when people would be driving single-occupancy cars just to get to an office). It suffer from similar problems, but it's much more efficient at the same task.
I believe most modern trains use regenerative braking for the majority of their deceleration. At least the hybrid and electric ones.
Not feasible outside the metro areas of only the biggest cities in the US. I can tell you're from one of those cities because you act as if most people have a choice. We don't.
I'm from a small European town. And I did say "where other options are available", so I don't get where your hostility is coming from.
Microplastic accumulation in the body makes me wonder if natural biopolymers could have the same problem. We cannot break down cellulose; what happens to micro-cellulose in the body? Or lignin, which is even more refractory to decomposition?
Do plant microfibers accumulate in the body over time, like plastic or asbestos fibers? Do we end up loaded with this stuff in old age?
One of the most lethal professions of old was baker, because of all the flour dust inhaled.
The breakdown of lignin by fungi shows the lengths organisms have to go to decompose refractory organic materials. A whole suite of enzymes and associated compounds are released into the extracellular environment by these fungi, including hydrogen peroxide, some of which is decomposed to highly oxidizing hydroxyl radicals. This also shows why it should not be surprising fungi are capable of attacking plastics, at least to some extent: they are already blasting biopolymers with a barrage of non-specific highly reactive oxidants.
Do plant microfibers accumulate in the body over time, like plastic or asbestos fibers? Do we end up loaded with this stuff in old age?
One of the most lethal professions of old was baker, because of all the flour dust inhaled.
The breakdown of lignin by fungi shows the lengths organisms have to go to decompose refractory organic materials. A whole suite of enzymes and associated compounds are released into the extracellular environment by these fungi, including hydrogen peroxide, some of which is decomposed to highly oxidizing hydroxyl radicals. This also shows why it should not be surprising fungi are capable of attacking plastics, at least to some extent: they are already blasting biopolymers with a barrage of non-specific highly reactive oxidants.
> Microplastic accumulation in the body makes me wonder if natural biopolymers could have the same problem. We cannot break down cellulose; what happens to micro-cellulose in the body? Or lignin, which is even more refractory to decomposition?
We have a lot of defenses to make sure large molecules don't make it into the bloodstream so if those polymers start making it through, we'd have much bigger problems. Microplastics are a special case because they're very chemically inert, but they're still filtered out by the kidneys. Any cellulose or lignin would be too.
To be honest, after reading some of these microplastics papers I'm starting to suspect most of them are bullshit. Plastics are everywhere in a modern lab and rarely do these papers have proper controls, which I suspect would show that there is a baseline level of microplastic contamination in labs that is unavoidable. Petri dishes, pipettes, microplates, EVERYTHING is plastic, packaged in plastic, and cleaned using plastic tools, all by people wearing tons of synthetic fibers.
We went through this same nonsense when genetic sequencers first became available until people got it into their heads that DNA contamination was everywhere and that we had to be really careful with sample collection and statistical methods.
> One of the most lethal professions of old was baker, because of all the flour dust inhaled.
Pretty much anything that is small enough to irritate the lungs will cause the same effect, especially at professional exposure levels (or worse, like silicosis). Pre-industrial agricultural workers and miners frequently suffered from pneumoconiosis from dust inhalation too, for example.
We have a lot of defenses to make sure large molecules don't make it into the bloodstream so if those polymers start making it through, we'd have much bigger problems. Microplastics are a special case because they're very chemically inert, but they're still filtered out by the kidneys. Any cellulose or lignin would be too.
To be honest, after reading some of these microplastics papers I'm starting to suspect most of them are bullshit. Plastics are everywhere in a modern lab and rarely do these papers have proper controls, which I suspect would show that there is a baseline level of microplastic contamination in labs that is unavoidable. Petri dishes, pipettes, microplates, EVERYTHING is plastic, packaged in plastic, and cleaned using plastic tools, all by people wearing tons of synthetic fibers.
We went through this same nonsense when genetic sequencers first became available until people got it into their heads that DNA contamination was everywhere and that we had to be really careful with sample collection and statistical methods.
> One of the most lethal professions of old was baker, because of all the flour dust inhaled.
Pretty much anything that is small enough to irritate the lungs will cause the same effect, especially at professional exposure levels (or worse, like silicosis). Pre-industrial agricultural workers and miners frequently suffered from pneumoconiosis from dust inhalation too, for example.
Yeah, I’ve started to get a bit cautious about the quality control in these papers too… not because I doubt there’s a problem, but that I suspect it’s all too easy to ignore the quality control necessary to ensure lack of contamination when the researchers go in looking for a positive result… it’s a “cheap win” and I don’t like it…
I’d like to see some reproduction research on the more wild microplastics results akin to the level of diligence put in when Clair Cameron Patterson was developing Uranium Lead dating and discovered that due to lead added to petroleum based fuels the whole fucking planet was tainted with a level of background lead … he had to go a long way, basically building a clean room before such rooms were considered a normal part of precision research… to get a clean environment with no contamination and get accurate results.
It doesn’t have to be quite that bad for a modern researcher, but I’d like to see a lot more of these microplastics papers where they document that they used no or as close to no plastic at any point in sample handling… if a liquid sample has gone from a plastic sample jar and a plastic lid to a plastic pippet to a plastic ampoule with a plastic lid into a machine that agitated it and so on… well of course there’s a damn chance the sample has more plastic in it! I’m not even going to suggest that all the plastic came from the containers that would be stupid… but when I start seeing results like microplastic found in human testicular tissue… I want to know how careful they were with sample contamination because it’s important that we know how bad the problem is getting, is it “1000” or “1002” on whatever scale is being used may not seem like much when the error bars might be +/- 10… but it does matter when this result gets aggregated into meta analysis and other modern “re-processing” that helps us understand the world at the larger scale where studies of aggregate data are the only practical way to approach the problems.
I’d like to see some reproduction research on the more wild microplastics results akin to the level of diligence put in when Clair Cameron Patterson was developing Uranium Lead dating and discovered that due to lead added to petroleum based fuels the whole fucking planet was tainted with a level of background lead … he had to go a long way, basically building a clean room before such rooms were considered a normal part of precision research… to get a clean environment with no contamination and get accurate results.
It doesn’t have to be quite that bad for a modern researcher, but I’d like to see a lot more of these microplastics papers where they document that they used no or as close to no plastic at any point in sample handling… if a liquid sample has gone from a plastic sample jar and a plastic lid to a plastic pippet to a plastic ampoule with a plastic lid into a machine that agitated it and so on… well of course there’s a damn chance the sample has more plastic in it! I’m not even going to suggest that all the plastic came from the containers that would be stupid… but when I start seeing results like microplastic found in human testicular tissue… I want to know how careful they were with sample contamination because it’s important that we know how bad the problem is getting, is it “1000” or “1002” on whatever scale is being used may not seem like much when the error bars might be +/- 10… but it does matter when this result gets aggregated into meta analysis and other modern “re-processing” that helps us understand the world at the larger scale where studies of aggregate data are the only practical way to approach the problems.
All good points. I was engaging in a reasoned form of whataboutism. "Neither is actually a problem" would be a resolution to the question.
Wood dust can cause fibrosis: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pulmonary-fib...
that's breathing not eating
> One of the most lethal professions of old was baker, because of all the flour dust inhaled.
Breathing is clearly on the table for discussion
Breathing is clearly on the table for discussion
I wonder if there’s a type of fungus humans could eat that would break down unwanted fibers and microplastics?
Macrophages are cells that take care of stuff like eating splinters that you can't get out.
What if there was something we could eat that basically super-powered our macrophages to to it for us? They already eat the microplastics but they just sit inside them.[1] Digesting them might be poisonous I guess ...
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...
What if there was something we could eat that basically super-powered our macrophages to to it for us? They already eat the microplastics but they just sit inside them.[1] Digesting them might be poisonous I guess ...
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...
What would that be though? The macrophages would have to be supplied with the correct chemical? Seems like it would be easier to inject a fungus that can co exist with our cells. I recently read about Lichen in Sheldrake’s Entangled Life and how Lichen is not a single species or even in a single kingdom because it consists of a community of fungus and algae. In the same way that our cells encapsulated mitochondria, I wonder if the macrophages could work well with a (genetically modified?) fungi strain that could digest the plastic. I know this is far out and I’m hoping an expert on the subject could tell me if this has ever been discussed. Most people see fungus as a health threat but it’s an entire kingdom that we’ve only scratched the surface of understanding. If I were to go back to school I would probably study mycology.
This is not a bad idea. The lysosomes in cells use some fairly intense chemicals to hydrolyse biopolymers, and macrophages produce oxidants like hypochlorite. But then, inflammation is a risk factor for cancer, perhaps because of side effects of those oxidants.
I sense a new bullshit-based detox industry coming.
Yeah I hope I don’t give anyone ideas. You could make a lot of money selling mushroom supplements that supposedly contain the same fungus studied in this research.
I don't think I'd want my internals exposed to the stuff fungi have to excrete to break down the fibers. Fenton chemistry is used to clean lab glassware, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton%27s_reagent
Review article on fungal degradation of lignin:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180040/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton%27s_reagent
Review article on fungal degradation of lignin:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180040/
Well microplastics are micro after all, so maybe the byproduct would only be present in small amounts that the body can absorb? Chemotherapy is rough on the body but if the end result is that the cancer is removed it’s generally seen as a valid trade off. Unfortunately I’m not very knowledgeable about chemistry.
Chemotherapy is rough on the body because it's specifically targeted to disrupt the process of growing new cells, destroying them when they form. Your body produces new cells much slower than cancer does (by definition), so it can weather the poison longer (in theory).
There's no reason to expect this to be the analogy to hold for reactive chemicals capable of decomposing organic polymers, which are generally tougher to decompose than our also-organic cells.
There's no reason to expect this to be the analogy to hold for reactive chemicals capable of decomposing organic polymers, which are generally tougher to decompose than our also-organic cells.
Good point. Whenever I think about how much I'm poisoning myself with plastics or breathing exhaust or whatever I remind myself what I did last Friday night and it's like ... yeah this pales in comparison.
Well if you’re drinking heavily or something similar yes it might be worse than microplastics. But the scary thing about microplastics is that they accumulate with time, and we still don’t know what effects they’re having on the human body. I find that to be frightening in a very existential way, similar to thawing permafrost or nuclear Armageddon, lol. You can’t escape it, and statistically it’s probably ruining millions of people’s health across the world.
That's a good point. You can escape vaping questionable hemp products a lot easier than you can avoid being a walking, talking heavy metal filter for the local coal plant.
It’s important to buy the live rosin carts if you can.
Are microplastics fat soluble and/or bound with the cholesterols and sugar alcohols that cake the arteries?
- "Cyclodextrin promotes atherosclerosis regression via macrophage reprogramming" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aad6100 https://www.popsci.com/compound-in-powdered-alcohol-can-also...
Cellulose and Lignin are dietary fiber:
- "Dietary cellulose induces anti-inflammatory immunity and transcriptional programs via maturation of the intestinal microbiota" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7583510/ :
> Dietary cellulose is an insoluble fiber and consists exclusively of unbranched β-1,4-linked glucose monomers. It is the major component of plant cell walls and thus a prominent fiber in grains, vegetables and fruits. Whereas the importance of cellulolytic bacteria for ruminants was described already in the 1960s, it still remains enigmatic whether the fermentation of cellulose has physiological effects in monogastric mammals. [6–11] Under experimental conditions, it has been shown that the amount of dietary cellulose influences the richness of the colonic microbiota, the intestinal architecture, metabolic functions and susceptibility to colitis. [12,13] Moreover, mice fed a cellulose-enriched diet were protected from experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) through changes in their microbial and metabolic profiles and reduced numbers of pro-inflammatory T cells.
But what about fungi in the body and diet?
What about lignin; Is lignin dietary fiber?
From "Dietary fibre in foods: a review" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7583510/ :
> Dietary fibre includes polysaccharides, oligosaccharides, lignin and associated plant substances.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40649844 re: sustainable food packaging solutions :
> Cellulose and algae are considered safe for human consumption and are also biodegradable; but is that an RCT study?
> CO2 + Lignin is not edible but is biodegradable and could replace plastics.
>> "CO2 and Lignin-Based Sustainable Polymers with Closed-Loop Chemical Recycling" (2024) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.202403035
> What incentives would incentivize the market to change over to sustainable biodegradable food-safe packaging?
- "Cyclodextrin promotes atherosclerosis regression via macrophage reprogramming" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aad6100 https://www.popsci.com/compound-in-powdered-alcohol-can-also...
Cellulose and Lignin are dietary fiber:
- "Dietary cellulose induces anti-inflammatory immunity and transcriptional programs via maturation of the intestinal microbiota" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7583510/ :
> Dietary cellulose is an insoluble fiber and consists exclusively of unbranched β-1,4-linked glucose monomers. It is the major component of plant cell walls and thus a prominent fiber in grains, vegetables and fruits. Whereas the importance of cellulolytic bacteria for ruminants was described already in the 1960s, it still remains enigmatic whether the fermentation of cellulose has physiological effects in monogastric mammals. [6–11] Under experimental conditions, it has been shown that the amount of dietary cellulose influences the richness of the colonic microbiota, the intestinal architecture, metabolic functions and susceptibility to colitis. [12,13] Moreover, mice fed a cellulose-enriched diet were protected from experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) through changes in their microbial and metabolic profiles and reduced numbers of pro-inflammatory T cells.
But what about fungi in the body and diet?
What about lignin; Is lignin dietary fiber?
From "Dietary fibre in foods: a review" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7583510/ :
> Dietary fibre includes polysaccharides, oligosaccharides, lignin and associated plant substances.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40649844 re: sustainable food packaging solutions :
> Cellulose and algae are considered safe for human consumption and are also biodegradable; but is that an RCT study?
> CO2 + Lignin is not edible but is biodegradable and could replace plastics.
>> "CO2 and Lignin-Based Sustainable Polymers with Closed-Loop Chemical Recycling" (2024) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.202403035
> What incentives would incentivize the market to change over to sustainable biodegradable food-safe packaging?
Do we really want broken down petroleum flowing through us and getting filtered by our kidneys and liver?
Microplastic concentration is highest in the lungs, but can also be found in the blood. As far as I know, we do not know how long they persist in the lung, blood, or body more generally.
Given their ubiquity, and their endocrine disrupting properties, I highly suspect that the rise in autism prevalence may in part be attributed to the prenatal exposures to microplastics, during which timing and dose effects of androgens exposures have set-up long lasting programs of development.
Re bakers, I did not know about that. Very interesting.
Given their ubiquity, and their endocrine disrupting properties, I highly suspect that the rise in autism prevalence may in part be attributed to the prenatal exposures to microplastics, during which timing and dose effects of androgens exposures have set-up long lasting programs of development.
Re bakers, I did not know about that. Very interesting.
Specifically, Victorian-era bakers.
I have heard these kind of news for a while now. Fungus breaks plastic. Worms eat plastic. Nothing ever seems to happen to plastic though. Why?
Plastic-eating whatever evolves in environments of extremely high concentration of plastic and unavailability of anything else. As soon as anything else is available, the plastic-eating thing evolves back to eating something else.
If you had nothing to eat you'd also give plastic a try, and you could miraculously be the chosen one who can break down plastic, but you'd switch back to normal food as soon as possible.
If you had nothing to eat you'd also give plastic a try, and you could miraculously be the chosen one who can break down plastic, but you'd switch back to normal food as soon as possible.
That is oddly reassuring, otherwise I would be very worried about the fungus getting out of the sea and onto land
It's the same dynamic as with antibiotics resistant bacteria. Given enough time, something will probably appear that does not pay a high price to digest plastic (or can even use the mechanism for other material), and doesn't evolve back when other food is available.
If it's bacteria, then soon the entire world will be full of plastic-digesting bacteria. If it's fungus, it will start to appear here and there at random.
If it's bacteria, then soon the entire world will be full of plastic-digesting bacteria. If it's fungus, it will start to appear here and there at random.
Many of the plastic-eating microbes require very specific conditions: finely shredded material, high temperatures (55C or more), carefully-controlled pH, etc.
These generally won’t occur outside of a bioreactor, so you’re not going to see them attacking random plastics in your house.
These generally won’t occur outside of a bioreactor, so you’re not going to see them attacking random plastics in your house.
Because then another question arises: what breaks down the fungus?
Edit:
This question is serious. If this fungus would eat all that plastic, this would introduce a huge amount of new life in the ocean with unknown effects to the ecosystem. We would replace one problem with another.
Edit:
This question is serious. If this fungus would eat all that plastic, this would introduce a huge amount of new life in the ocean with unknown effects to the ecosystem. We would replace one problem with another.
Quis funguset ipsos funguses?
I had the EXACT same thought. If the fungi eats plastic, what eats the fungi? I find this a veri legitimate question.
I assume/hope that it doesn't turn/get converted to a plasticofungi that cannot be eaten by fish/etc. This would only reshape the pollution, not eliminate it.
I didn't find an answer to this in this specific article; I hope it will be covered somewhere else.
I assume/hope that it doesn't turn/get converted to a plasticofungi that cannot be eaten by fish/etc. This would only reshape the pollution, not eliminate it.
I didn't find an answer to this in this specific article; I hope it will be covered somewhere else.
Well, the fungi "breaks down plastic", which means that it converts it into other types of molecules. Just plants use C02 + H20 + sunlight in photosynthesis to convert it into O2 + glucose.
If we could break down the molecules ourselves we would have done it already, but it's not easy to do that. That is why we benefit from these natural occurring organisms that break them down and leave a more useful byproduct (to us). Although nano technology can eventually give us the ability to do this in a controlled way.
If we could break down the molecules ourselves we would have done it already, but it's not easy to do that. That is why we benefit from these natural occurring organisms that break them down and leave a more useful byproduct (to us). Although nano technology can eventually give us the ability to do this in a controlled way.
It’s not necessarily only good news.
The golden age of plastic that we live in allows for food packaging that cannot be penetrated by microorganisms, which in turn increases shelf life of some produce from like half a week to multiple weeks.
Once there are more such microorganisms in the next one hundred years we might have problems packaging our food.
And plastic is in essence a multi-step “life process” of crude oil: Instead of incinerating heating oil for our houses, plastic lives a first life as packaging, and then gets incinerated and provides heat over communal heating – ideally.
Of course, the problem is when it ends up in the water instead of being burned.
The golden age of plastic that we live in allows for food packaging that cannot be penetrated by microorganisms, which in turn increases shelf life of some produce from like half a week to multiple weeks.
Once there are more such microorganisms in the next one hundred years we might have problems packaging our food.
And plastic is in essence a multi-step “life process” of crude oil: Instead of incinerating heating oil for our houses, plastic lives a first life as packaging, and then gets incinerated and provides heat over communal heating – ideally.
Of course, the problem is when it ends up in the water instead of being burned.
Unless your kitchen is flooded, plastic food packaging generally doesn't face the sort of warm, wet environments needed for most fungi and microorganisms to grow. (The sterilized and/or nutrient-deficient insides of food packaging doesn't count.)
Marine uses of plastic (fishing nets, ropes, swimwear, buoys, etc.) seem likely to be impacted first. Along with infrastructure (sump pumps, farm irrigation equipment, ...). Then general outdoor uses.
Marine uses of plastic (fishing nets, ropes, swimwear, buoys, etc.) seem likely to be impacted first. Along with infrastructure (sump pumps, farm irrigation equipment, ...). Then general outdoor uses.
You can see a real-world of this in a very common building material, "wood". There's entire sub-ecosystems dedicated to breaking this material down... yet you can safely use it to build structures that can stand for a long time, dozens or even hundreds of times longer than the breakdown time of the material in the wild, without the wood breaking down, as long as you maintain the structure, which mostly involves keeping the wood dry. These entire subecosystems for breaking down wood have fundamental chemical and energetic prerequisites in order to do their work, they are not just ambiently and actively roaming the Earth seeking out that which they may devour and actively creating the circumstances they can do it in.
So I'm not worried about bacteria learning how to break plastic down in the middle of the ocean getting released into the grocery store one day and in mere hours the entire store is spoiled and destroyed. It would really just become another engineering consideration for materials that already have a lot of such considerations.
So I'm not worried about bacteria learning how to break plastic down in the middle of the ocean getting released into the grocery store one day and in mere hours the entire store is spoiled and destroyed. It would really just become another engineering consideration for materials that already have a lot of such considerations.
What if you live in a humid, warm, tropical environment?
Do things which old-fashioned fungi can break down, given time and water - physical books, wood furniture, natural fiber clothing - need any special treatments to survive in your environment?
Figure that these plastic-rotting fungi won't be all that much different from the ones you're familiar with. This is not some SciFi "and the Nanotech Gray Goo ate the entire earth in a week" story.
Figure that these plastic-rotting fungi won't be all that much different from the ones you're familiar with. This is not some SciFi "and the Nanotech Gray Goo ate the entire earth in a week" story.
> This is not some SciFi "and the Nanotech Gray Goo ate the entire earth in a week" story.
Not yet.
Not yet.
"Life Finds a Way, Inc." has had a planet-sized laboratory, running its Natural Mutation Engine 24x7x365, for a billion-ish years now. But no Gray Goo has actually evolved, and taken over the Earth.
Perhaps, "Gray Goo" is just another cool-sounding trope, and not a real-world possibility?
Perhaps, "Gray Goo" is just another cool-sounding trope, and not a real-world possibility?
Generally “Grey Goo” science fiction ignores the lack of metals in the environment thus preventing the grey in Grey Goo as well as energy constraints etc.
However, simply outcompeting organic life using the same atomic building blocks would be a real problem for existing life forms like humans.
However, simply outcompeting organic life using the same atomic building blocks would be a real problem for existing life forms like humans.
Grey Goo has evolved in many incarnations. First was "unicellular life" edition. Most recently the planet has been taken over by "humans".
Part of the Grey Goo memeset is that the goo is an unstoppable apex predator that doesn't just tweak the ecological balance a bit in a conventional ecological relationship, but permanently establishes an ecological balance of 100% Grey Goo.
This has not happened, not even "humans".
This has not happened, not even "humans".
Not yet, but the the human population has more than doubled since 1970, while the number of other vertebrates has halved. It's like biomass is conserved, and human growth (both in number and in waistlines) is us systematically converting biomass into ourselves.
In 100 more years when the only vertebrates that aren't extinct or endangered are humans and our livestock and pets, will that be Grey Goo-like enough for you? Or does it only count if we manage to exterminate the insects and lower-order species too?
Because an "unstoppable apex predator" could never become 100% Grey Goo, as it still needs something to eat!
https://xkcd.com/1338/
In 100 more years when the only vertebrates that aren't extinct or endangered are humans and our livestock and pets, will that be Grey Goo-like enough for you? Or does it only count if we manage to exterminate the insects and lower-order species too?
Because an "unstoppable apex predator" could never become 100% Grey Goo, as it still needs something to eat!
https://xkcd.com/1338/
>Because an "unstoppable apex predator" could never become 100% Grey Goo, as it still needs something to eat!
Grey Goo doesn't consume for energy but for mass; energy needs are plot devices.
I'd argue the majority of human food consumption is for energy not mass so we can't approach the 100% mass of a grey goo event.
Grey Goo doesn't consume for energy but for mass; energy needs are plot devices.
I'd argue the majority of human food consumption is for energy not mass so we can't approach the 100% mass of a grey goo event.
We are the grey goo! Excellent idea.
Your example was a little too over my head and I started Googling for this simulator I might not have played with.
Cyanobacteria might be the closest we’ve come.
> the problem is when it ends up in the water instead of being burned
And that is entirely a question of waste management.
The plastic straw that the EU just outlawed would never have ended up in the ocean. Meanwhile, plastic gets dumped into rivers by the truckloads - outside the EU.
And that is entirely a question of waste management.
The plastic straw that the EU just outlawed would never have ended up in the ocean. Meanwhile, plastic gets dumped into rivers by the truckloads - outside the EU.
I swear the “plastic straw” argument is the absolute literal straw man argument.
The EU didn’t outlaw “plastic straws”, it outlawed a range of things, one of which is the plastic straw. But then why do plastic straws always come up? Because this is also in response to a video of a turtle in pain with a plastic straw up its nose (so yes it did end up in the ocean).
And creating less single use products is a step of waste management by the way. Now I’m not particularly in favour of paper straws, but bamboo straws have taken off as a replacement and that’s a rather good thing I would say.
But again this is only about straws because you made it about straws. The same applies to many other single use plastics.
The EU didn’t outlaw “plastic straws”, it outlawed a range of things, one of which is the plastic straw. But then why do plastic straws always come up? Because this is also in response to a video of a turtle in pain with a plastic straw up its nose (so yes it did end up in the ocean).
And creating less single use products is a step of waste management by the way. Now I’m not particularly in favour of paper straws, but bamboo straws have taken off as a replacement and that’s a rather good thing I would say.
But again this is only about straws because you made it about straws. The same applies to many other single use plastics.
> so yes it did end up in the ocean
It was a European plastic straw? Was there an address on it, or how can you tell?
The point the person you responded to was making wasn't about plastic straws, but rather about the fact that European trash almost never lands in the ocean: https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics
It was a European plastic straw? Was there an address on it, or how can you tell?
The point the person you responded to was making wasn't about plastic straws, but rather about the fact that European trash almost never lands in the ocean: https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics
Paper straws are some of the worst "greenwashing" I've ever seen. I most frequently encounter them for McDonalds drinks, where the cup and lid are solid plastic, but the straw whose weight (in plastic) would have been maybe 2-3% of the whole assembly has been replaced with something that invariably goes soggy before the drink is finished. Meanwhile at the grocery store I see boxes of... straws. As in, actual straw, the original material. Haven't encountered those in actual use yet, though.
Because plastic straws are something that people run into frequently so when they are gone it’s very noticeable to everyone
Plastic straws come because the replacements tend to be bad (even if I assume they have gotten better over time).
The way to make their replacements even better over time is to discourage use of plastic. So this seems like a pretty good policy, even if there is a tiny bit of (the world’s most minor amount of) pain during the transition. We should ban more single-use plastic.
"We should ban more single-use plastic."
We should ban more single-use non biodegradable plastic.
I like the single use biodegradable plastic bag for example, where I can have the organic compost inside, so less mess everywhere.
Those should be standard. But currently they are way more expensive. Standard plastic from oil is cheap.
We should ban more single-use non biodegradable plastic.
I like the single use biodegradable plastic bag for example, where I can have the organic compost inside, so less mess everywhere.
Those should be standard. But currently they are way more expensive. Standard plastic from oil is cheap.
In order to not go soggy so quickly many paper straws are pfas coated. Then this ends up in the environment.
I just buy a bunch of these biodegradable PLA straws instead. They work well https://amzn.eu/d/dKIyKxE.
Not missed the old plastic straws apart from when at a burger joint that gives you the useless paper ones. The bagasse and PLA straws do not disintegrate as quickly and work as well as the old ones.
Whether they are actually more environmentally friendly is another discussion.
Not missed the old plastic straws apart from when at a burger joint that gives you the useless paper ones. The bagasse and PLA straws do not disintegrate as quickly and work as well as the old ones.
Whether they are actually more environmentally friendly is another discussion.
If you left his plastic straw alone, he wouldn't have to make it about straws, would he? Now all he has is a soggy paper straw that he got from a plastic wrapping.
It’s not a strawman because the EU actually did rule out plastic straws.
And as a parent, I can assure you that I get reminded of this on a weekly basis.
And as a parent, I can assure you that I get reminded of this on a weekly basis.
As a parent in EU, I bought the reusable silicone straws, those are available and kids don't mind.
I order to not go soggy so quickly many paper straws are pfas coated. Then this ends up in the environment.
Ffs please tell me you are joking
> it did end up in the ocean
How would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast this morning?
How would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast this morning?
> The plastic straw that the EU just outlawed would never have ended up in the ocean.
A significant amount of plastic straws and bottle caps actually did up at least in the rivers - a single look at how the Isar in Munich looks after a party summer night is enough evidence - and what enters the Isar, Danube or any other river will eventually end up in the ocean or get stuck in a major lake where it degrades, gets eaten by fish and then ends up in humans when we eat the fish.
Metal bottle caps can at least be fished out by magnets and recycled, but there's no way to capture plastic particles yet.
And that does not take into account all the plastics trash that gets shipped overseas to some piss poor Asian or African country, where it gets sorted, and all the refuse just gets dumped on some landfill where it eventually gets washed into the ocean by rainfall, or it gets incinerated where it creates absurdly toxic combustion products.
A significant amount of plastic straws and bottle caps actually did up at least in the rivers - a single look at how the Isar in Munich looks after a party summer night is enough evidence - and what enters the Isar, Danube or any other river will eventually end up in the ocean or get stuck in a major lake where it degrades, gets eaten by fish and then ends up in humans when we eat the fish.
Metal bottle caps can at least be fished out by magnets and recycled, but there's no way to capture plastic particles yet.
And that does not take into account all the plastics trash that gets shipped overseas to some piss poor Asian or African country, where it gets sorted, and all the refuse just gets dumped on some landfill where it eventually gets washed into the ocean by rainfall, or it gets incinerated where it creates absurdly toxic combustion products.
> gets incinerated and provides heat over communal heating – ideally.
How is it ideal to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere even further?
How is it ideal to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere even further?
Only 6% of the world's petrochemical usage is to make plastic. If we decarbonize everything else but merely burn every gram of plastic we produce, that's a win, both from a climate change perspective and from a plastic waste perspective.
Proper incineration is probably the most reliable, most effective way to deal with human waste.
Well made and managed landfills are also perfectly capable of dealing with human waste, but they are a long term project, and there's a lot of time for a dumb management or politician to decide you don't need to fund it as well and now a hundred years of hard work to protect the environment goes down the drain when your now improperly managed landfill is basically a superfund site.
There's less chance for one idiot to do long term damage with incineration.
Proper incineration is probably the most reliable, most effective way to deal with human waste.
Well made and managed landfills are also perfectly capable of dealing with human waste, but they are a long term project, and there's a lot of time for a dumb management or politician to decide you don't need to fund it as well and now a hundred years of hard work to protect the environment goes down the drain when your now improperly managed landfill is basically a superfund site.
There's less chance for one idiot to do long term damage with incineration.
Presumably OP meant that if plastics are incinerated anyway, it's better to get some additional use out of that.
If it's a controlled incineration with the appropriate filters and capture mechanisms, I doubt it's that bad.
IMO petroleum scattering around earth as CO2 damages earth less than petroleum scattering around earth as a petroleum-based solid. Both is bad tho - can't mix layers that are not meant to meet.
We can then make the packaging out of nanodiamond film. Eat that, fungus!
100 years later the last organism on the planet dies, suffocating under nanodiamond film...
100 years later the last organism on the planet dies, suffocating under nanodiamond film...
There is still glass (and silicone?).
glass is a lot heavier and way more expensive (glass is made out of silicon).
There are a lot of different types of plastics the common ones use in packaging are LE-PE (light density polyethylene) and PP (polypropylene). They are both thermoplastic, they melt then heated. Silicone is also a form of plastic, it's thermoset (it chars effectively and it doesn't melt) - and it's awfully expensive. There are other plastic, e.g. nylon (PA6) that are still expensive but much cheaper than silicone.
There are a lot of different types of plastics the common ones use in packaging are LE-PE (light density polyethylene) and PP (polypropylene). They are both thermoplastic, they melt then heated. Silicone is also a form of plastic, it's thermoset (it chars effectively and it doesn't melt) - and it's awfully expensive. There are other plastic, e.g. nylon (PA6) that are still expensive but much cheaper than silicone.
Silicone rubber has high gas permeability. This makes it good for contact lenses, but bad for food packaging.
aluminium is the best choice for packaging, for most food products.
While it's a great discovery, I'm concerned that this will be abused by plastic manufacturers as an excuse to produce more plastics and talk about "how harmless" plastics are as "they break down organically by fungi" anyway.
I'm more worried about the longterm. As organisms get better at breaking down plastic manufacturers will start putting nasty chemicals in plastics to prevent premature breakdown.
And things that kill fungi tend to also kill us. Fungicides quite often cause liver damage.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8529939/
Sure, but only as long as "quite often" means "almost never".
Sure, but only as long as "quite often" means "almost never".
You’re talking about antifungals approved for human consumption.
I wonder why they were approved for human consumption?
I wonder why they were approved for human consumption?
That’s why we need increased government oversight of corporate behavior in general. Fingers crossed this becomes politically feasible as younger generations enter a greater position of power. I have hope that these externalities can be solved as long as the root cause of unregulated money chasing is addressed.
The problem is that younger generations are just as impressionable as previous ones, but now they have a surveillance state and advertising apperatus aimed squarely at them.
So now young men are pissed at the world for being not a fairyland like they were promised, and are getting absolutely riled up by grifters who are the first step in the right wing recruitment funnel and now millions of young men think the reason the world sucks is women, immigrants, and having emotions.
Not a great outcome.
So now young men are pissed at the world for being not a fairyland like they were promised, and are getting absolutely riled up by grifters who are the first step in the right wing recruitment funnel and now millions of young men think the reason the world sucks is women, immigrants, and having emotions.
Not a great outcome.
As long as it's not an efficient process then you have a point. But, let's say some very efficient way to clean up and break down plastic was discovered. Then, wouldn't the manufacturers actually have a point? In that case it indeed would be harmless and we could enjoy the conveniences of it while being relatively certain we can then dispose of it safely. So you wouldn't call it an "abuse" in this case.
Just because a fungus eventually breaks it down doesn't imply that it's "harmless". It can (and does) still accumulate in organisms and has many undesirable effects, including the human body. It can s easily end up in the food chain as long as it's not broken down, including areas where the fungus is not effective, which are plenty.
The only difference such a fungus can make is that it could break down in certain pockets in nature in the long run.
The only difference such a fungus can make is that it could break down in certain pockets in nature in the long run.
Yes, I see your point here. I think most objections to plastic including my own are about the longevity of its effects on ecosystems, but local, short term effects on health are equally problematic.
The article talks about how this one fungus found in the depths of the sea can break down PE (polyethylene) plastics. The biggest problem with combating ocean plastic is deployment of any solution. The seas are vast and trash, while a huge problem, is still relatively sparse within them.
It would be great to see if this fungus can be deployed on land at large enough scale to take care of, say, a whole regions PEs. That way we could get somewhere.
It would be great to see if this fungus can be deployed on land at large enough scale to take care of, say, a whole regions PEs. That way we could get somewhere.
Green-washing is not about real scenario. It only needs the perceived story.
So, like, how do you imagine fungi could turn the plastic back into oil and down into the crust? Is your line of inquiry possibly, actually worthwhile?
Do you get the sense that the plastic manufacturers are limiting production in any whatsoever now?
The demand is affected by consumer preferences. The manufacturers are behind recycling initiatives, so they understand that
> Do you get the sense that the plastic manufacturers are limiting production in any whatsoever now?
More and more stuff I buy, especially from higher end brands, comes packaged in purely cardboard packaging with no plastic. Not even tape or plastic bits to hold it together. They even brag about this in some of their marketing.
Paper is nice because you can put the packaging in either recycling or compost depending which bin has more space that week.
More and more stuff I buy, especially from higher end brands, comes packaged in purely cardboard packaging with no plastic. Not even tape or plastic bits to hold it together. They even brag about this in some of their marketing.
Paper is nice because you can put the packaging in either recycling or compost depending which bin has more space that week.
While I see your point and without defending the lackluster recycling culture in America, filling landfills with paper products is still better than plastic products, no?
Yes this is strictly better. I’m saying it’s a good thing that more things come packaged in cardboard than plastic these days and I’m highlighting that this is a growing trend especially in high-end products because those consumers care more
Could in theory work as carbon sequestration. Not effective one, but still.
The most effective sequestration is to store carbon underground where it can't diffuse. The simplest way to put things underground is as a fluid. Some kind of fluid that's pure carbon. This pretty much just brings us back to pumping oil in reverse.
I guess I just see it as something with the potential to biodegrade within my lifetime as opposed to many many lifetimes in the future. I’m no climate scientist, genuinely curious if that mentality is incorrect or not.
A lot of “paper” is coated or dipped in plastic (like the drinking straws).
Historically it was dipped in wax, and a lot of places like butchers will still use wax paper instead of plastic.
The wax in wax paper is also a petroleum product.
Doesn't have to be. Can be vegetable or bees
[deleted]
Exactly. If anything, they have every plan to increase production already.
As long as we keep buying stuff wrapped in plastic, someone needs to keep making more of it.
Of course, I buy things wrapped un plastic because I love plastic and not because there's no available alternative …
So convenient to blame the consumer.
So convenient to blame the consumer.
Unfortunately the consumer is the only one who can influence the manufacturers by choosing alternatives. Large companies rarely actually care about the environmental effects when they have a cheaper alternative.
I think many underestimate the influence consumers can have on the manufacturers. In some product categories, they have an option to choose a better alternative. If more did that, the manufacturers in other industries would see that there is a first mover advantage where they can grow their market share by reducing plastic usage. More R&D would be spent finding alternatives and the world as a whole would be improved.
But it all starts with us choosing alternatives whenever possible. If enough consumers do that, the other manufacturers will improve because it impacts their revenue.
I think many underestimate the influence consumers can have on the manufacturers. In some product categories, they have an option to choose a better alternative. If more did that, the manufacturers in other industries would see that there is a first mover advantage where they can grow their market share by reducing plastic usage. More R&D would be spent finding alternatives and the world as a whole would be improved.
But it all starts with us choosing alternatives whenever possible. If enough consumers do that, the other manufacturers will improve because it impacts their revenue.
A large part of microplastics found in aquatic environments is abraison from car tires. So which alternative do you suggest?
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/car-tires-and-brake-pads...
https://theconversation.com/how-your-car-sheds-microplastics...
https://microplastics.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s43...
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/car-tires-and-brake-pads...
https://theconversation.com/how-your-car-sheds-microplastics...
https://microplastics.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s43...
As I mentioned, the manufacturers will need to spend money on R&D to develop alternatives. Right now the tire manufacturers don't have any incentive because there's no financial benefit.
Even though consumers don't have a choice when they buy tires today, other products have cleaner alternatives. If I was a manufacturer of tires and saw consumers consistently choosing cleaner products when possible, I would have an incentive to see if I could reduce the pollution, because I would gain market share. The first manufacturer would sell more tires and others would need to follow. Not enough consumers make this choice today to make up the cost of new technologies.
Even though consumers don't have a choice when they buy tires today, other products have cleaner alternatives. If I was a manufacturer of tires and saw consumers consistently choosing cleaner products when possible, I would have an incentive to see if I could reduce the pollution, because I would gain market share. The first manufacturer would sell more tires and others would need to follow. Not enough consumers make this choice today to make up the cost of new technologies.
Theres no need for R&D. Real rubber tyres are environmentally friendly as the abrasion particles are natural. They are much better performing in terms of grip, but just more expensivce to produce.
IIRC the military use real rubber tyres still because of their longer life and better performance.
If people were willing to pay more for their tyres then this would be a non issue.
If people were willing to pay more for their tyres then this would be a non issue.
Pure natural rubber has poor ozone resistance. It will need stabilizing additives, and at least one of these (6PPD) has been found to have toxicity problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_cracking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD#Environmental_impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_cracking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD#Environmental_impact
Bullshit. Regulation is what has a bogger influence.
Within the group of consumers, there will always be only a small (if not neglible) fraction that does care and has the means for a boycott.
A bit of organized activism can force regulation and will have a way bigger impact.
Within the group of consumers, there will always be only a small (if not neglible) fraction that does care and has the means for a boycott.
A bit of organized activism can force regulation and will have a way bigger impact.
In a well functioning country, regulation is one of the best ways to control this.
Better regulation would force the manufacturers to spend R&D on alternatives and push down the prices so that the rest of the world can also afford a cleaner alternative. Even if that takes time, we would at least have a huge reduction until we have the right tech at an affordable price for the developing world.
The world is a huge place and many countries will never have good regulations due to corruption/lobbyists and continue to pollute. The only way I see regulations would work is if the first world governments, which are the largest consumers, were willing to impose import restrictions, but that would go against the ideology behind the global market. It would also risk retaliation where the affected country could block exports of rare earth minerals and other critical resources.
The US market is one of the largest influencers, and would need to get on board. I'm not an American, but given the political climate in the US right now I doubt they could regulate it effectively.
Better regulation would force the manufacturers to spend R&D on alternatives and push down the prices so that the rest of the world can also afford a cleaner alternative. Even if that takes time, we would at least have a huge reduction until we have the right tech at an affordable price for the developing world.
The world is a huge place and many countries will never have good regulations due to corruption/lobbyists and continue to pollute. The only way I see regulations would work is if the first world governments, which are the largest consumers, were willing to impose import restrictions, but that would go against the ideology behind the global market. It would also risk retaliation where the affected country could block exports of rare earth minerals and other critical resources.
The US market is one of the largest influencers, and would need to get on board. I'm not an American, but given the political climate in the US right now I doubt they could regulate it effectively.
Most people fail to understand how useful plastic is because they never lived in a time before plastics.
“most people fail to understand how useful leaded gasoline is because they never lived in a time without it”
As I understand it, lead in gasoline was used for motor longetivity, but other approaches have been invented to reduce pollution. So now we use only (or just mostly?) unleaded gasoline, which is used basically the same as leaded.
What's your microplastic-free alternative to replace most uses of plastic? Microplasticless plastic that would work for all plastic use cases doesn't exist, as far I know.
What's your microplastic-free alternative to replace most uses of plastic? Microplasticless plastic that would work for all plastic use cases doesn't exist, as far I know.
You don't need a one-size-fits-all solution to all problems at once. But most plastic use have alternative solutions, if you are willing to change industrial practices (plastic-less supply chains will look very different for instance).
There are, and we do use them, more and more every day (from my simple consumer point of view), but it's much more difficult to dictate that "everyone" must switch to non-microplastic solutions, like it seems to have been possible with gasoline.
What would that kind of legislation look like? It would be bound be huge, have negative non-intended consequences, and loopholes.
Maybe a global plastic tax could function as a guiding force, but even that has the negative consequence increasing the costs of stuff that just doesn't have alternatives. It would funnel money towards developing plastic-free products.
But getting everyone onboard with that is difficult—and I presume it's difficult to put a fair plastic tax for imported products.
What would that kind of legislation look like? It would be bound be huge, have negative non-intended consequences, and loopholes.
Maybe a global plastic tax could function as a guiding force, but even that has the negative consequence increasing the costs of stuff that just doesn't have alternatives. It would funnel money towards developing plastic-free products.
But getting everyone onboard with that is difficult—and I presume it's difficult to put a fair plastic tax for imported products.
> and loopholes.
This is an argument that comes again and again when discussing government intervention and really baffles me: don't you laissez-faire guys really don't realize that a “loophole” is still much tinier than a completely open door?!
This is an argument that comes again and again when discussing government intervention and really baffles me: don't you laissez-faire guys really don't realize that a “loophole” is still much tinier than a completely open door?!
Loophole can be small, but when exploited properly, an elephant can walk right through it. And you also chose to ignore the part about unintended consequences..
All it really takes to even consider moving into this direction is to propose a solution to this. "Stop plastic" is not it due to practical reasons. I wouldn't know what a proper solution would be, nor would I have the expertice to recognize one when proposed, but is there even a realistic proposal?
All it really takes to even consider moving into this direction is to propose a solution to this. "Stop plastic" is not it due to practical reasons. I wouldn't know what a proper solution would be, nor would I have the expertice to recognize one when proposed, but is there even a realistic proposal?
The problem is plastic is not one thing but an entire category of materials. There are plenty of places plastics can be designed out but there's also an awful lot where it's never going to be possible to replace. For example operating rooms have huge trash bins because everything comes plastic wrapped for sterility.
Even in ORs, there are options for using less plastic use. For example, drapes can be single-use (paper-lined plastic in a plastic pouch) or fabric (wrapped in more fabric and autoclaved).
I agree that getting to zero plastic is probably impossible—-it has amazingly useful properties for some applications—-but it’s also used for convenience and other mundane reasons (e.g., less liability if you offload sterilization to the manufacturer).
I agree that getting to zero plastic is probably impossible—-it has amazingly useful properties for some applications—-but it’s also used for convenience and other mundane reasons (e.g., less liability if you offload sterilization to the manufacturer).
> For example operating rooms have huge trash bins because everything comes plastic wrapped for sterility.
First of all we don't need disposable plastic for that… And wrapping it in Kraft paper would work exactly the same way!
First of all we don't need disposable plastic for that… And wrapping it in Kraft paper would work exactly the same way!
>lead in gasoline was used for motor longetivity
Nope. Tetra-Ethyl lead as a fuel additive, primarily for octane boosting, was invented as a "cheaper alternative" to what would normally be used to boost octane: Ethanol. Surely for only coincidental reasons, having a chemical product that they could patent and prevent anyone else from manufacturing made them a whole lot more money than using Ethanol which anyone could make and market and compete.
Leaded gas was a fucking profit motivated thing.
The point of us putting ethanol in gas is multifaceted, but not even remotely about climate change: The octane booster we used after we removed was MTBE. MTBE had a problem where it would constantly leak out of fuel storage and poison families, cause birth defects, you know, toxic shit. So we FINALLY just said fuck it, put ethanol in gas like we should have been doing since the 20s.
Other effects it had: Immediately reduce US gasoline usage by 10%. Subsidy to farmers.
Nope. Tetra-Ethyl lead as a fuel additive, primarily for octane boosting, was invented as a "cheaper alternative" to what would normally be used to boost octane: Ethanol. Surely for only coincidental reasons, having a chemical product that they could patent and prevent anyone else from manufacturing made them a whole lot more money than using Ethanol which anyone could make and market and compete.
Leaded gas was a fucking profit motivated thing.
The point of us putting ethanol in gas is multifaceted, but not even remotely about climate change: The octane booster we used after we removed was MTBE. MTBE had a problem where it would constantly leak out of fuel storage and poison families, cause birth defects, you know, toxic shit. So we FINALLY just said fuck it, put ethanol in gas like we should have been doing since the 20s.
Other effects it had: Immediately reduce US gasoline usage by 10%. Subsidy to farmers.
It was to reduce knock which was solved with electronic fuel injection.
Idk what modern injection can do for that, but it wasn't even needed, the original solution was to use other additives instead of lead.
every modern injection system that has authority over ignition and cam timing can monitor knock via microphone and adjust accordingly.
I buy all my food loose and not wrapped in plastic, its really not hard just dont go to supermarkets.
Those stores don't exist everywhere and usually the prices are higher.
But in a lot of other places, they're far cheaper than the supermarkets. It works the other way sometimes, and I think we need to examine why. My best off-the-cuff theory to it would be some sort of perverse government incentive.
The same government that makes incentives that added all that extra driving, transportation, storage, packaging, etc to the "natural food" because they think farming and storing livestock within X-feet of a people-zoned area is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed. Next they complain "oh lets fix these food islands that we created in the first place" or "oh please let us regulate these evil companies that use so much bad plastic packaging because we told them not to sell food that "might" be off after expiry so they have to use plastic and other such devices to sell you absolutely pristine and non-contaminated food".
The point in my rambling is that it's such a complicated problem, but the government sits at the heart of it. Both as a cause and a potential solution, unfortunately.
The same government that makes incentives that added all that extra driving, transportation, storage, packaging, etc to the "natural food" because they think farming and storing livestock within X-feet of a people-zoned area is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed. Next they complain "oh lets fix these food islands that we created in the first place" or "oh please let us regulate these evil companies that use so much bad plastic packaging because we told them not to sell food that "might" be off after expiry so they have to use plastic and other such devices to sell you absolutely pristine and non-contaminated food".
The point in my rambling is that it's such a complicated problem, but the government sits at the heart of it. Both as a cause and a potential solution, unfortunately.
Jervons Paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
I'm more concerned with whether it may start spreading beyond the ocean and causing pandemic-scale damage, although fortunately it seems slow. There is already dystopian sci-fi about similar themes.
Nanoplastic and microplastics are basically everywhere now. So there's no need to wait, your concern is already realized.
Considering how plastic manufacturers turned recycling into the ultimate false hope, I agree with you. I try to be mindful about my plastic consumption but it is everywhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-pl...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-pl...
> breakdown of PE by P. album occurs at a rate of about 0.05 per cent per day
At what rate does all the plastic in the world start to soften and crumble?
At what rate does all the plastic in the world start to soften and crumble?
```
total_plastic = 8.3e9 # total plastic in tons degradation_rate = 0.05 # degradation rate per day in percentage
# Calculation of daily degradation in tons daily_degradation = total_plastic * degradation_rate / 100
# Estimation of time taken to degrade all plastic in days total_days = total_plastic / daily_degradation
# Conversion of total days to years total_years = total_days / 365
# Print the result print(f"It would take approximately {total_years:.2f} years to degrade all the plastic.")
```
It would take approximately 5.48 years to degrade all the plastic.
total_plastic = 8.3e9 # total plastic in tons degradation_rate = 0.05 # degradation rate per day in percentage
# Calculation of daily degradation in tons daily_degradation = total_plastic * degradation_rate / 100
# Estimation of time taken to degrade all plastic in days total_days = total_plastic / daily_degradation
# Conversion of total days to years total_years = total_days / 365
# Print the result print(f"It would take approximately {total_years:.2f} years to degrade all the plastic.")
```
It would take approximately 5.48 years to degrade all the plastic.
That’s… wrong? The amount of plastic would decrease every day (assuming no new production), so 0.05% of that amount would not be a constant number. Your daily_degradation is incorrect.
It's also not reasonable to assume that a growing organism will break down a smaller amount of stuff every day.
it's chatgpt of course it's wrong
Review exponential functions.
Yeah. Use the compounding interest rate function with the eat/expel/eat period.
I hope you don't estimate the earnings from your investments that way.
But +1 on f-string use.
But +1 on f-string use.
Imagine bacteria and fungi breaking down all the plastic into CO2. Don't know which is lesser evil: plastic as it remaining in the environment or more CO2 but less plastic?
Compared to the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere continuously (still!), I’m quite sure that the CO2 from all the plastic in the ocean is insignificant.
edit: just to make sure that my guess wasn't too far off, I looked up some numbers: we relase about 8 million tons of plastic into the ocean every year. Burning 1 units of plastic produces 3 units of CO2, giving 24 million tons of CO2 if all that plastic were broken down by fungus (or incinerated). We release around 35 billion tons of CO2 every year from burning fossil fuel.
edit: just to make sure that my guess wasn't too far off, I looked up some numbers: we relase about 8 million tons of plastic into the ocean every year. Burning 1 units of plastic produces 3 units of CO2, giving 24 million tons of CO2 if all that plastic were broken down by fungus (or incinerated). We release around 35 billion tons of CO2 every year from burning fossil fuel.
So don't release it directly to the atmosphere, it has industrial uses.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...
gitaarik(1)
Feel like I hear this story a lot
Starting to think it's being over reported because it could be poorly interpted as an excuse to keep producing ocean plastic
Starting to think it's being over reported because it could be poorly interpted as an excuse to keep producing ocean plastic
Do you also hear about legislation or community efforts related to reducing ocean plastic being halted as a result of this news? I have not.
Chemotrophs (specifically chemolithotrophs) are bacteria that thrive near super heated deep sea vents. They can consume (oxidise) iron, sulfur, and a whole range of other elements and compounds we consider toxic or immutable. In return they produce a kind of sugar that tube worms consume. I hope that future plastic bio-mitigation research focusses on energy transformation and production like this. Instead of thinking of an impossible zero sum end result (destroy it), it's more future oriented to use plastic transformed into something new and consumable as an energy source.
Think like a tube worm to solve this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph
Think like a tube worm to solve this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph
PE is a very-long-chain saturated hydrocarbon, so it would not be surprising if this fungus will also be able to "burn" other petroleum products too.
Finding plastic-degrading organisms is urgent.
Is it?
Finding plastic-degrading organisms is urgent.
Is it?
Do you have any other genius ideas on how to deal with an exponentially growing waste product that doesn't seem to easily break down naturally and gets shredded into smaller pieces eventually ending up in the environment as micro particles and get into our food and bodies and affect our and our environment's health?
and affect our and our environment's health?
Zero concrete evidence. Lots of vague handwaving and paranoia.
Zero concrete evidence. Lots of vague handwaving and paranoia.
Well everything is relative of course, but from a human perspective, an environment can be "unhealthy", and that is what we ultimately care about, right?
I have increasingly found myself thinking lately that perhaps it is fungi of anything in fact, that are able to provide the ultimate solutions to many of the World's biggest issues but even to treating certain diseases ...
George Carlin was right. The planet will integrate plastics into its ecosystem.
There have been scientists with far more accreditation in this field than a comedian who've been researching this exact thing for decades.
One concern not mentioned would be the proliferation of the fungi if they are exposed to a new endlessly abundant source of food, and which then upsets the current ecosystem balance.
No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the fungus.
Do you think we could cool our overheating oceans by blocking the sun with a thick layer of fungus? Because this sounds like a plan for covering the oceans in a thick layer of fungus.
But what they will push out? Anything living eats whatever gives waste on which other depends as nutrition one way or other except human.
Is this process generating the microplastics? If so then maybe it’s not such a great way to post process our litter.
The article says carbon contained in the plastic is released so it seems it's a molecular level breakdown. It'd be like rust on an old nail, eating it's way from the outside.
It seems like only a matter of time before this spreads uncontrollably, consuming all plastic in the world.
This is what I'm afraid of - it's all great when the fungus is only in a landfill or the ocean but what happens if it gets inside my car ? Etc etc
If it exists for more than 2 seconds, there's going to be a fungus that will eat it.
Plastics are a store of energy. They could be used to sustain life, once evolution catches up. That's why I don't feel particularly bad about throwing plastic into the landfill. I'm taking an energy loan out against evolution; eventually, evolution will recoup it.
That's funny: do you know why there is petroleum at all?
When plants evolved to have line, they where able to become trees.
Sadly, no bacteria was able to decompose linine. It took a looooot of time (I don't remember how much, but a whole lot). So trees wouldn't decompose when falling down, so they would grow on top of each other, burying the oldest one more and more. And the end, you have wood very deep, under a lot of pressure and I'm a hot environment: it created the petroleum.
So what you're expecting can take millions of year and it would be ironic if petroleum had to be twice in such a cycle.
Sadly, no bacteria was able to decompose linine. It took a looooot of time (I don't remember how much, but a whole lot). So trees wouldn't decompose when falling down, so they would grow on top of each other, burying the oldest one more and more. And the end, you have wood very deep, under a lot of pressure and I'm a hot environment: it created the petroleum.
So what you're expecting can take millions of year and it would be ironic if petroleum had to be twice in such a cycle.
I guess the speech-to-text failed. Do you mean "lignin"?
Yes, indeed. It took a while, but not that long in the grand scheme. A few million years; plastic is more concentrated and more delicious, energy-wise.
I forgot to mention my theory, which is that we will be the ones who dig up the plastic to either recycle it or use it for its energy -- it will have been conveniently concentrated in landfills after all :)
I forgot to mention my theory, which is that we will be the ones who dig up the plastic to either recycle it or use it for its energy -- it will have been conveniently concentrated in landfills after all :)
Fungi always doing the hard work !
No guarantee that the evolution that takes care of plastics results in a more livable world for humans though (not to mention plastics that we don’t want crumbling suddenly having issues)
Yes, certainly. The value of plastics is incalculable. (Personally, if there were a plastic-eating bacteria introduced tomorrow, I would be dead within the week, rather than dead within a month or two like most people).
I don't really feel bad about plastics, mostly I feel bad about the egregious stuff -- car tires, fishing gear -- stuff that does not end up in the landfill most of all, because it cannot be segregated from the environment.
I don't really feel bad about plastics, mostly I feel bad about the egregious stuff -- car tires, fishing gear -- stuff that does not end up in the landfill most of all, because it cannot be segregated from the environment.
What is so special about humans? I, for one, welcome our plastic eating overlords.
What is so special is that we are them. Until we are no longer humans, we should look out for our own. Unless you have somehow overcome self-preservation and suffering. I haven't. I never understood this "what is special about humans" argument. Obviously we should do our best to be good stewards of the environment but that shouldn't ignore our own survival.
If find the fungus on my feetzeez does NOT break down.
I can't wait for the Australian border to patrol the oceans in order to block this new "microorganism that could pose a serious risk to their ecosystem and blah blah blah..."
i remember plastic bags would also disintegrate over long period of time
Life finds a way.
Why dont they grow them st land fills
Oh no, my headphones/camera/polyester clothes have caught Ocean Plastic Eating Fungus and are melting… seriously though is this a real concern?
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/147456216
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/150149352