Worms fail to thrive in soil containing microplastics: study(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Worms fail to thrive in soil containing microplastics: study
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/worms-fail-to-thrive-in-soil-containing-microplastics-study
104 comments
At least in America the motorist is unassailable. The most you can ask of an American motorist is that one of their three cars is a Prius. Never mind the tire dust, the brake dust, the sprawl, forty thousand dead pedestrians, ecological collapse, lead poisoning, leaking gas station tanks, and climate change. Give them paper straws and carry on.
> lead poisoning
Uh... leaded gasoline has been phased out since the '70s, despite being demonstrably better for car engines (no anti-knock agent as good as tetraethyl lead has yet been invented), precisely because the American motorist is not unassailable!
Uh... leaded gasoline has been phased out since the '70s, despite being demonstrably better for car engines (no anti-knock agent as good as tetraethyl lead has yet been invented), precisely because the American motorist is not unassailable!
Uh American motorists have still not been made to account for a fifty-year-long crime wave that their leaded ways precipitated.
What about airless tires? I havent looked deeply into them but they sound like they would not be as profitable since you will be less likely to change tires due to a nail certainly reducing sales. But I am not sure what kind of cars these tires compliment and what kind of driving they are not for.
https://www.bridgestonetire.com/tread-and-trend/tire-talk/ai...
https://www.bridgestonetire.com/tread-and-trend/tire-talk/ai...
The problem of tires is wear. Everything that's not on your tire anymore is microplastics now.
Understandable, I hadn't looked into them as much or the subject matter. I'm curious if airless tires with similar design but different material could be made.
Their claim of low rolling resistance is surprising to me, since all the non-pneumatic designs similar to that I've seen before had abysmal rolling resistance. It seems their prototype is still in development, so maybe that claim represents their ambitions, not their achievement thusfar. Although, looking at the render of the product they've provided, it looks pretty dang narrow compared to the "ecopia" brand tires they're compared against. It could be they've reduced rolling resistance by simply making it narrower than an otherwise equivalent pneumatic tire.
For tires, it looks like pyrolysis is the least-worst option, of which there are a few small players such as eneform.com
Disclaimer: family affiliation
Disclaimer: family affiliation
Some high level data why pyrolysis is preferable over other options: https://paul.copplest.one/knowledge/pyrolysis.html#what-is-p...
I have been thinking about getting a washing bag like the guppyfriend. Anyone knows if they actually work?
What about sneakers?
Poor people's clothes are synthetics. Natural fibers cost. People have become used to buy-and-trash one season clothes. This is a problem.
You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters, who are perfectly content to wreck the biosphere for everyone else as long as they get theirs. Existing economic incentives are perverse and many people will fight tooth and nail to maintain their ability to extract economic rents rather than sacrifice for the public good.
We can all help stop this. Everyone can reduce their contribution. I cut out nearly all packaged food, which reduced my garbage to where I empty it less than once a year (I'm in month 13 of my current load). I was pleasantly surprised that doing so cost less, reduced food preparation time, increased diversity of food, and led to more social interaction with friends and farmers. For the record, it took a couple years of practice to go from weekly garbage to monthly to yearly.
That's just one example. Everyone can reduce some. The more you start, instead of just accepting and throwing your hands up, the easier each next step.
The producers will see the trend and stop buying plastic.
Of course there are other ways to act: legislation, creating healthier alternatives.
The point is: everyone can act starting here and now and they will find joy in it. It may take time, but acting on one's values is rewarding.
That's just one example. Everyone can reduce some. The more you start, instead of just accepting and throwing your hands up, the easier each next step.
The producers will see the trend and stop buying plastic.
Of course there are other ways to act: legislation, creating healthier alternatives.
The point is: everyone can act starting here and now and they will find joy in it. It may take time, but acting on one's values is rewarding.
From some of the other comments, sounds like we also need to throw away all our polyester fabric and stop using cars, as well.
I stopped to believe the individuals can vote with their wallets to stop the pollution. We are not enough people who care and there are too many things to consider. We need to fight the system using the mechanisms of the system. If pollution costs money, capitalism will optimize to minimize pollution. It depends on the price. We need politics to change the rules. I would advocate to use your time to make destroying the earth costly.
Agreed, having the mental energy to worry about the packaging the food your kids eat is not the norm unfortunately.
People have too many terrible things in their life to worry about without taking responsibily for this too. Its great for people to recycle but to me its more like being and early tech adopter, it doesnt really work for the masses yet but the lessons learned are invaluable.
People have too many terrible things in their life to worry about without taking responsibily for this too. Its great for people to recycle but to me its more like being and early tech adopter, it doesnt really work for the masses yet but the lessons learned are invaluable.
How do you get ingredients? We cook a lot, but everything besides flour and sugar seems to come in some sort of plastic or metal container.
Mostly from my CSAs and food coop. I wrote about them in my blog. http://joshuaspodek.com/where-to-buy-the-best-food-around-ne...
I bring bags with me.
I bring bags with me.
I worked in a grocery store for 5 years in the produce department and we sold a loooot of unpackaged food to customers that came to us in a lot of packaging. From stabilizers to keep produce from jostling and bruising - all the way to the shrinkwrap the pallets came in with...
I dumped a lot of plastic into the trash compactor. I dumped a ton of styrofoam into the trash compactor.
Sure, it might show a desire to the producers of food if we shop better - but I doubt your food is as plastic-free as you imagine. And I tossed more plastic daily than the average household did in months.
The supply chain needs to be plastic free before we stop having a problem.
I dumped a lot of plastic into the trash compactor. I dumped a ton of styrofoam into the trash compactor.
Sure, it might show a desire to the producers of food if we shop better - but I doubt your food is as plastic-free as you imagine. And I tossed more plastic daily than the average household did in months.
The supply chain needs to be plastic free before we stop having a problem.
This is a very important point.
It makes me think of a smaller scale example I witnessed as a cashier. I saw cashiers throwing away plastic bags by the hundred regularly, because they failed to load them onto the holding racks (you've seen them, but probably paid little attention to them) properly and it was simply easier to toss dozens of bags in the trash and load a full package of bags.
Meanwhile, at home my mom rebuked me for throwing one used and damaged bag in the trash instead of recycling.
I feel like we all can help with rising sea levels by filling a jar with sea water and keeping it in our house. That's a little less water in the seas. I'm helping.
Instead of hoping 7 billion people change their habits, we should change the habits of a few hundred companies. Everyone will pay the price somehow, but companies are vehicles of large scale change, and our markets can efficiently make the changes if we shape them correctly.
It makes me think of a smaller scale example I witnessed as a cashier. I saw cashiers throwing away plastic bags by the hundred regularly, because they failed to load them onto the holding racks (you've seen them, but probably paid little attention to them) properly and it was simply easier to toss dozens of bags in the trash and load a full package of bags.
Meanwhile, at home my mom rebuked me for throwing one used and damaged bag in the trash instead of recycling.
I feel like we all can help with rising sea levels by filling a jar with sea water and keeping it in our house. That's a little less water in the seas. I'm helping.
Instead of hoping 7 billion people change their habits, we should change the habits of a few hundred companies. Everyone will pay the price somehow, but companies are vehicles of large scale change, and our markets can efficiently make the changes if we shape them correctly.
Kevin Anderson often stresses out this point.
Besides there is this point regarding recycling:
“It was propaganda that did not appear propagandistic. It also shielded corporate polluters from blame by shifting responsibility onto individuals.”
https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plasti...
Besides there is this point regarding recycling:
“It was propaganda that did not appear propagandistic. It also shielded corporate polluters from blame by shifting responsibility onto individuals.”
https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plasti...
agree, I'm pretty frustrated with the notion that end-consumers are entirely responsible for somehow reversing the trend of pollution by voluntarily opting out of the packaging system. Firstly, it is mostly impossible to do completely without enormous effort and sacrifice, secondly, only a tiny fraction of the population is actually going to attempt to do such a thing, and thirdly, as you said, manufacturers and industry will continue to produce and discard the majority of waste in any case. From a political point of view, putting the blame all on consumers is the perfect story for polluting industries to hide behind - "it's all your fault!". It's a scam, and only legislation and interruption at the supply chain will have any impact. The only genuinely good thing about consumers engaging in voluntary source reduction is that they raise their own political awareness, since the main thing they need to do is vote.
"Even as their ad was inducing guilt in viewers for spreading trash, Keep America Beautiful’s members were fighting legislation that could have done much to address the problem."
https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plasti...
https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plasti...
My CSAs drop the produce off at my pick-up point in milk crates they bring back the next week.
My food coop loads the bulk bins from giant bags.
Grocery stores don't have much appeal to me.
My food coop loads the bulk bins from giant bags.
Grocery stores don't have much appeal to me.
[deleted]
Speak to a supermarket owner/manager. You would not believe how much packaging exists for a simple apple or similar. You would see an unpackaged apple at the end of the process and be none the less aware about the plastics involved.
Make sellers take back waste as a condition to sell. Boom. Problem solved.
Make sellers take back waste as a condition to sell. Boom. Problem solved.
Careful!
You've changed the incentive, but doubled the potential number of material transports needed to move packaging back to the source.
In the interim period, while businesses figure out how to deal with less packaging, you end up with all the current stuff going back and forth all over the country, or you end up with attempts to set up a shadow infrastructure designed to ensure the right amount of packaging is in the right place at the right time to optimize on minimization of cost of the end product which is now priced with material handling in the equation.
Instead of actually changing things the way you hoped, you may just reorganize the supply chain to a slightly more distributed model where packaging doesn't happen until the latest stage in the process.
You've also invoked change in regulatory framework. Do we end up having to get FDA approval on alternate forms of food packaging or plasticless food transportation systems?
Do the details of the implementation threaten some national security metric with regards to food availability?
I'm mot saying I disagree with the intent at all, mind, but broad strokes without focusing on the nagging details have a way of coming back to haunt one in the long run. There are a lot of metrics and analysis that would need to be done before just declaring one day "Thou shalt!"
Which is probably no less than what will be needed sadly.
You've changed the incentive, but doubled the potential number of material transports needed to move packaging back to the source.
In the interim period, while businesses figure out how to deal with less packaging, you end up with all the current stuff going back and forth all over the country, or you end up with attempts to set up a shadow infrastructure designed to ensure the right amount of packaging is in the right place at the right time to optimize on minimization of cost of the end product which is now priced with material handling in the equation.
Instead of actually changing things the way you hoped, you may just reorganize the supply chain to a slightly more distributed model where packaging doesn't happen until the latest stage in the process.
You've also invoked change in regulatory framework. Do we end up having to get FDA approval on alternate forms of food packaging or plasticless food transportation systems?
Do the details of the implementation threaten some national security metric with regards to food availability?
I'm mot saying I disagree with the intent at all, mind, but broad strokes without focusing on the nagging details have a way of coming back to haunt one in the long run. There are a lot of metrics and analysis that would need to be done before just declaring one day "Thou shalt!"
Which is probably no less than what will be needed sadly.
Well, presumably the truck needs to go back to the source, so they can bring back the old packaging on the return trip from bringing new goods to the store?
I really wish Amazon would pay their delivery drivers to do this with used Amazon boxes, too.
I really wish Amazon would pay their delivery drivers to do this with used Amazon boxes, too.
Not necessarily. Truckers will often pick up entire new loads and chain deliveries depending on whether they're last mile/long haul/commodity/or specialized equipment haulers.
So your packaging job would likely just be another blip on another trucker's route. But it would increase the need for more truckers since you're essentially (worst-case) doubling the number of deliveries to be done per transaction.
So your packaging job would likely just be another blip on another trucker's route. But it would increase the need for more truckers since you're essentially (worst-case) doubling the number of deliveries to be done per transaction.
Good point. I would be curious to see what the real load factor increase is.
The producer externalized this extra truck cost to taxpayers (garbage trucks, landfills and environment aka dumping/littering/pollution). If the consumers see a lot of increased costs for plastic wrapped bananas with the seller having to deal with the waste; that is actually the point and the incentive for the producer to minimize waste.
Sure, everyone should do their part. BUT:
1. Pretending that's a practical way to get the kind and scale of change we need is extremely wishful thinking, to the point that I wouldn't be shocked to see polluting industries promoting it to distract from regulatory solutions.
2. That attitude reflects your economic privilege. Not only is it harder for poor people to make these kinds of choices, living with a scarcity mindset makes you less likely to care and less able to act strategically.
There must be collective action - must.
1. Pretending that's a practical way to get the kind and scale of change we need is extremely wishful thinking, to the point that I wouldn't be shocked to see polluting industries promoting it to distract from regulatory solutions.
2. That attitude reflects your economic privilege. Not only is it harder for poor people to make these kinds of choices, living with a scarcity mindset makes you less likely to care and less able to act strategically.
There must be collective action - must.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You don't give any context for what "a load" is to you? 1 garbage bag? A pickup truck? a regular garbage truck?
Give me a break. I have been leading a low pollution lifestyle for decades and many consumers do too. Nobody likes waste except the people that make money from producing it.
I am not throwing my hands up, I am saying it's time to attack the root of the problem instead of clipping the topiary into slightly better shape. Waiting for the market to just catch up is failing and discounts the influence of marketers and lobbyists, as well as discounting the possibility of collective action. Don't be a judas goat.
I am not throwing my hands up, I am saying it's time to attack the root of the problem instead of clipping the topiary into slightly better shape. Waiting for the market to just catch up is failing and discounts the influence of marketers and lobbyists, as well as discounting the possibility of collective action. Don't be a judas goat.
> You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters
I think this is the problem. It’s not them doing it, it’s us. We need to change what we are doing.
I think this is the problem. It’s not them doing it, it’s us. We need to change what we are doing.
No, it's definitely them doing it, and we are enabling it. These aren't mutually exclusive problems.
A common source for microplastic is the abration of synthetic textiles and rubber. So unless you only wear unmixed nature fibre and walk in straw sandals you have to assume that you might also produce microplastic even if you never drive a car, take a bus or anything with wheels not made of steel or wood.
This is why we need to deal with the issue as a society, instead of blaming it onto individuals. We did precisely that for decades now and it doesn’t seem to work.
This is why we need to deal with the issue as a society, instead of blaming it onto individuals. We did precisely that for decades now and it doesn’t seem to work.
Pure cotton fabric is very common and cheap, although cotton has its own, different environmental issues too.
You're both being pretty vague, but I think it is useful to remember rhat ultimately "they" are indeed part of "us". The people who influence individual companies decisions to continue to produce waste have to go home to a neighbourhood, move within the community, and can be influenced by that community.
The people enabling it are the consumers, but also the thousands of smaller companies buying and producing plastic packaging, who have a much bigger say than the small amount of consumers you can convince to give up their luxuries.
The people enabling it are the consumers, but also the thousands of smaller companies buying and producing plastic packaging, who have a much bigger say than the small amount of consumers you can convince to give up their luxuries.
[deleted]
This argument always comes up with "we can all do our part" and that's absolutely nonsense. Many times you have no idea what is put into the things you buy or there may not even be alternatives or at least not easily discoverable because the market. Many people have tried to do their part for years and the problem has only gotten worse because companies run rampant and aren't regulated or held accountable.
Exactly. It's an externalizing cost tactic where responsibility for something far up the production chain is shoved into the individually powerless consumer's shoes
Who exactly is asking for more plastic waste? Name the consumer lobbyists and marketing firms that actively demanding this, and whose demands command the forces of industrial production.
Your consumer + education focus is an approach that takes generations, time we don't have. Coincidentally or not, it also lets the manufacturers completely off the hook.
Your consumer + education focus is an approach that takes generations, time we don't have. Coincidentally or not, it also lets the manufacturers completely off the hook.
It's us driving or flying too much, it's us buying artificial fibre fleeces, or products in plastic packs that formerly came in card or paper, etc. We need to change those.
It's not us choosing to end use of a sustainable packaging to replace with plastic, or having mainly artificial fibres in the clothes stores, or setting policy on inappropriate methods of disposing of plastic. It's not us subsidising oil at the expense of renewables, or approving planning permission on a factory making single use plastic packaging, or a fracking site or refinery. They need to change with far more urgency, as these acts are orders of magnitude larger, and cancel out all acts and change of millions of individuals.
It's not us choosing to end use of a sustainable packaging to replace with plastic, or having mainly artificial fibres in the clothes stores, or setting policy on inappropriate methods of disposing of plastic. It's not us subsidising oil at the expense of renewables, or approving planning permission on a factory making single use plastic packaging, or a fracking site or refinery. They need to change with far more urgency, as these acts are orders of magnitude larger, and cancel out all acts and change of millions of individuals.
> You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters
Well, this is happening yet. Annelida are figthing back and silently contaminating OUR farmed seafood with microplastics. Is ironic if we think about it (and very interesting). Who would expect that revenge from the humble Marphysa?
Well, this is happening yet. Annelida are figthing back and silently contaminating OUR farmed seafood with microplastics. Is ironic if we think about it (and very interesting). Who would expect that revenge from the humble Marphysa?
Well on the bright side (/s) Trump rolled back clean water act regulation because it was hindering manufacturing....
> You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters
Well, this is happening yet and Annelida are figthing back and contaminating (returning the microplastics to) OUR food. Is ironic if we think about it, and very interesting. Who would expect that from the humble Marphysa?
Well, this is happening yet and Annelida are figthing back and contaminating (returning the microplastics to) OUR food. Is ironic if we think about it, and very interesting. Who would expect that from the humble Marphysa?
Urg, duplicated for some reason, sorry
I used to be angry at ‘polluters’ now I’m frustrated at a market/society that encourages bad behavior.
Few set out to destroy the planet. If you buy fish from fishermen that drop their lines sea it doesn’t matter how many plastic straws, bottles and cutlery you didn’t use. But as a consumer we are so abstracted from the source we are powerless to affect behavior.
Few set out to destroy the planet. If you buy fish from fishermen that drop their lines sea it doesn’t matter how many plastic straws, bottles and cutlery you didn’t use. But as a consumer we are so abstracted from the source we are powerless to affect behavior.
Microplastic is in the air you breathe, that is how it gets into the soil. Its a global pollution problem that isn't confined to "few bad countries" or "polluted rivers" somewhere in Asia.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-14/micropl...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246858441...
https://inhabitat.com/microplastic-rain-new-study-reveals-mi...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/micro...
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/713561484/microplastic-found-...
https://livelovefruit.com/breathing-in-microplastic/
Failure to thrive is an ill-defined term that strikes me as a tad histrionic in this title. The article indicates worms lost 3% of their weight in contaminated soil versus a control group that gained 5%. It's not the dramatic figure I was expecting from the title.
Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10% of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three weeks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_to_thrive
Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10% of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three weeks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_to_thrive
>Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10% of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three weeks.
I am not sure if the comparison is relevant here, the numbers are not large but they are significant, something is wrong and it needs investigation. You losing 5% weight may be nothing but if you in the same time have constant pain because of damage do your digestive track is not pleasant at all.
I am wondering if similar tests was done on rats?. -- I google it and it causes cancer
I am not sure if the comparison is relevant here, the numbers are not large but they are significant, something is wrong and it needs investigation. You losing 5% weight may be nothing but if you in the same time have constant pain because of damage do your digestive track is not pleasant at all.
I am wondering if similar tests was done on rats?. -- I google it and it causes cancer
[deleted]
It is a small effect, what should raise alarms for the p-problems. But it is a very important effect, so if it is real, it is something to be very concerned about.
The paper looks to be "Effects of Microplastics in Soil Ecosystems: Above and Below Ground" by Bas Boots, Connor William Russell, and Dannielle Senga Green.
The abstract is here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
And the full paper here: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
After a quick skim, it looks like a well written paper with a small dataset. They took 40 1.2L plastic pots and filled them with 1kg of local soil. In 10 of the pots, they then added 1 g of PLA microplastic; in another 10 they added 1 g of HDPE microplastic; in another 10 they added 10 mg of acrylic and nylon fibers collected from a washing machine; and in the last 10 they added nothing.
In half of the pots (5) from each of the 4 categories, they then planted ryegrass. Then they added 2 earthworms to each of the 40 pots, waited for a month, and then measured the results. They found (Figure 3) that the 10 earthworms in the 5 unplanted control (no plastic) gained about 5% weight, that the 10 earthworms in the 5 planted HDPE containers lost about 5% of their weight, and all the rest had no significant change.
Overall, it seems like a solid paper, with all the information one would need for a replication attempt. Nicely, they report the average weights for the two each of the individual pots, but unfortunately they don't seem to report the intra-pot variation of the individual worms, which would be helpful to know in assessing the likelihood of replication.
The Guardian article, though, which mentions only the two "significant" results and ignores the 6 results that showed no particular difference, seems more intent on generically sowing fear than on informing the public about recent scientific results. I guess it's better to have a soft-science article like this than another "did you see what the idiot tweeted", but sometimes I'm not sure.
ps. Did you know that in much of the northern US, all of the native earthworms were killed by the glaciers, and that practically all the current earthworms in these areas are invasives? The northern hardwood forests evolved without these earthworms, and may in fact be harmed by their presence: http://theconversation.com/silent-partners-are-earthworms-cr.... I wonder if the same true for England (where the study was done) since it was also mostly glaciated?
The abstract is here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
And the full paper here: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
After a quick skim, it looks like a well written paper with a small dataset. They took 40 1.2L plastic pots and filled them with 1kg of local soil. In 10 of the pots, they then added 1 g of PLA microplastic; in another 10 they added 1 g of HDPE microplastic; in another 10 they added 10 mg of acrylic and nylon fibers collected from a washing machine; and in the last 10 they added nothing.
In half of the pots (5) from each of the 4 categories, they then planted ryegrass. Then they added 2 earthworms to each of the 40 pots, waited for a month, and then measured the results. They found (Figure 3) that the 10 earthworms in the 5 unplanted control (no plastic) gained about 5% weight, that the 10 earthworms in the 5 planted HDPE containers lost about 5% of their weight, and all the rest had no significant change.
Overall, it seems like a solid paper, with all the information one would need for a replication attempt. Nicely, they report the average weights for the two each of the individual pots, but unfortunately they don't seem to report the intra-pot variation of the individual worms, which would be helpful to know in assessing the likelihood of replication.
The Guardian article, though, which mentions only the two "significant" results and ignores the 6 results that showed no particular difference, seems more intent on generically sowing fear than on informing the public about recent scientific results. I guess it's better to have a soft-science article like this than another "did you see what the idiot tweeted", but sometimes I'm not sure.
ps. Did you know that in much of the northern US, all of the native earthworms were killed by the glaciers, and that practically all the current earthworms in these areas are invasives? The northern hardwood forests evolved without these earthworms, and may in fact be harmed by their presence: http://theconversation.com/silent-partners-are-earthworms-cr.... I wonder if the same true for England (where the study was done) since it was also mostly glaciated?
you know that in much of the northern US, all of the native earthworms were killed by the glaciers, and that practically all the current earthworms in these areas are invasives?
That made me think of an alternative title for this article: "Microplastics are an effective solution to invasive earthworm control."
...that is, if a 5% difference in some of the results is even considered significant.
That made me think of an alternative title for this article: "Microplastics are an effective solution to invasive earthworm control."
...that is, if a 5% difference in some of the results is even considered significant.
and fighting climate change. Earth worms release more green house gasses than cows that politicians seem to like going on about.
They are part of the natural carbon cycle without which plants would pile up like they did in the carboniferous.
Plants are only temporary carbon sequestration. The actual sequestration is in the standing-wave of growing, living, dying, decomposing material.
Plants are only temporary carbon sequestration. The actual sequestration is in the standing-wave of growing, living, dying, decomposing material.
you are wrong. in north america, forests sequester layers of methane in burred layers of rotted material that are supposed to keep building up. however, the arrival of the earth worm has been releasing those layers of methane into the atmosphere and destroying forest layers.
Thank you for sharing a source on how earthworms are invasive (I'd heard the claim, but not a source).
I remember a Park ranger talking about flowers in Minnesota which didn't grow as well because of earthworms and were thus Endangered. I wonder how these flowers would do if Plastics were added to their soil.
I can't recall the name of the flower, but that the reason they couldn't flourish was that Earthworms were eating the nutrients they needed to grow.
I found two sources https://kstp.com/news/u-of-m-researchers-find-earthworms-are... And https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000904130558.h...
I don't believe this is the same flower (I feel like I'd remember the state flower). So the impact of earthworms is interesting, as I'd never heard of a way (or suggestion to) treat and remove earthworms from an ecosystem.
I remember a Park ranger talking about flowers in Minnesota which didn't grow as well because of earthworms and were thus Endangered. I wonder how these flowers would do if Plastics were added to their soil.
I can't recall the name of the flower, but that the reason they couldn't flourish was that Earthworms were eating the nutrients they needed to grow.
I found two sources https://kstp.com/news/u-of-m-researchers-find-earthworms-are... And https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000904130558.h...
I don't believe this is the same flower (I feel like I'd remember the state flower). So the impact of earthworms is interesting, as I'd never heard of a way (or suggestion to) treat and remove earthworms from an ecosystem.
1 g per 1 kg is 1 Part per thousand.
How does that compare to what is seen in nature that seems like an incredibly high plastic load.
Reminds me of other studies that say “X causes problems” and then you learned they force fed rats 1000x any reasonable exposure doesn't necessarily tell you a lot.
How does that compare to what is seen in nature that seems like an incredibly high plastic load.
Reminds me of other studies that say “X causes problems” and then you learned they force fed rats 1000x any reasonable exposure doesn't necessarily tell you a lot.
This appears to be the original paper:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
There’s a slightly better summary, which at least references the paper, here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911193303.h...
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
There’s a slightly better summary, which at least references the paper, here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911193303.h...
Thank you, it's really bad not to link the paper in a news piece, 1) for evidence, 2) for further reading and 3) for accreditation for the hard working researchers/institutions.
Do you happen to have access to the paper through the pay wall? I'm interested in the data itself, the abstract certainly doesn't match up to "worms fail to thrive [..]", I want to see some numbers. There are enough environmental disasters on the horizon without the need to manufacture more.
Do you happen to have access to the paper through the pay wall? I'm interested in the data itself, the abstract certainly doesn't match up to "worms fail to thrive [..]", I want to see some numbers. There are enough environmental disasters on the horizon without the need to manufacture more.
Abstract is here:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304#
(I didn't see an ungated version.)
I wonder what concentration they used?
(I didn't see an ungated version.)
I wonder what concentration they used?
> All mesocosms received 1060 g of the sieved soil to reach a dry bulk density of 1.1 g/cm^3. As such, mesocosms treated with microplastics received 1 g/kg dry soil of HDPE or PLA (0.1% w/w), whereas those treated with synthetic fibers received 10 mg/kg of dry soil (0.001% w/w).
Do you know how this compares to the real-life concentrations in soil?
This seems like the crucial question.
It’s quite interesting to determine something like the LD50 of microplastic in earthworms and grasses which grow in that soil. It would be great if we could see a log-graph of plastic density versus when the effect drops off.
It’s also a good question to ask if it’s the plastic itself, or the impact of the plastic on pH. So for example if they added lime to keep the pH the same in both samples, does the effect in the plastic laced sample persist?
0.1% by mass seems like an incredibly high level. A cubic yard of topsoil (100 sq feet at a depth of 3 inches) weights about 1,000 pounds so 10 pounds of diffuse plastic in that area would be extraordinary.
It’s quite interesting to determine something like the LD50 of microplastic in earthworms and grasses which grow in that soil. It would be great if we could see a log-graph of plastic density versus when the effect drops off.
It’s also a good question to ask if it’s the plastic itself, or the impact of the plastic on pH. So for example if they added lime to keep the pH the same in both samples, does the effect in the plastic laced sample persist?
0.1% by mass seems like an incredibly high level. A cubic yard of topsoil (100 sq feet at a depth of 3 inches) weights about 1,000 pounds so 10 pounds of diffuse plastic in that area would be extraordinary.
0.1% of 1000 lbs is 1 pound, but that’s still the equivalent of ~10 empty 2L bottles.
[deleted]
The plastics stuff is worrying but I am concerned it will divert attention away from global warming. One issue is "hmmmm. this isn't good" whilst the other is "hey people, we should probably start thinking about panic mode about now".
Some people will argue that the solution to both is similar and linked but I'm not so sure.
Some people will argue that the solution to both is similar and linked but I'm not so sure.
Action was taken against asbestos and lead around the same general time. Problems don't need to be solved sequentially.
It's probably best to work on these problems together while people are actually worried about the future of the planet. If we manage to address one and ignore the other, we'll have plenty of people thinking we've saved the world and anything else is needless alarmism. I mean, we already have that problem, and those 50% of people won't be convinced either way.
It's probably best to work on these problems together while people are actually worried about the future of the planet. If we manage to address one and ignore the other, we'll have plenty of people thinking we've saved the world and anything else is needless alarmism. I mean, we already have that problem, and those 50% of people won't be convinced either way.
I would add CFCs to that list. But you needed adequate replacements and a much more clear and present danger for those things to happen.
“Worms are 5% smaller in this study” is a shade better than a conspiracy theory, not something that will motivate massive changes in global manufacturing and packaging standards.
We do know it can be done, because we’ve worked historically to make big changes. Unfortunately there’s been a lot of lost credibility in environmental science over the last few decades, and at the same time society seems to be significantly more divided over issues that at first blush might smell like a crusade.
The rules are you need something that’s equally as good at perhaps a slightly higher initial cost (an adequate replacement) and a clear and present danger (e.g. there’s a massive hole in our ozone layer, we can measure it directly, we know exactly what’s causing it, and if it keeps getting bigger we can’t ever go outside again).
“Worms are 5% smaller in this study” is a shade better than a conspiracy theory, not something that will motivate massive changes in global manufacturing and packaging standards.
We do know it can be done, because we’ve worked historically to make big changes. Unfortunately there’s been a lot of lost credibility in environmental science over the last few decades, and at the same time society seems to be significantly more divided over issues that at first blush might smell like a crusade.
The rules are you need something that’s equally as good at perhaps a slightly higher initial cost (an adequate replacement) and a clear and present danger (e.g. there’s a massive hole in our ozone layer, we can measure it directly, we know exactly what’s causing it, and if it keeps getting bigger we can’t ever go outside again).
We can break things faster than we can fix them. If we don’t try to fix things in parallel then we are not going to be around for long.
“We should fix X first” is rhetoric from people who don’t want to fix anything or are more interested in being in charge. Don’t contribute to the foot dragging.
“We should fix X first” is rhetoric from people who don’t want to fix anything or are more interested in being in charge. Don’t contribute to the foot dragging.
It seems to me that both issues are very frightening and deserve our attention.
Climate change is fucking up the systems we humans and many other animals rely on, which will kill off many species although as a species we will likely survive.
But plastics pollution seems to be literally poisoning every possible corner of the ecosystem, which might be a greater hazard to humans in the long run.
Regarding plastics, it could be a solution to put a very hefty tax on plastic, that's partially refundable if you return it to recycling/proper disposal. This might reduce the incentives to produce single-use items out of plastic, but would not ban it (because for some use cases plastics is perhaps the only viable option, not just the cheapest).
Regarding plastics, it could be a solution to put a very hefty tax on plastic, that's partially refundable if you return it to recycling/proper disposal. This might reduce the incentives to produce single-use items out of plastic, but would not ban it (because for some use cases plastics is perhaps the only viable option, not just the cheapest).
I think the biggest threat of plastics pollution is loss of our ability to use plastics as a long-term building/manufacturing material. Very few microbes can metabolize plastics now, but not zero, and the ability will only spread as plastics (and especially high surface-area to volume ratio microplastics) become more common in the wild. Microbes evolve fast, and they have access to horizontal gene transfer. Heavily fluorinated plastics might survive but I expect all cheap plastics will end up easily biodegradable.
It's potentially a major inconvenience, but if we pretend it's as big a threat as CO2 pollution then civilization will have collapsed before it happens, so that's one way to avoid the problem.
It's potentially a major inconvenience, but if we pretend it's as big a threat as CO2 pollution then civilization will have collapsed before it happens, so that's one way to avoid the problem.
"Mutant 59: The Plastic Eater" - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0081RLFEY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect
Science fiction from 1971. The main effect hypothesized was the disintegration of electrical insulation, which destroyed power distribution, communications, and electronics.
Science fiction from 1971. The main effect hypothesized was the disintegration of electrical insulation, which destroyed power distribution, communications, and electronics.
But if the food web collapses it won’t matter how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere. Both are necessary. Ignoring one for the other is foolish or crazy or both.
They're both appearing to be significant threats to the biosphere, worth immediate attention. I doubt the solution to both is similar though no. We can probably work on both simultaneously though. Even in a perfectly aligned world we wouldn't be able to have everyone working on climate change.
I would definitely argue they're linked, given that plastics are primarily produced from oil and so intimately tied to fossil fuel extraction.
There was another interesting article on HN yesterday about the depletion of soil minerals as a result of monocultural planting and a corresponding (and horrifyingly steep) drop in the mineral content of fruits and vegetables. This was news to me but not really surprising; I've felt for years that much American food is just not that great based simply on the experience of eating it.
Ultimately these are all problems of the industrial model that developed countries in general and the UK/US in particular have exported very successfully (which is not to say that other countries and cultures haven't also catastrophic environmental decisions). While the reductionist approach of identifying, selecting for, and then maximizing particular quantities has yielded great dividends, it does so at the expense of the system as a whole; just like a diet consisting of abundant refined ingredients allows rapid growth but eventually leads to obesity and sclerosis.
Adam Smith, revered by many as the father of modern capitalism, offered a famous example of a pin factory to show how the division of labor into multiple parallel tasks yielded far greater outputs than would be possible if one laborer had to serially perform all the different jobs involved in the manufacture of a pin, and generations of industrialists have applied his advice to great profit. But they have also ignored his caveat that an excess division of labor is both soul-destroying due to boredom, and weakens the laborer through overspecialization and a concomitant loss of flexibility and thus economic bargaining power by allowing the buyer of the labor to determine 'value' of the laborer's skills by limiting the opportunities for their development.
The basic problem is the pursuit of maximal yield through endless division without regard to the structural integrity of the overall system; industrial economists' tendency to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator of fungibility through division and offloading of externalities is just as dangerous to the biosphere and the social body as a diet of high fructose corn syrup and vitamin pills would be to the individual animal. Those who insist on wealth maximization at the transactional and the blind operation of market forces as the distributive mechanism of wealth are in the grip of a cognitive addiction little different from an infant hooked on sugar, and responsible people must steel themselves to ignore the screams of dissatisfaction which will greet a transition to a more sustainable diet.
There was another interesting article on HN yesterday about the depletion of soil minerals as a result of monocultural planting and a corresponding (and horrifyingly steep) drop in the mineral content of fruits and vegetables. This was news to me but not really surprising; I've felt for years that much American food is just not that great based simply on the experience of eating it.
Ultimately these are all problems of the industrial model that developed countries in general and the UK/US in particular have exported very successfully (which is not to say that other countries and cultures haven't also catastrophic environmental decisions). While the reductionist approach of identifying, selecting for, and then maximizing particular quantities has yielded great dividends, it does so at the expense of the system as a whole; just like a diet consisting of abundant refined ingredients allows rapid growth but eventually leads to obesity and sclerosis.
Adam Smith, revered by many as the father of modern capitalism, offered a famous example of a pin factory to show how the division of labor into multiple parallel tasks yielded far greater outputs than would be possible if one laborer had to serially perform all the different jobs involved in the manufacture of a pin, and generations of industrialists have applied his advice to great profit. But they have also ignored his caveat that an excess division of labor is both soul-destroying due to boredom, and weakens the laborer through overspecialization and a concomitant loss of flexibility and thus economic bargaining power by allowing the buyer of the labor to determine 'value' of the laborer's skills by limiting the opportunities for their development.
The basic problem is the pursuit of maximal yield through endless division without regard to the structural integrity of the overall system; industrial economists' tendency to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator of fungibility through division and offloading of externalities is just as dangerous to the biosphere and the social body as a diet of high fructose corn syrup and vitamin pills would be to the individual animal. Those who insist on wealth maximization at the transactional and the blind operation of market forces as the distributive mechanism of wealth are in the grip of a cognitive addiction little different from an infant hooked on sugar, and responsible people must steel themselves to ignore the screams of dissatisfaction which will greet a transition to a more sustainable diet.
Important to note that western countries (almost) don't contribute plastic that ends up in the ocean (that later becomes microplastics) because of modern waste management. [0]
Plastic in the oceans comes from poorer countries where a huge population lives next to rivers or beaches and the waste management systems are inadequate. In fact, "90% of plastic polluting our oceans comes from just 10 rivers" [1]
Our efforts should be directed there, financially and politically and not locally be it via individual effort or local government pressure.
This is a unique type of issue as, generally speaking, enviorment awareness is stronger with liberals yet "meddling" in other countries internal affairs (waste management in this case) is not.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti...
Plastic in the oceans comes from poorer countries where a huge population lives next to rivers or beaches and the waste management systems are inadequate. In fact, "90% of plastic polluting our oceans comes from just 10 rivers" [1]
Our efforts should be directed there, financially and politically and not locally be it via individual effort or local government pressure.
This is a unique type of issue as, generally speaking, enviorment awareness is stronger with liberals yet "meddling" in other countries internal affairs (waste management in this case) is not.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti...
"modern waste management", like sending containers full of unrecyclable garbage to East Europe or Asia?
That's FUD.
The percentage of our waste we send is quite small. Also the percentage of these countries' waste that is imported is small (far from being the main source of trash).
And also arguably, if they buy trash to recycle and then don't it's their responsibility to see it through and ours to make sure they do.
And also arguably, if they buy trash to recycle and then don't it's their responsibility to see it through and ours to make sure they do.
I believe the paper that lead to all of those articles blaming the plastics in the ocean on Asian rivers was one that was specifically looking looking at plastics carried by major river systems [1]. This was to complement a previous study on plastics from coastal strips [2]. The large Asian river systems have catchment areas that hold billions of people between them and would carry a substantial proportion of the worlds riverine pollution even if all other things were equal. The microplastics in the environment in the first world come from first world activities, including littering and driving (and hence producing car tyre fragments).
Low and middle income countries need better public services - including waste and waste water management - and enforcement of environmental laws. High income countries need less waste and enforcement of environmental laws.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15611.pdf
[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768.full https://jambeck.engr.uga.edu/landplasticinput "There is one high income country on the list, the United States, and while our waste management systems are well-designed and very effective, and the only mismanaged waste is from litter, we have a large coastal population and a large waste generation rate."
Low and middle income countries need better public services - including waste and waste water management - and enforcement of environmental laws. High income countries need less waste and enforcement of environmental laws.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15611.pdf
[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768.full https://jambeck.engr.uga.edu/landplasticinput "There is one high income country on the list, the United States, and while our waste management systems are well-designed and very effective, and the only mismanaged waste is from litter, we have a large coastal population and a large waste generation rate."
I believed this, too. But it’s apparently not true...
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067350
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067350
That doesn't follow. That post argues it's actually us because we export plastics to China for recycling.
But China shut that down and we haven't had a surge of western plastics in the oceans. They just go to landfills instead.
Much plastic also goes in garbage, not recycling. This doesn't end in the oceans.
I wish we'd move our supply chain off plastics for most things. But, the post you linked to isn't very persuasive on ocean plastic.
But China shut that down and we haven't had a surge of western plastics in the oceans. They just go to landfills instead.
Much plastic also goes in garbage, not recycling. This doesn't end in the oceans.
I wish we'd move our supply chain off plastics for most things. But, the post you linked to isn't very persuasive on ocean plastic.
I don't think we've had long enough to since China changed its waste acceptance standards to be sure of the long-term ramifications.
My grandfather says crazy stuff like "oh, but we will be in the grave long before this turns into a problem" whenever topics like this emerge at the dinner table.
There is a little psychopath in each one of us.
There is a little psychopath in each one of us.
The Earth is antifragile. Studies are often hyperbolized and exaggerated. There's no evidence of some world wide decline in earthworm population.
Local populations can be impacted, but far more damaging is tilling and the commercial farm practices: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508095152.h...
Local populations can be impacted, but far more damaging is tilling and the commercial farm practices: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508095152.h...
Why don't you respond with 'you will, I won't' and see what sort of response you get? While I don't want to promote disharmony at the dinner table, your grandfather's gloom at his looming mortality is no excuse for endorsing the diminution of your life expectancy. That said, such frankness might well result in him allocating any legacy away from you in his will.
This is anecdotal, but your grandfather's attitude is entirely consistent with the pattern of people generally giving less of a fuck as they age, starting around their 50s or 60s.
Which is a problem as people are wasting 50 years of their life giving fucks all the time.
unfortunately that's not psychopathy, it's just humanity
I’m always skeptical, was the original study a realistic amount of micro plastics in the next 20 years or is it a totally artificial amount for funding and headlines?
In a BBC interview, one of the researchers said that the concentration was quite high, like what you'd find in a contaminated landfill site. I think the research is just starting though, and now that they have an interesting result for high concentrations, they'll start looking at lower ones. So we don't know yet what effect different levels have.
How much of the plastic were they exposed to -- the kind of amount you'd find on a farm, or some kind of experimental super-plastic-dirt?
[deleted]
[deleted]
The consumer end source of the problem comes from tires and the use of synthetic fabrics. As far as I know there is no effort at all to do anything about tires (using regular vulcanized rubber presumably would help). Synthetic fabrics, you actually can do something about. Stop buying them; your spandex pants are destroying the environment.
The other sources are pellets and coatings used industrially.
https://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IUCN-rep...