[HN Gopher] Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time
___________________________________________________________________
Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time
Author : smusamashah
Score : 152 points
Date : 2022-03-26 10:16 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| refurb wrote:
| Considering we've been implanting plastic parts (joints, heart
| valves, Central lines) and using plastic IV lines, syringes, IV
| bags, etc, all of which need to go through safety trials, I'm not
| too concerned that there is some massive unseen safety risk here.
|
| If it wasn't plastics it would likely be glass. And there are
| millions of acre of fine powdered glass all over the world that
| we breath in (sand).
| giantg2 wrote:
| I hope you're not breathing it in with any measureable amount.
| That can cause silicosis.
| refurb wrote:
| Ever go to the beach? You're breathing in sand.
|
| The dose makes the poison.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That's why I said measurable. The type of sand at the beach
| generally has a composition that doesn't pose a risk
| because there isn't enough of the fine particles to be
| inhaled. There's no measurable amount as it's too low. If
| it were measurable, that would be a problem as silicosis
| damage is cumulative (mall doses over a lifetime).
| scotty79 wrote:
| It is perfectly measurable. When you are approaching this
| with the precision that folks looking for micro-plastics
| do to get published.
|
| I believe there are orders of magnitude between something
| like that being measurable and causing any symptoms that
| would make it worth considering from medical point of
| view.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Sources?
| scotty79 wrote:
| There's nothing specific about it being plastic.
| Detection methods are the same.
|
| https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/33/2/mzab091/6295
| 061
|
| "Any glass participles smaller than 20 um were marked by
| the examiner as 'sandy particles' and not precisely
| measured."
|
| People don't research that subject a lot because it's
| known that small 'sandy particles' in the body are not
| causing problems. But that doesn't mean they are
| immeasurable.
| giantg2 wrote:
| So nothing about particles on the beach, silicosis, and
| your claim that we inhale them at a measurable rate?
| scotty79 wrote:
| Yes. Because finding 'sandy particles' in the body is
| common and expected to the point that nobody cares about
| them if you don't have any symptoms.
| amatic wrote:
| That hope that is true. All of this plastic might just be inert
| and not cause any damage. Who knows how long have people been
| having microplastics in their bloodstream. Decades? It is just
| that no one tested for it.
| svnt wrote:
| The "better detection" excuse is always there. The major
| source of microplastics is probably clothes dryers according
| to one recent study. That means you can associate its risk to
| probably clothes dryers, microfiber cloths, and plastics in
| clothing. Adoption of those is going to have accelerated
| dramatically in the last 30 years or so.
| perfecthjrjth wrote:
| When I was growing up, everything was glass: glass bottles for
| tablets, etc. Then plastic took over. Every village/town in the
| third world is littered with so much plastic without proper
| disposal--ending up in local creeks, subsequently in oceans in
| the rainy season.
| psacawa wrote:
| I'm constantly worried that despite the increased understanding
| we have relative to past generations, the increasing scope of our
| technological interventions means that global catastrophes seem
| more likely to occur relative to the past. [0]
|
| Look at the convulsions we need to go through to address climate
| change politically, and realize that it is only one of maybe a
| thousand potential grave threats, each of which pits collective
| well-being against technological/monetary interests. Some may
| even struggle to be recognized as a threat (antibiotic overuse,
| microplastics).
|
| It's a good time to be doomer.
|
| [0] https://sacawa.net/documents/test.pdf
| giantg2 wrote:
| "which pits collective well-being against
| technological/monetary interests."
|
| Yeah tech/money interests are part of it. I think the bigger
| part is lifestyle change. Most of the things that we would need
| to change have no better alternatives that can also support the
| current lifestyle. People are resistant to changing their
| personal actions.
|
| Some of it is entirely unknown too. We can't switch to electric
| vehicles overnight, and EVs have environmental costs too. How
| do we solve that? And what does a world without plastics look
| like?
| snek_case wrote:
| > EVs have environmental costs too. How do we solve that?
|
| We incrementally get better at it. For one thing, it should
| be possible to power any mining, manufacturing or recycling
| process with electricity.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If we want tackle those, then we also have to look at trade
| policies. We've shipped most of the primary and secondary
| industries to developing nations, where these concerns are
| largely ignored. Some politicians talk a big environmental
| game, but they won't dare touch on this subject. It's a
| shell game.
| drusenko wrote:
| Let's not get defeatist and give up. Europe is
| implementing a carbon border adjustment, and the U.S. is
| discussing this as well. If implemented correctly this
| should reduce the financial incentive to offshore
| emissions and create one for other countries to reduce
| their own.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "and the U.S. is discussing this as well."
|
| I haven't heard that. Do you have a link?
| TrispusAttucks wrote:
| The taller they are the harder they fall. Our global society is
| so very tall.
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| My biggest concern is nuclear war. The death it would unleash
| would make the COVID pandemic seem like an afternoon picnic,
| and it would all happen in a frighteningly short period of
| time. 4pm war starts. 5pm most of the people you know are dead.
| This comes, far as I'm concerned, close to the end of the
| world, and shouldn't be impossible, yet it isn't by a long
| shot.
|
| My second biggest concern is the rapid loss of natural habitats
| and the concomitant loss of biodiversity.
| jackling wrote:
| Haven't looked into what a nuclear war would look like, but
| would non-Nato, non-nuclear weapon holding counties be
| affected that fast? Suppose I lived in Niger, would most
| people I know be dead that fast? Would countries just hit any
| ally to the opposition immediately? I understand that the
| entire world will be affected and eventually the effects will
| be felt.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > I'm constantly worried
|
| That is itself the catastrophe.
|
| The enlightenment was supposed to chase away the shadows. But
| as the radius of the light of science and technology expands so
| does the circumference of the darkness beyond.
|
| We know more than ever how vulnerable we are. We know of many
| more horrible ways to die. We see ever more beautiful possible
| futures that may never be reached. It is the age old cost of
| knowledge since Eden. [1]
|
| But take hope, the alternative is ignorance and total darkness.
| And there are worse things than monsters in the shadows. A
| greater concern is our own death-drive toward Thanatos - in
| that we _know_ what we are doing, throw caution to the wind,
| mock as naysayers and Cassandras anyone who points out the
| obvious trajectories into tragedy and blindly try to "push
| through" as if technology were a separate force in itself,
| rather than an extension of our being.
|
| Humane technology (technological humanism) is the only
| antidote, but that requires putting people before profit, and
| saying that comes at a cost here. [2]
|
| [1] I'm just channeling Mumford here
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30799567
| SpodGaju wrote:
| Wonderful to see my own sentiment reflected here.
|
| Let me add, that to embrace the darkness, instead of pushing
| it away, is where we will find answers. I wish more people
| could see how frenetic knowledge makes them. I found
| forgetting helps me the most.
|
| And I agree with your [2].
| dcsommer wrote:
| What alternatives to Technological Humanism are not
| antidotes? It sounds like you consider the anxiety of the age
| a/the major problem (I agree), but is there really only _one_
| solution? It seems like there are other possibilities worth
| discussion.
| AQuantized wrote:
| The current ability to produce so much food in the developed
| world using modern fertilizer and methods, despite their
| disadvantages, means the most common threat that challenged our
| ancestors (famine) is barely present in many countries where it
| was a continual threat since civilization developed. Only
| global warming and nuclear war pose a similar threat, and only
| the former is worse now than it has been in the past, even
| given present circumstance.
| abathur wrote:
| I think it would be fitting if microplastics manage to yank our
| chain before obviously-dangerous things like nukes or
| antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
| giantg2 wrote:
| There's a good chance they already are, but we just haven't
| made the connection, because who do we have as a control
| group? Nobody.
| pibechorro wrote:
| I would argue that doomer is a waste of time. Time to be a
| prepper and realign our relationship to the planet. We could go
| on and on about climate doom, etc, but the most productive
| thing we can do is expect change, not apocalypse, and adjust.
|
| Lead by example. Everyone reading this _can_ go full wind and
| solar. Can stop driving or drastically cut it down (move
| closer, use public transport, work remote, etc). We can all
| grow food in our backyards, or living room, we can all
| participate in local garden coops etc. We can all refuse to
| take part in wars, buying new cell phones every year, wearing
| synthetic fibers that lead to microplastics, etc.
|
| If we, the ones who know and care dont take action today, by
| example, who will?
|
| Que excuses in 1, 2, 3...
| SpodGaju wrote:
| "Lead by example."
|
| Yes. Can you tell me more about your set up and what you do
| to minimize your foot print and consumption?
|
| I live in a minivan on $2600 per month and still manage to
| save money. But I still. feel like I am not doing enough. I
| would like to get rid of my van altogether one day and just
| have all my belongings in a modified push cart. Kinda of like
| this guy but without the goats.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U54HRmglYEA
|
| EDIT: I see that people might be thinking that I said this
| all sarcastically because of the down votes. But what I said
| is all true. That is how I live right now. And yes, I feel
| like I am not doing enough because I appreciate the calamity
| that our actions are causing.
| carapace wrote:
| I love that goat guy, he's such an inspiration. I know most
| people wouldn't want to live that way, and that's okay, but
| I can only imagine the satisfaction and fulfillment he must
| feel.
|
| FWIW, we can build lifestyles that are ecologically
| harmonious and still have a high standard of living. One
| example (from the 1970's) is Village Homes in Davis CA,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes It's nicer than
| most suburbs, and it grows food, collects rainwater, etc.
|
| Here's a group that have a tried-and-true system for
| ecologically harmonious farming:
| http://growbiointensive.org/grow_main.html Their system
| uses about 5000 square feet per person, provides a
| nutritionally complete diet, and increases topsoil volume
| and fertility over time.
|
| Here's a fellow with a complete manual for small-scale
| alcohol fuel production integrated into (Permaculture)
| organic farms. http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277 You can
| grow your own carbon-neutral fuel, convert ICE cars and
| other engines to run on it, and stop using fossil fuel, w/o
| expensive and hard-to-dispose of batteries. Alcohol exhaust
| is non-toxic. You can make it out of almost anything with
| starch or sugar in it. (Old donut dough, bakery scraps,
| food waste, etc.) The atoms in the fuel come from air and
| water, so you are basically exporting stored sunlight from
| your farm and keeping all the nutrients and minerals and
| such. The leftovers from making alcohol can be fed to
| livestock (yeast, eh? It's protein. The leftovers are a
| better feed than the initial, uh, stuff!)
| SpodGaju wrote:
| And regarding excuses. Maybe we should be able to bring up
| the road blocks and not call them excuses?
|
| Like this in regards to solar that just popped up on my radar
| today?
|
| https://www.wral.com/rooftop-solar-rate-changes-could-
| cast-l...
|
| " NC Capitol NC Capitol Rooftop solar rate changes could cast
| long shadow over industry, climate change Tags: solar, NC
| Utilities Commission, utility bills, NCCapitol, Duke Energy,
| house & home Posted March 25, 2022 6:22 p.m. EDT Updated
| March 26, 2022 8:41 a.m. EDT
|
| By Laura Leslie, WRAL Capitol Bureau Chief
|
| Raleigh homeowners Gary and Jane Smith are very concerned
| about climate change. They added a solar array in 2019 to
| help reduce their carbon footprint.
|
| "There was a tax credit and a rebate from Duke, and it began
| to make financial sense to put the solar panels on," Gary
| Smith said.
|
| The panels frequently make more energy than the Smiths need.
| Duke buys it back at full retail price. It's called net
| metering.
|
| But state law says that has to change by 2027.
|
| "The worst case scenario that we could potentially walk into
| is a complete erosion of this concept called net metering,"
| said Matt Abele with the NC Sustainable Energy Association
| (NCSEA). "Obviously, we would love to continue down the path
| of net metering as it currently exists here in North
| Carolina. But unfortunately, that's just not the reality of
| how it's playing out."
|
| NCSEA is one of the groups that negotiated the deal with Duke
| Energy late last year. It will reduce what the utility pays
| for rooftop solar power during most daylight hours. And it
| will add a minimum bill for homeowners with solar panels."
|
| So while we try to change individually, the corporations will
| see a chance to profit. Duke Energy had a 12% net profit
| margin with a gross profit of $4.4 Billion in December 2021.
|
| I would say voicing your opinion that these utility companies
| should publicly owned would be a good start.
| anamax wrote:
| Full net metering is asking folks without solar to
| subsidize your "batteries", namely the power-grid.
|
| Your power bill is more than just generation costs. It's
| also distribution AND providing power 24/7, which household
| solar (without storage) does NOT do.
|
| Suppose that your power company charges $0.50/KwH at peak
| time. They pay less than $0.50/KwH to other power
| generators, so why should they pay that to someone with
| rooftop solar?
|
| Note that solar actually doesn't line up with demand all
| that well. (Most panels are oriented for maximum power
| production, which peaks too early in the day.)
| SpodGaju wrote:
| sokoloff wrote:
| If net metering is available to me, I'd orient them for
| maximum energy (what you called power) production as
| well.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| In California, we have the NEM 3.0 fight https://pv-
| magazine-usa.com/2022/02/04/california-nem-3-0-de...
|
| In other states (look up what happened in Nevada), rules
| have been changed that massively rebalance the economy in
| favor of not getting rooftop solar.
|
| I agree with some of the other comments here about
| renewables sometimes causing harm through their production
| / lifecycle. Our best bet is the first "R": Reduce.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > Duke Energy had a 12% net profit margin with a gross
| profit of $4.4 Billion in December 2021.
|
| Having previously invested in Duke Energy (but not
| currently directly invested in them), that gross profit
| figure seemed dramatically wrong. Because it is.
|
| For the _quarter ending_ (not the month of) Dec 2021, Duke
| Energy had a gross revenue of $6.2B, with a cost of revenue
| of $3.6B, for a gross profit (for the quarter) of $2.7B
| (figures are correct but seem incorrect due to rounding).
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DUK/financials/
| DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
| Gross profit isn't even a useful metric here. SpodGaju is
| just cherry picking a number that's high to make it sound
| outrageous. SpodGaju is ignoring all the infratructure
| (and related costs) needed for reliable electricity.
| SpodGaju wrote:
| scotty79 wrote:
| Not sure if you want to go where honest approach to this
| takes you.
|
| To make as little impact as possible you should use as little
| resources as possible, so you should always choose cheapest,
| most artificial, mass produced versions of everything,
| including food, never travel, work as little as possible and
| only remotely. Basically be poor or at least act poor in
| every aspect of your life. Wear cheapest clothes and don't
| buy a new pair until they literally fall apart to the point
| that parts of you are sticking out that are illegal to stick
| out.
|
| You might say that it's not a healthy way to live. That's
| even better, the sooner you die, the less resources you'll
| use. Don't breed of course.
|
| If you are afraid you might have trouble sticking to your
| resolutions, then donate all of your wealth to something
| environmental and just move out of US into some poor country.
| It will do the bulk of your impact saving for you.
| drusenko wrote:
| This might be accurate today, but it ignores our ability to
| make technological progress to make our current activities
| low or no impact.
|
| Further, this line of thinking - that you need to sacrifice
| your lifestyle in order to save the planet - is IMO one of
| if not the major reason we haven't made progress on
| addressing climate change to date. Plainly put, people tend
| to be short term selfish, even often at the expense of
| their own long term interests, and they tend to not want to
| change their behavior / habits.
|
| We should instead focus on the technological progress that
| we need to make in order to be able to not only maintain
| our current lifestyles but possibly have them be better (eg
| a Tesla is a better car, a heat pump is more comfortable
| than a furnace, an induction stove boils water faster and
| has more precise control, etc). To be clear, most of this
| isn't technological invention it's implementation - a lot
| and a lot of implementation.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I don't think we can wait on technological magic bullet
| to deus ex machina save us from disaster.
|
| Economy got us into this mess. Economy needs to get us
| out.
|
| Climate change would be already solved if somebody
| figured out how the richest could earn more money when
| the energy is more expensive rather than when it is
| cheaper.
|
| Billionaires would singlehandedly legislate all the
| necessary laws that would make energy as expensive as it
| really is to our planet. An our livestyles would change
| against our selfish preference. You wouldn't fly abroad
| for vacation if it costed more than your annual salary.
|
| People in the developed world would need to be much
| poorer in relative terms to save the planet from global
| warming.
|
| Tradeable right for emitting CO2 are great mechanism,
| because they let rich get richer by driving up the price
| of CO2 and the high price changes behaviors of energy
| consumers, producers and whole economy.
| svnt wrote:
| Your classism is a big part of the problem.
|
| What you describe is called asceticism, it has a long and
| storied history with significant contributions to the long-
| term cultural stability of humankind, and American culture
| basically just hasn't been around long enough to develop it
| yet.
| scotty79 wrote:
| > ... with significant contributions to the long-term
| cultural stability of humankind
|
| I don't think that's true. Leitmotif of history of
| humankind is the exploitation of available resources to
| the boundaries of reason and beyond.
| milansm wrote:
| This is exactly what I'll try to change in next 5 years. Have
| a sustainable baseline: my own food (or at least 50% of it,
| other 50% locally grown within ~10km) and energy independent
| (for heating and cooking), and treat everything else as a
| luxury that can perish any time now. I don't want to give up
| my remote work, car and (occasional) luxury vacation, but
| would love to be able to sustain myself without it. Current
| life-style (apartment, frequent food orders, total dependency
| on the power grid) is a ticking time bomb (which might not go
| off in my lifetime) and feels like all-or-nothing gamble.
| shafyy wrote:
| Regarding food: What you eat is significantly more
| important than where it comes from (there are a few
| exceptions). Not eating meat and dairy is the biggest
| impact you can have food-wise. Getting your potatoes from
| within 10km or 1000km doesn't really matter in regards to
| emissions. In fact, depending on where you live, locally
| grown food can have a bigger environmental impact than non-
| local food (due to artifical light, fertilizers,
| greenhouses, etc.)
|
| Source: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-
| of-food#whe...
| SpodGaju wrote:
| [1] "I don't want to give up my remote work, car and
| (occasional) luxury vacation,"
|
| [2] "Current life-style (apartment, frequent food orders,
| total dependency on the power grid) is a ticking time bomb
| (which might not go off in my lifetime) and feels like all-
| or-nothing gamble."
|
| To be honest you are not acting like you really believe [2]
| in the least bit because of your statement in [1].
|
| But you are not alone, all this is only expressed as some
| superficial guilt for most people. "Yeah, I know my kids
| and relatives will all suffer, but man I really love my car
| and my vacations."
|
| I am not judging you one bit, but just asking you to take
| responsibility.
| collegeburner wrote:
| This is ridiculous. You are expecting people to take
| aassive downgrade in standard of living. I spend years
| working to make more money than everybody so I can live
| better, not worse. And you are wrong, my kids will live
| much better as well, because I will pass on that money.
| svnt wrote:
| You need a global frame of reference to solve a global
| problem. You can get one on your own terms, or wait and
| be domesticated by legislation.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Believe it or not, most Americans won't vote to
| substantially reduce their own standard of living. Maybe
| other people's, but not theirs.
|
| > be domesticated
|
| Fuck that. That's possibly the most condescending and
| demeaning way you could have phrased it. But I'm assuming
| you knew that and did it intentionally.
| criddell wrote:
| Legislation? That seems like a long shot to me,
| especially in the US. I just can't see voters asking for
| that legislation anytime soon.
| sjmm1989 wrote:
| You seem to have 'standard' and 'quality' conflated in
| regards to 'living'.
|
| Standards of living are always increasing because of
| people's incorrect belief that everyone must live like a
| king.
|
| Quality of living or life as it were, is more about
| making sure that whatever standard you live at is
| providing the best quality it can offer for that life.
|
| You are seeking a higher 'quality' of life, through
| increasing your standard of living. This WILL result in a
| higher quality of life, provided you have all the
| necessary funds to support it. Absolutely. BUT, it comes
| at costs that you and others will not always see or
| understand immediately or even as fast as might be
| preferred on even slower scales.
|
| Meanwhile, if you instead just sought a higher quality of
| life only, you would be likely be fine with some things
| being at a slightly lower standard. Such as using transit
| more often, instead of driving everywhere. You don't have
| to not own a vehicle; you just have to not drive it
| needlessly. Make sense?
|
| Yes, I realize that reduces the convenience factor of the
| vehicle, and yes I realize that transit is often
| terrible... but the latter is often because it has to
| compete with the former. Not just in regards to road
| space, but also personal space. So I admit that there are
| things that need to be fixed on that side as well.
| Separate cabins within transit train systems would be a
| good start I think.
|
| Either or, the fact remains that many of us are able to
| find ways to get around in society and do things that you
| do as well. We just don't pollute as much. We live just
| as well in some ways, maybe not as well in others. But
| overall we have a roof over our heads, food in our
| bellies, and half decent clothes at best covering us up.
| (Disregarding the homeless problem of course... 1 problem
| at a time...)
|
| So anyways, the main point remains. Quality of life is
| more important than whatever standard of living you think
| you prefer to live at; because ultimately if your
| standard of living isn't giving you the quality you seek,
| then it's not worth it.
| collegeburner wrote:
| So you are saying maximize quality of life at a given
| standard of living? Fine, but the maximum quality of life
| at a higher standard is greater than the maximum quality
| of life at a lower standard. Are you disputing that?
| There's also that achieving maximum quality of life at a
| given standard is hard, increasing standard of living can
| actually be easier.
| SpodGaju wrote:
| milansm wrote:
| I probably wasn't clear enough. I don't feel guilty
| because of my life style, I feel like I'm in a trap. What
| would happen with me and my family if power grid goes
| down for a week? What about a month?
|
| The point is, we can probably have best of both worlds if
| we accept lifestyle change (IMO simple life close to
| nature is an improvement, not degradation) where we enjoy
| the benefits of technology, but not being dependent on
| it.
|
| Think living in a village, spending very little, eating
| non processed, locally grown food, working remotely,
| driving a car maybe a couple of times per month to visit
| friends and do some shopping and that's it.
|
| I'd like to do that not because I feel responsible for
| climate change, inequality or whatever, but for personal
| security, longevity, and quality of life reasons.
|
| Edit: side effects of this lifestyle are less co2, less
| pollution, resilient local economy and much more.
| para_parolu wrote:
| By any chance do you live in California or US?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| While I certainly agree that everything you've said about
| what an individual can do is true, I disagree that in the
| grand scheme of things that it will make any difference at
| global scale.
|
| Telling people to change their lifestyle to fight climate
| change is the environmental equivalent of telling people to
| diet and exercise to lose weight. On one hand, it's obviously
| true, but on the other hand we have decades and decades of
| proof that requiring individual willpower to make societal-
| wide change is a failed proposition.
|
| Large scale change is only possible with government and
| technological advancement, e.g. electric vehicle adoption is
| in some ways accelerating _faster_ than expected, because as
| battery prices have come down, people have realized that
| electric vehicles are better in nearly every way. Better
| storage technologies are also making large-scale renewable
| energy sources more feasible.
|
| So yes, it's a good idea to drive less and put solar panels
| on your roof, but let's not pretend that the requisite number
| of people will "follow your example" if it's too onerous for
| them to do so.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| That all sounds accurate enough. I would say you won't get
| PV on everyone's roofs without some major subsidies and/or
| tax-breaks; or, I suppose, if natural gas prices increased
| enormously... But any or all of those could come about,
| without even a huge amount of political consensus, I would
| think. I was lucky enough to buy a new home that the
| builders had added solar to, so it was just part of the
| mortgage for me, but cost of retrofitting is still not
| negligible (even though the hardware is cheaper all the
| time, the labor isn't)
| Yoric wrote:
| I agree with most of your points.
|
| Please research solar and wind before switching, though.
| Until we have solved the problem of energy storage, in many
| cases, solar and wind actually tend to increase pollution,
| because they both rely upon polluting raw materials for both
| themselves and their batteries _and_ need backup power, which
| to this day means gas.
|
| That is unless you find yourself with a good problem set in
| which e.g. you only need energy while the sun is out (AC in
| the summer, maybe, or perhaps warming up water for your early
| evening shower?) or while there is wind (no example from the
| top of my head, but I'm sure there are good ones).
| drusenko wrote:
| Can you tell me more about why you are equating the mining
| of metals for solar/batteries with climate changing GHGs -
| eg why are they both equally as bad? I'm not disagreeing
| with you, I am genuinely curious to hear your perspective.
|
| I do generally agree with you on your second point that it
| might not be the most productive action to take - for the
| time being it would probably be better for most people to
| focus on electrifying their homes paired with switching
| over to 100% clean energy (many utilities allow you to
| choose this option).
| svnt wrote:
| This argument is total oil company propaganda. Raw
| materials do not pollute. Their mining and manufacture
| does, but that again is _because of oil consumption_ in an
| outdated manufacturing chain. Burning oil produces CO2. It
| is chemically impossible to avoid this. Manufacturing
| silicon and harvesting lithium do not produce CO2, and
| these processes can be cleaned up.
| DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
| So you are agreeing with Yoric then? Doubling up in
| energy infrastructure increases mining and manufacturing,
| which then increases pollution. But then you say it's
| propaganda?
| ByteJockey wrote:
| You seem to be using "pollute" as a synonym for
| "releasing CO2", while Yoric does not.
|
| I think the two of you are talking past each other.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Concrete production requires CO2 from energy but also
| releases CO2 from the chemical processes. (Concrete is
| heavily used in wind energy production systems.)
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > Until we have solved the problem of energy storage
|
| We have. Pumped hydro and batteries (iron flow is
| successfully being deployed commercially, but also lithium
| ion; Li-Ion prices continue to drop 6-12% per year.)
|
| > because they both rely upon polluting raw materials for
| both themselves and their batteries and need backup power,
| which to this day means gas.
|
| No.
|
| https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-
| renewable-e...
|
| > To pick a much tougher case, the "dark doldrums" of
| European winters are often claimed to need many months of
| battery storage for an all-renewable electrical grid. Yet
| top German and Belgian grid operators find Europe would
| need only one to two weeks of renewably derived backup
| fuel, providing just 6 percent of winter output -- not a
| huge challenge.
|
| > The bottom line is simple. Electrical grids can deal with
| much larger fractions of renewable energy at zero or modest
| cost, and this has been known for quite a while. Some
| European countries with little or no hydropower already get
| about half to three-fourths of their electricity from
| renewables with grid reliability better than in the U.S. It
| is time to get past the myths.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/my
| t...
|
| > The essence of the wind sceptics' case is that a scaling
| up in wind power will have to be "backed up" by massive
| investment in gas-fired open cycle turbine (OCGT) plants,
| which are cheap to build but considerably less efficient
| than the combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plants
| which deliver the vast majority of the UK's gas-fired
| electricity supply.
|
| > Their arguments are not borne out by current statistics,
| however. If the sceptics were right, the recent windy
| conditions would have seen considerable use of less-
| efficient OCGT as wind input to the grid ramped up and
| down. In actual fact, during the entire June-September
| period, OCGTs and equally dirty oil-fired stations produced
| less than one hundredth of one percent of all UK
| electricity. In total they operated for a grand total of
| just nine half hour periods in the first 19 days of the
| month - and these periods had nothing to do with changing
| windspeeds.
|
| Further references:
|
| https://usa.oceana.org/renewable-energy-myth-vs-fact/
|
| https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf
|
| Stick to writing web browsers.
| throwoutway wrote:
| How do we know the plastics didn't come from the method they took
| the sample? Whenever I have given a blood sample, plastic tubing
| was used.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| what? They draw blood with needles and use little glass
| thingies to hold it. They aren't going to draw a liter of blood
| to check it for plastic, they just need a small sample. There
| might be some plastic involved somewhere but they aren't stupid
| enough to not control that. I mean there scientists. If you
| thought of it they thought of that and a dozen more things to
| be careful about.
| throwoutway wrote:
| I was wrong sorry. I was thinking of a different medical
| experience with lots of tubes I had, and donating blood. I
| guess I havent done just a tube & glass thingy
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Unfortunately the vampires draw 3 or 4 test tubes of it
| every year from me for my annual checkup. At least my
| doctor is thorough with the tests :)
| throwaway290 wrote:
| This study found infant bodies are exposed to more microplastics
| per kilo of body weight than adults (NY):
| https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559.
| decasteve wrote:
| Clothing is mostly plastic fibre nowadays. Upholstery fibres too.
| Walls are painted with acrylic paint. Flooring is often made of
| various plastics. I assume the dust in our homes that we breathe
| in contains relatively a lot of plastic. Containers for food are
| almost entirely plastic.
|
| I'm interested in these sorts of studies on the topic.
| funstuff007 wrote:
| > Clothing is mostly plastic fibre nowadays.
|
| I think that's true primarily for athleisure. That being said,
| it's a very large segment of the market. I was recently in
| Banana Republic and it was quite hard to find a pair of pants
| one would want to wear outside of the house.
|
| Some what related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU55auqDD28
| chrismeller wrote:
| Which annoys me as well... yoga pants aren't meant to be
| normal attire.
| SpodGaju wrote:
| "I think that's true primarily for athleisure."
|
| It is not. Go into any Walmart (and I bring up Walmart
| because that is where most people shop who are just going
| about their daily lives) and try to find clothing with no
| petroleum based material in it.
|
| And then try to look on Amazon. Most of the clothing sold
| there you cannot even find the material list for the product.
| It will say "cotton" but it is usually only the major
| material, not 100% cotton.
|
| Here is a good example: https://www.amazon.com/Fruit-Loom-
| Cotton-100-Sleeve/dp/B001C...
|
| 100% cotton preshrunk jersey but...????? Ash is 98/2
| cotton/poly Athletic Heather is 90/10 cotton/poly Black
| Heather, Neon Green, Neon Pink, Safety (Green, Orange) -
| 50/50 cotton/poly
|
| And then it's Amazon, so you have shipping and every other
| climate destroying feature of that distribution system.
| moonchrome wrote:
| >clothing with no petroleum based material in it.
|
| That's a far cry from the claim "Clothing is mostly plastic
| fibre". Having 5%-20% polyester is not the same as being
| "mostly plastic".
| pessimizer wrote:
| The person you're replying to said that clothing
| _marketed as cotton_ is 5-20% polyester.
| chrismeller wrote:
| I'm sorry, but where is it mostly plastic? Sure I can buy a
| completely polyester T-shirt, but that doesn't mean it's
| _mostly_ plastic.
|
| And for the record, in the EU, it lists the contents of
| shell/lining differently for things like coats. If you're
| buying anything with elastic it's obvious where the 5% of non-
| natural materials are, even if it's not broken out separately.
|
| Plastic containers are also increasingly non-existent here.
| Vegeware has been used here for years for takeout, and most
| people use glass containers at home.
|
| Ironically a company just started that sells reusable plastic
| containers to restaurants and you pay a EUR1 deposit on each
| one, which you can then return to some collection point just
| like your recycling. Seems stupid to me, given the climate
| impact of producing the plastic (and the inevitable amount of
| waste involved) and then transporting it to a collection point,
| but whatever.
| amelius wrote:
| They should test the blood of, say, Amish people for
| comparison.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| I can't find the quote now but that is actually one of the
| issues with PFAS studies. They couldn't find people they
| could use as a control group.
|
| Literally everyone has it in their body, even in very remote
| regions.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Sure, why would we not? It is widely used in consumer
| products. We cook our food in Teflon.
|
| But I'm very far from convinced that PFOA will turn out to
| be any health risk at all, at the levels the general
| population is exposed to.
|
| Even for the mid-Ohio valley cohorts, where you have tens
| of thousands of people who had occupational exposure over
| decades at up to 1000x the dose any of us will receive, it
| has been very challenging to clearly demonstrate any
| adverse health effects.
|
| In the end, we are talking about an extremely inert
| chemical substance. If it doesn't react with anything, it's
| hard to see how it should cause significant harm.
| elil17 wrote:
| The EPA has put out a health advisory about PFOA and
| PFOS:
|
| > EPA's health advisories are based on the best available
| peer-reviewed studies of the effects of PFOA and PFOS on
| laboratory animals (rats and mice) and were also informed
| by epidemiological studies of human populations that have
| been exposed to perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). These
| studies indicate that exposure to PFOA and PFOS over
| certain levels may result in adverse health effects,
| including developmental effects to fetuses during
| pregnancy or to breastfed infants (e.g., low birth
| weight, accelerated puberty, skeletal variations), cancer
| (e.g., testicular, kidney), liver effects (e.g., tissue
| damage), immune effects (e.g., antibody production and
| immunity), thyroid effects and other effects (e.g.,
| cholesterol changes).
|
| https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-
| water/drinking...
|
| I'm no chemist but this seems like there's at least a
| good bit of scientific evidence that supports the idea
| that some PFAS are dangerous.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I've been using ceramic based everything in my kitchen
| for a while. I honestly don't know anyone who uses those
| old nonstick teflon pots, pans, skillets anymore. Just
| ceramic coated and cast iron like me.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Most people don't realize that many waterproofing
| coatings in jackets, boots and even waterproof makeup
| have PFAS's.
|
| Same goes for lubricants, from bicycle gears to door
| hinges to any manufactured good with moving parts.
|
| Just about anything in modern industry will have, by now,
| already contaminated you with PFAS.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| Or Otzi.
| Proven wrote:
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Surprises me that the NIH isn't doing more to investigate this.
| Maybe it will turn out that they're basically inert and won't do
| much but that's not something I want to cross my finger and hope
| about.
| Nbox9 wrote:
| Plastic is an oil (by)product and the oil industry is one of
| the top three lobbies in the US. We cannot count on public
| institutions to seriously address this issue.
| steve76 wrote:
| nargella wrote:
| Toothpaste blows my mind. It's literally plastic in some baking
| soda type substance. Extra whitening? Larger plastic.
| Yoric wrote:
| Is that the case of powder toothpaste, too?
| Aurelius3 wrote:
| Source on this? I heard they banned microbeads in toothpaste,
| does this remove all plastics or is there more?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| no it's not, it's fluoride and some soapy binders like SLS and
| ceramics or baking soda for whitening/cleaning. I suppose some
| of the tube might break off and form these microplastics,
| however I don't know too many people swallowing their
| toothpaste leftovers. It's a bad idea as you shouldn't ingest
| that much fluoride, which is much more highly concentrated than
| fluroide in water. If you're talking about microbeads then
| those were outlawed in toothpaste/cosmetics/etc in 2016, which
| went in effect in 2017.
| b215826 wrote:
| There are toothpastes that contain plastic microbeads [1][2]
| and an FDA ban (for < 5mm size beads) came in effect only in
| 2015. Some toothpastes also have polyethele "specks" to
| provide color [3],
|
| [1]: https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/brushing-and-
| floss...
|
| [2]: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05
| /microbeads-exfoliators-plastic-face-scrub-toothpaste/
|
| [3]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gum-balls/
| burlesona wrote:
| Source? Wikipedia has pages on the various ingredients, which
| are a lot more complex than I realized, but I'm not seeing
| plastics...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothpaste
| dwighttk wrote:
| >"This is proof that we have plastics in our body--and we
| shouldn't,"
|
| Why shouldn't we?
| jsnodlin wrote:
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34185251/
|
| > Whilst definitive evidence linking microplastic consumption
| to human health is currently lacking, results from correlative
| studies in people exposed to high concentrations of
| microplastics, model animal and cell culture experiments,
| suggest that effects of microplastics could include provoking
| immune and stress responses and inducing reproductive and
| developmental toxicity. Further research is required to explore
| the potential implications of this recent contaminant in our
| environment in more rigorous clinical studies.
|
| We need more studies but the current signs are not good.
| guilhas wrote:
| Why only now? Were the subjects covid vaccinated?
|
| Doesn't mRNA vaccines contain polymers?
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-021-01001-3
|
| I think that is a relevant question now for many scientific
| studies now since a large part of the population has been
| vaccinated in some places and age groups
|
| Direct reference, only a small vaccine reference
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...
| [deleted]
| b215826 wrote:
| But wasn't MPs detected in human placenta before? [1]
|
| > _In total, 12 microplastic fragments (ranging from 5 to 10 mm
| in size), with spheric or irregular shape were found in 4
| placentas (5 in the fetal side, 4 in the maternal side and 3 in
| the chorioamniotic membranes); all microplastics particles were
| characterized in terms of morphology and chemical composition.
| All of them were pigmented; three were identified as stained
| polypropylene a thermoplastic polymer, while for the other nine
| it was possible to identify only the pigments, which were all
| used for man-made coatings, paints, adhesives, plasters, finger
| paints, polymers and cosmetics and personal care products._
|
| [1]: https://files.catbox.moe/023yyt.pdf
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-26 23:02 UTC)