Microplastics in the sea

[Hardhead]

And -- if anyone thinks this issue of concern perhaps has some merit, and some other environmental concerns do not -- let's see how this one is portrayed. I'd bet it's not possible to tell the difference in the response - as we receive it.

[Hardhead]

As you throw away your 20th piece of disposable single-use plastic for the week - you can rest easy that all of it will outlive you. Maybe your great, great, grandkids will eat it.

[GordMay]

“Microplastics in drinking-water” ~ World Health Organization (WHO)
➥ https://www.who.int/water_sanitation...king-water/en/


NEWS RELEASE [August 22, 2019]:
The World Health Organization (WHO) today calls for a further assessment of microplastics in the environment and their potential impacts on human health, following the release of an analysis of current research related to microplastics in drinking-water. The Organization also calls for a reduction in plastic pollution to benefit the environment and reduce human exposure.
“We urgently need to know more about the health impact of microplastics because they are everywhere - including in our drinking-water,” says Dr Maria Neira, Director, Department of Public Health, Environment and Social Determinants of Health, at WHO. “Based on the limited information we have, microplastics in drinking water don’t appear to pose a health risk at current levels. But we need to find out more. We also need to stop the rise in plastic pollution worldwide.”
According to the analysis, which summarizes the latest knowledge on microplastics in drinking-water, microplastics larger than 150 micrometres are not likely to be absorbed in the human body and uptake of smaller particles is expected to be limited. Absorption and distribution of very small microplastic particles including in the nano size range may, however, be higher, although the data is extremely limited.
WHO recommends drinking-water suppliers and regulators prioritize removing microbial pathogens and chemicals that are known risks to human health, such as those causing deadly diarrhoeal diseases. This has a double advantage: wastewater and drinking-water treatment systems that treat faecal content and chemicals are also effective in removing microplastics.
Wastewater treatment can remove more than 90% of microplastics from wastewater, with the highest removal coming from tertiary treatment such as filtration. Conventional drinking-water treatment can remove particles smaller than a micrometre. A significant proportion of the global population currently does not benefit from adequate water and sewage treatment. By addressing the problem of human exposure to faecally contaminated water, communities can simultaneously address the concern related to microplastics.
➥ https://www.who.int/news-room/detail...stic-pollution

Information sheet: Microplastics in drinking-water
This information sheet summarizes key findings, recommendations and conclusions from the WHO technical report: Microplastics in drinking-water (WHO, 2019).

“Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: Critical review and assessment of data quality” ~ Albert A.Koelmans et al.
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...43135419301794

[Luckyknot]

So here is an issue I see with reporting in the news. It has to do with the WHO study regarding health risks of micro plastics. NPR put out an article with the headline "WHO Study Finds No Evidence Of Health Concerns From Microplastics In Drinking Water." If you read the article it goes on to state how there is not enough information yet to conclusively state that microplastics are harmful at current levels but cautions that we still have no idea what harm could come of the contamination. Here's the problem: the headline sounds like there is no issue at all. If all you read is the healine then you will go on to tell everyone you know that WHO says microplastics are not a problem. If you read the whole article though then you learn that this is not at all what WHO is saying. How many people read the full article versus the number of folks that get all of their information from the soundbite style title of the article? I bet the ratio is probably quite depressing.

[barnakiel]

I cannot agree.


From my experience, Switzerland is very clean and Brazil and India very dirty. To save the planet, we need fewer people that make it dirty.


I think we need fewer people. And better educated people. And people who consume less. And we need different ways of appointing our shepherds. The ones we have now are leading us to the cliff.



Without these we cannot handle the garbage. Proof? We are not handling it!



Only a global revolution would do - evolution is just way TOO SLOW.


And we are not to see any revolutions any soon - we are too well fed, to comfortable - calories and cushions did their job.



Yesterday I read this:


Hard times make hard people,
Hard people make good times,
Good times make weak people,
Weak people make hard times.



How I see it, we are at the 'weak people making hard times' stage.


ymmv



b.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Luckyknot

So here is an issue I see with reporting in the news. It has to do with the WHO study regarding health risks of micro plastics. NPR put out an article with the headline "WHO Study Finds No Evidence Of Health Concerns From Microplastics In Drinking Water." If you read the article it goes on to state how there is not enough information yet to conclusively state that microplastics are harmful at current levels but cautions that we still have no idea what harm could come of the contamination. Here's the problem: the headline sounds like there is no issue at all. If all you read is the healine then you will go on to tell everyone you know that WHO says microplastics are not a problem. If you read the whole article though then you learn that this is not at all what WHO is saying. How many people read the full article versus the number of folks that get all of their information from the soundbite style title of the article? I bet the ratio is probably quite depressing.

Quite an excellent example. The truth can be subtle, easily buried, and it generally does not speak for itself. The "news" sources that we trust – should perhaps not be trusted at all - and any bad influences can be quite effective, literally.

There is a serious problem, and very real problem, with our politics, our democracy, and the reality of the media’s "news" reporting – that we base ALL our decisions on. I believe it is getting more extreme. It's a real fact - that the issue of "news" reporting is the single greatest threat that we face - to fair democracy & our lives - overall. The BS - in general, is so thick, so self-dealing and multi-leveled, it can be hard to accept it. It’s easier to just go with the flow... which is always what we do - when we just get tired of having to think critically for ourselves. It does take quite a bit more effort.

It's worthwhile to consider this - Money is King. Money is REAL, over-riding - national influence. Have you ever wondered why some people have acquired, say, 100 million dollars (a pittance, in today’s economy) - and they just keep pounding and pounding to make ever more? At just a conservative 5% rate of return, that interest alone received is $5 million dollars a year – that’s roughly $96,153 per week. That's $13,698 a day - 365 days of the year - without even touching the principal. And – historically, the taxes paid are much, much, less, by percentage, than the average worker pays - on his or her hard earned weekly paycheck. It's close to impossible to even spend that kind of interest earned each day - and in reality – your every material whim is obtainable. On 1 billion – just the interest, at only a conservative 5% rate return - is 50 million dollars a year – not touching the 1 billion principal. The middle class is rapidly shrinking over the past 10 years – and the top 2% control just about everything.

Why do they keep doing it then? The answer is - all the extra money provides very real power. It provides very effective influence. It can - and does - shape our perceived reality, through the trusted "news" we receive. I have no problem at all with the extremely wealthy & fortunate – I only have a problem with what that kind of moneyed influence does to self-dealing and “news” reporting. It’s not a problem with capitalism, it’s a problem with the easy rationalization of corruption.

What does just 1 billion dollars do? We're seeing it right here - on this very important environmental issue. Please try to argue it is not - as we read about important world environmental news, once again, in "Quartz," of all places. I'm very glad someone posted the link, and I was reading this thread. Otherwise - I can tell you definitively, I never would have seen it. Hardly anybody has.


No help from the large commercial media - or your public representative - on any issue of plastic waste. And, don't expect it.


If this concern means anything to you - you need to talk about it publicly.

[Hardhead]

Our system is completely broken on this issue, among many others.

[Hardhead]

What's really in the best interests – of the nation's average people, and their children - on the issues of pervasive microplastic contamination now being found, and its rapid increase in concentration? And also - the fact that the new production of non-biodegradable single-use plastic packaging is actually increasing, and also politically encouraged to be increasing in total production?

According to our personal representatives, in the Congress & the Senate - it's nothing. Silence. Birds chirping.

If we are really responsible citizens, and good parents to our children, and their children - this is an issue that needs to receive some significant national attention. It really needs to be brought up in conversation - because, literally - the entire “system” is against it. It will never receive the attention, it legitimately and fairly requires, otherwise.

And, of course - it can be expected that tens of millions of dollars will be quickly bestowed on Congress & the Senate, and the fact that any real public attention will trigger the inevitable socialism accusations. And, of course the pressing need to do nothing – until there is no controversy in science - at all. Which, of course, will never happen - as long as being an "opinion leader" in the media - carrying on the big business agenda - doesn't pay far more in benefits than any other opinion.

For that reason, the issues of microplastic contamination, in particular, really need grass-roots popular support. The average person has likely not even heard anything of the issue - and, their 1st impression will be whatever the "big business" response chooses to be. Not the fair - unbiased review of the facts, and trends - without the inevitable lobbied money literally over-riding the issues – and dominating the media.

This is an issue where the "average person" really needs to have an independent opinion.

[barnakiel]

Do you think it is just how many people have read the title line only vs. how many have read that whole article?


I propose: how many people think vs. how many do not. Eh?


It takes quite a far ride from the reality to think that any amount of plastics in your water or food is good for you. Back in time I would guess LSD or other similar stimulant. What do people take today to get so relaxed?



It is like cream in Spain or Brasil. Contains cellulose. But if you travel to France, it contains just ... cream.


I am 100% in the water = H2O freaks team. Sorries.


b.

[Luckyknot]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Do you think it is just how many people have read the title line only vs. how many have read that whole article?


I propose: how many people think vs. how many do not. Eh?


It takes quite a far ride from the reality to think that any amount of plastics in your water or food is good for you. Back in time I would guess LSD or other similar stimulant. What do people take today to get so relaxed?



It is like cream in Spain or Brasil. Contains cellulose. But if you travel to France, it contains just ... cream.


I am 100% in the water = H2O freaks team. Sorries.


b.

Of course the issue at hand is multi faceted. I was merely providing an example of how easily bad information can spread based on what you state, "how many people think vs. how many do not." My concern is exactly that. People are willing to depart that far from reality to not change their poor behavior. IMO it requires a whole lot of not thinking to continue down this path.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Quite an excellent example. The truth can be subtle, easily buried, and it generally does not speak for itself. The "news" sources that we trust – should perhaps not be trusted at all - and any bad influences can be quite effective, literally.

There is a serious problem, and very real problem, with our politics, our democracy, and the reality of the media’s "news" reporting – that we base ALL our decisions on. I believe it is getting more extreme. It's a real fact - that the issue of "news" reporting is the single greatest threat that we face - to fair democracy & our lives - overall. The BS - in general, is so thick, so self-dealing and multi-leveled, it can be hard to accept it. It’s easier to just go with the flow... which is always what we do - when we just get tired of having to think critically for ourselves. It does take quite a bit more effort.

It's worthwhile to consider this - Money is King. Money is REAL, over-riding - national influence. Have you ever wondered why some people have acquired, say, 100 million dollars (a pittance, in today’s economy) - and they just keep pounding and pounding to make ever more? At just a conservative 5% rate of return, that interest alone received is $5 million dollars a year – that’s roughly $96,153 per week. That's $13,698 a day - 365 days of the year - without even touching the principal. And – historically, the taxes paid are much, much, less, by percentage, than the average worker pays - on his or her hard earned weekly paycheck. It's close to impossible to even spend that kind of interest earned each day - and in reality – your every material whim is obtainable. On 1 billion – just the interest, at only a conservative 5% rate return - is 50 million dollars a year – not touching the 1 billion principal. The middle class is rapidly shrinking over the past 10 years – and the top 2% control just about everything.

Why do they keep doing it then? The answer is - all the extra money provides very real power. It provides very effective influence. It can - and does - shape our perceived reality, through the trusted "news" we receive. I have no problem at all with the extremely wealthy & fortunate – I only have a problem with what that kind of moneyed influence does to self-dealing and “news” reporting. It’s not a problem with capitalism, it’s a problem with the easy rationalization of corruption.

What does just 1 billion dollars do? We're seeing it right here - on this very important environmental issue. Please try to argue it is not - as we read about important world environmental news, once again, in "Quartz," of all places. I'm very glad someone posted the link, and I was reading this thread. Otherwise - I can tell you definitively, I never would have seen it. Hardly anybody has.


No help from the large commercial media - or your public representative - on any issue of plastic waste. And, don't expect it.


If this concern means anything to you - you need to talk about it publicly.

I somewhat expected there would be some vehement opposition to this. Kinda wanted to hear the big business response. No debaters?

Anyone have an idea what percentage of the general public has really, consciously, thought about microplastic issues? Or - even knows anything about it? I don't think it's too high - but maybe everyone already has an opinion. I just heard about it by happenstance.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Luckyknot

Of course the issue at hand is multi faceted. I was merely providing an example of how easily bad information can spread based on what you state, "how many people think vs. how many do not." My concern is exactly that. People are willing to depart that far from reality to not change their poor behavior. IMO it requires a whole lot of not thinking to continue down this path.

I am on your wave length.


Now all we need is more people who think alike, and who ACT.


I live in Spain and I am sometimes so disillusioned looking at young people here tossing carelessly plastic wrappers everywhere. I wonder, are the wrappers the problem, or is it about people? The young here will litter everywhere, in the streets, at the beach. Here now they have a school subject named 'the Environment'. Would you ever believe this. They are taught but they are not taught well enough. Probably too much talking heads and too few 'hey guys, let's clean it up' hands on field exercises.


The other day I was cleaning our part of the marina from plastic bags and wrappers. Not like a hero or something but just that there is so much of this stuff within an easy reach that I grab a handful on my way to the toilets block. As I did my thing I noticed en elderly local doing the same. When we met half way thru our our stretch of the dock, we stopped and chatted. I asked if he too had these 'Environment' classes when he was at school. They guy was maybe 80 or thereabout. He said "my son, when and where I grew up, there were no schools". Jaw drop.


So. What I want to say is that we are not teaching the young well. Yes, there are classes but there is no action. Live is not about knowing, it is about doing. Ask any businessman, activist or artist.



Doh. My two EUR cents of microplastics "how to" for today. ;-)


Very best regards,
barnakiel

[barnakiel]

All jobs need to get paid. be it a wealthy businessman's, a politician's, a journalist's or an evironmentalist's. Without pay, there are no jobs.



Most money circles from the taxpayer to the wealthy businessman. So, who pays the journalist?



Politicians are supposed to be crowd funded (aka paid by the taxpayer). But in many places they are rather funded by the wealthy men. This is one way where it all goes wrong. We get laws and regulations and RESEARCH (where universities are public) that will reflect the rich man's needs. Mostly, their greed. Because it is greed and hard work that make one filthy rich. Hard work of others'.


Now come the journalist, the environmentalist and the artist. They need to eat too. And where do their fodder budgets come from? Well.


When it comes from the taxpayers, then we are mostly fine, if often wasteful. When it comes from crowdfunding, we are still relatively safe, except we may receive a lot of irrelevant 'information' and pay heaps for it too.


Just look at most sailing mags and you know what I mean. They are SELLING things, not providing objective information.


Why should journalism elsewhere (environment, news, politics) be different? It is not. Media are selling things, not informing. Media people are just like politicians - they lick the feeding hand.



How I see this, the only way to have good sailing magazines and good news is to either crowdsource the professionals in field or else pay them with taxpayers money. Except that taxpayers do not want to pay for quality reporting media. We take things for granted, and this is another place where things go wrong in a big way.


Am I not back to A1? Nil novi sub sole.


We need to change the politicians and the way we appoint our governing representatives. We need to pay for the news and make sure the other stuff, dictated by the rich, is clearly labeled as ADVERTISEMENT.


Funnily, journalists themselves have created a phrase that exactly matches our quality news challenge: "follow the money".


Watch who paid the journalist and you will understand why you are reading what you are reading.


Cheers,
b.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I am on your wave length.


Now all we need is more people who think alike, and who ACT.


I live in Spain and I am sometimes so disillusioned looking at young people here tossing carelessly plastic wrappers everywhere. I wonder, are the wrappers the problem, or is it about people? The young here will litter everywhere, in the streets, at the beach. Here now they have a school subject named 'the Environment'. Would you ever believe this. They are taught but they are not taught well enough. Probably too much talking heads and too few 'hey guys, let's clean it up' hands on field exercises.

The other day I was cleaning our part of the marina from plastic bags and wrappers. Not like a hero or something but just that there is so much of this stuff within an easy reach that I grab a handful on my way to the toilets block. As I did my thing I noticed en elderly local doing the same. When we met half way thru our our stretch of the dock, we stopped and chatted. I asked if he too had these 'Environment' classes when he was at school. They guy was maybe 80 or thereabout. He said "my son, when and where I grew up, there were no schools". Jaw drop.

So. What I want to say is that we are not teaching the young well. Yes, there are classes but there is no action. Live is not about knowing, it is about doing. Ask any businessman, activist or artist.

Doh. My two EUR cents of microplastics "how to" for today. ;-)

Very best regards,
barnakiel

Or they're being taught the wrong lessons. For example, that "identifying" as an environmentalist takes priority over personal responsibility for one's own environment. Or that making pronouncements on internet forums counts as "doing something." Or that the "important" act of demonizing polluting industries makes throwing trash on the ground seem inconsequential in comparison, and therefore excusable.

Imho, what has turned many people away from a previous generation's bipartisan consensus on environmentalism has less to do with the issues themselves and more to do with the manner in which they are being advocated. It certainly doesn't help that "environmentalism" is now so closely associated with the Left, but many find repugnant that it has so fallen under the strict censorship of political correctness that alternative views are no longer tolerated. The climate change issue is worst of all, and it's poisoned healthy debate and compromise on issues such as microplastics which should be much easier to rally around and solve. Little of this has to do with the merits of any of these issues, including CC, but it has everything to do with the credibility of the proponents. Real or perceived.

[fivecapes]

"There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem"