Microplastics in the sea

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Those who actually run things have decided that it's more beneficial in the short term to suppress information and deny environmental problems, than to acknowledge and cooperate in any efforts to mitigate them. They know that in any case (barring complete social breakdown), their wealth will keep them from suffering the most serious consequences. Or any, maybe.

Hard to deny that there's a certain credibility in that. Might help explain things, to an extent.

People really need to think independently - much more than they do - on all issues. Seriously think about this:

We get ALL of the stories selected as "news" - that literally build 95% of our whole perception of reality - from some very influenced "credible" sources. (by private cross-investment investment, mostly consolidated at the top). Why was that story, and that particular theme, selected? What other, important story, was left out - completely? All the media players, by public consumption - play to whatever the big "credible" outlets play to. If it's a smaller, more independent news source, with a different angle, or "breaking news" - not reported in the larger sources - we ALWAYS severely discount its credibility. After all - if it was really important, it would be in the big, well known media sources, right?

Have you ever seen any plastic waste issue, at all, prominently displayed on the front page of any large newspaper? It's impossible to state it's not an important issue - or at least, a good story that most people would be interested in.

The same may apply to issues of war and peace.

I definitely think it applies to microplastic contamination, in the US. It's also possible to think about Iraqi wars - who knows? The world's the limit.

[boatman61]

Mind, us in the UK were involved in 230 wars during Victorias reign.. but muskets and cannon were much more environmentally friendly than Cruise missiles.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Switzerland, is home of Nestle Corp- The number one producer of throw away plastic bottles on the planet-yet you praise it????????????????????

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Hard to deny that there's a certain credibility in that. Might help explain things, to an extent.

People really need to think independently - much more than they do - on all issues. Seriously think about this:

We get ALL of the stories selected as "news" - that literally build 95% of our whole perception of reality - from some very influenced "credible" sources. (by private cross-investment investment, mostly consolidated at the top). Why was that story, and that particular theme, selected? What other, important story, was left out - completely? All the media players, by public consumption - play to whatever the big "credible" outlets play to. If it's a smaller, more independent news source, with a different angle, or "breaking news" - not reported in the larger sources - we ALWAYS severely discount its credibility. After all - if it was really important, it would be in the big, well known media sources, right?

Have you ever seen any plastic waste issue, at all, prominently displayed on the front page of any large newspaper? It's impossible to state it's not an important issue - or at least, a good story that most people would be interested in.

The same may apply to issues of war and peace.

I definitely think it applies to microplastic contamination, in the US. It's also possible to think about Iraqi wars - who knows? The world's the limit.

if you think the liberal anti trump news media is not part and parcel of greedy corporations owned by billionaires looking strictly out for their own money you are wrong

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Switzerland, is home of Nestle Corp- The number one producer of throw away plastic bottles on the planet-yet you praise it????????????????????

Nestle Corp. is just doing what the law allows. If people go after them for that - it plays right into the arguments against the environmental issue. What's needed is a profit reason for the free market to produce biodegradable, or inert packaging. That profit reason comes from a regulation against non-biodegradable single-use plastic waste.


Right there is the profit motive. And, they will make a profit doing it.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Have you ever seen any plastic waste issue, at all, prominently displayed on the front page of any large newspaper? It's impossible to state it's not an important issue - or at least, a good story that most people would be interested in.

Blue Planet II certainly had an ‘effect’ on mass. At least in the UK anyway!

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by geoleo

if you think the liberal anti trump news media is not part and parcel of greedy corporations owned by billionaires looking strictly out for their own money you are wrong

I think you misunderstood the post - but no need to correct it really. Thanks for reading it.

[john61ct]

Companies like Nestlé S.A. have as much to do with the country they emerged from, as Obama had to do with Kenya.

People still clinging to the increasingly archaic notion of nationality, seem so sadly quaint. . .

[Dan Mosby]

The Romans thought lead was safe to use for plumbing and kitchenware, and we thought it was safe to use in fuel and paints as recently as, what, the 60's, 70's?. Turns out that wasn't such a wise idea. Interestingly enough, there seems to be a correlation between the reduction in lead paint use and violent crime....imagine that.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Lead_and_Crime

Plastics off-gas, and we breathe it on a daily basis. We eat foods that come in contact with plastics. We actually ingest the stuff too, inadvertantly. Yet we don't really know it's safe, and won't for generations to come.

Wouldn't suprise me one bit if plastics proved to be as dangerous as lead somewhere down the road.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Dan Mosby

Plastics off-gas, and we breathe it on a daily basis. We eat foods that come in contact with plastics. We actually ingest the stuff too, inadvertantly. Yet we don't really know it's safe, and won't for generations to come.

Wouldn't suprise me one bit if plastics proved to be as dangerous as lead somewhere down the road.

That's perhaps understatement. A review of some of the steadily published research attached to this thread indicate that literally - every living thing on the planet - is now involuntarily both consuming and breathing microplastic particles. Whole food chain.

Unfortunately, these steadily increasing concentrations are a completely un-natural product of ethene gas that is "molecularly “cracked”—its carbon and hydrogen atoms rearranged—to form ethylene, the main building block of plastic." Sounds like a health food. Would you ever take a ground plastic supplement, to digest every day? Ever a prominent "news" story? Nope, not here at least.

[Dan Mosby]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Ever a prominent "news" story? Nope, not here at least.

That's because there is no "news", only bought and paid for propagated narratives and opinions, and the plastics manufactureres, like the oil producers that destroyed the atmosphere and the water sources, have deeper pockets than any "righteous" individuals looking for the truth.

Look at how the yacht industry moved away from wood to synthetics and resins, only to produce the myriad blistered hulls that nobody expected when they were first built. That happened because there wasn't a test bed of data to refer to the way scantling data could be referred to after generations of wooden boat design. My question is that if blisters were a product of unknown and unanticipated properties over time, what is the potential risk to boat owners living in the cramped spaces of modern fiberglass and resin boats over time?

Regardless, I would agree to a program that tranistions from the use of plastics to natural, biodegradable products, or glass. Wood, glass, and natural fibers, like hemp, are already known properties, and safe for humans and the planet alike.

[Luckyknot]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Aww come on, you guys have been at war almost non stop since WW2.. in fact..
The U.S. Has Been At War 222 Out of 239 Years. This morning, I discovered an interesting statistic, “America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776“, i.e. the U.S. has only been at peace for less than 20 years total since its birth.

You better watch it. Them there's fightin' words.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Dan Mosby

Regardless, I would agree to a program that tranistions from the use of plastics to natural, biodegradable products, or glass. Wood, glass, and natural fibers, like hemp, are already known properties, and safe for humans and the planet alike.

That's an extremely common sense solution. Of course - that means it's the last idea thought about... all the idiots of the world will be in league against it...

One issue with straight glass bottles is the inherent weight of glass, and the increased fuel needed to move that weight. There are multiple other options proven to work however.

It must be admitted that almost all the products we buy today are WAY over-packaged, and much of it just for exaggerated marketing purposes. After all, how many really like, or even prefer, that common clam-shell type thick plastic packaging - that you literally need a pair of garden tree sheers to open?

If you buy a simple jar of pills, or other small product, many times it again comes in thick clam-shell packaging, or another outer packaging that dramatically increases the size. There are many other alternatives to the past 30 years explosive growth in throw-a-way plastic - attached to every single item you buy. After all, the world functioned quite well up to the 1960's - when throw-a-way plastic began to overwhelmingly dominate.

The economy needs to evolve again - just like it evolved to where we are now. These problems are completely new - and a result of just a 30 year lag-time in that decision. It's healthy to evolve in response to changing information. Especially, new information of the magnitude now coming out about microplastic contamination - in both it's pervasive contamination, and the degree to which it is involuntarily force-fed to the human body, and every other living thing.

It's hard to state that is not extremely important news, unless again - you think flooding the bodies of all living things on the planet with microplastic particles that are - in reality, an un-natural product of ethene gas that is "molecularly “cracked”—its carbon and hydrogen atoms rearranged—to form ethylene, the main building block of plastic." is a health food. We're all steadily consuming it & breathing it, and it will dramatically increase. Only a very small percentage of thrown-away plastic has begun to break down to microplastic sized particles - all of it will, eventually. And, it's piling up faster every year.

Apparently - according to our large and credible investment conglomerate "news" media sources - that we get our reality from - no one would be interested in reading about that. Definitely not something to lead the hour with, or put on the main page of the big news website. Funny how that is - maybe it has something to do with cross-investment and influence in plastics. Plenty of other trivial political in-fighting news dominating the media. That's the way it's played.

After all - there is supposedly a sucker born every minute. Dangle a few carrots and juicy distractions (maybe a media cultivated hot button issue or two...), and it's possible to hide anything. I've been guilty of it, and everyone has their own pressure points demographically - this is well know in marketing and human analysis, and it's used every day by some people & groups. In media message POLITICS especially.

The only answer to this world-wide problem - is for people to really make a sincere effort to think independently. Find the real facts, cross-confirm them, and draw your OWN conclusions. Don't listen to the message being sent - listen to the facts. Sometimes the small, not much talked about facts - are the facts that are most significant. You might agree, or disagree with what you're being told, but how can that be bad for a person?

This issue is a perfect example of it. Crickets chirping and all.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Luckyknot

You better watch it. Them there's fightin' words.

I refer you to my follow up post..

[Hardhead]

BoatMan - could I ask a question? How prominent has the breaking science news of microplastic contamination been in Europe?

In the US - as far as I can tell - it really hasn't been given much mainstream attention. Like, none at all.


If there's a difference - I wonder why that would be? Human beings there, just like there are here. How wide has reporting of microplastic contamination been in Europe, as far as you can tell?