Microplastics in the sea

[crooks]

Originally Posted by Pegu Club

One would hope so, but we humans as a whole have been crapping in our own nest for centuries, and it’s unlikely to change without governments applying a heavy hand to change behavior.
Sadly, I see it getting far worse before any meaningful action is taken.

Fair winds,

I had a house built in the 1890s. There was a lot of waste I unearthed as I gardened.

In Jerusalem, I was told the ridges in the stone I was standing on were made by the wheels of Roman chariots.

Herman Miller works very hard to eliminate all of their manufacturing waste.

We can get there.

[Hardhead]

This is certainly off topic - but accumulating plastic trash reminds me vaguely of a true story from the dog days of WWI. I believe it was Christmas Eve, and one of the sides was singing Christmas carols from their trenches. The other side also started singing Christmas carols, and someone with a wild hair threw a small gift of tobacco or chocolate to the other side's trench. Someone else threw one back. They built up a little trust, and one person took the Christmas Eve risk of standing up from the trench, and walking into "no man's land" between the trenches. Some from the other side joined, and surprisingly, they quickly all joined. The exchanged more tobacco, exchanged some souvenirs, and had a little common camaraderie and sang some more carols together. I may be wrong, but they might have played soccer together.

Word got back to the commanding officers, and both sides were threatened with courts martial, and told they would be shot by their own troops if they didn't get back in the trenches. They found they had a lot in common, and really didn't see the need to kill each other any more. The war went on, with more devastating consequences for just about everyone involved. Divisions and wars are not the continuing choice of most people, but the leaders keep brewing up conflict, to brew up power. The leaders never bear the costs. At the end of the day, everybody but a few select leaders, want the same thing, and can find a way to get along. The leadership system generally doesn't like it. They like the conflict, and a lot of people benefit from it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I agree. As we've both said, we're in a **really** bad place in the United States, and have been for the past 10 years - and it's actually accelerating, and it's actually getting much worse. It does not look like there is any way back.

Red lines and knee-jerk outrage is all there is anymore. It fuels itself like a dumpster fire. A civil war used to be a joke - now, it is truly not.

WTF is happening, and what is causing it? The carefully selected new cycle coverage is doing nothing but promoting BS divisions. We really need to stop listening to what WE'RE TOLD the other side believes. We personally need to speak out, and put the brakes on things.

Actually listen beyond the buzz words and sound-bites, and work very hard to see the other sides' point - and find a middle of the road way to get most of it. Every issue is not a death match between communism, socialism, and freedom. We all sincerely want the same things - good jobs, a clean environment, affordable healthcare, and a good education for our kids. We're being told the only way to get that is to destroy the other side. WTF is that?

It's mostly rank, base-level, tribal-like partisanship fueled by all too many 3rd-rate leaders who correctly see Congress as a means to personal advancement they could never achieve otherwise. And there's absolutely nothing partisan or political about this comment -- it applies equally to all sides. Oh sure, you'll hear all about one side's different "values," or "love of country," or concern for the "poor and/or working people," or love for the environment. All in an effort to win votes over their opponents, but only the naive, uninformed, or obsessively ideological are really being fooled.

For this same reason, I'm actually somewhat less pessimistic than it sounds like you are, but only because I don't believe the level of divisiveness we hear & read about everyday in the news media is nearly as bad as amongst the people. I now only give news headlines a cursory look, switch websites a lot, and only read opinion pieces from people I believe are insightful & smart, regardless of their professed partisan preferences (the smart, thoughtful ones are often hard to peg). The bottom line is, as you just pointed out, most of us share the same basic goals, desires, and way of life, and so we will always have more in common than not, regardless of what we may hear & read.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

This is certainly off topic - but accumulating plastic trash reminds me vaguely of a true story from the dog days of WWI. I believe it was Christmas Eve, and one of the sides was singing Christmas carols from their trenches. The other side also started singing Christmas carols, and someone with a wild hair threw a small gift of tobacco or chocolate to the other side's trench. Someone else threw one back. They built up a little trust, and one person took the Christmas Eve risk of standing up from the trench, and walking into "no man's land" between the trenches. Some from the other side joined, and surprisingly, they quickly all joined. The exchanged more tobacco, exchanged some souvenirs, and had a little common camaraderie and sang some more carols together. I may be wrong, but they might have played soccer together.

Word got back to the commanding officers, and both sides were threatened with courts martial, and told they would be shot by their own troops if they didn't get back in the trenches. They found they had a lot in common, and really didn't see the need to kill each other any more. The war went on, with more devastating consequences for just about everyone involved. Divisions and wars are not the continuing choice of most people, but the leaders keep brewing up conflict, to brew up power. The leaders never bear the costs. At the end of the day, everybody but a few select leaders, want the same thing, and can find a way to get along. The leadership system generally doesn't like it. They like the conflict, and a lot of people benefit from it.

Great example, along with a most insightful overall post.

[john61ct]

Airborne, showing up in the Arctic

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com...in-arctic-snow

[Luckyknot]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Airborne, showing up in the Arctic

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com...in-arctic-snow

FAKE NEWS!
nah I'm just playin'. This is no good. Thank you for sharing. I wasn't aware of this issue. Not to sound like a "snowflake" or whatever, but this is super upsetting. When I was onboard my ship, we transitted the Strait of Magellan. That was about 10 years ago. To this day I still long to breath the air down there. Those were the crispest, cleanest, most invigorating breaths of life I have ever taken. Sounds like I may never get to experience that again. By the time I shove off again that kind of pure air won't exist anymore.

I wonder: If CO2 and methane (among other gases) make our atmosphere act like a greenhouse, then will we one day have so much plastic up there that we actually create a greenhouse?

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Airborne, showing up in the Arctic

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com...in-arctic-snow

Man, this is really, really, disgusting.

That last sentence has been my biggest layman’s concern by far - that all of these completely un-natural minute microplastics – that realistically every living thing on this planet, including us, are now consuming - and essentially having mushed and lined into every cell in our bodies. There is no way, IMHO, that is not now, and forever forward, causing a natural re-action - trying to bring the body back into some kind of desired balance. That could prove to be increases in all types of live cellular mutations and cancer, birth defects, spinal defects, mental defects - that would only become dramatically more prevalent, over successive human and animal generations of interbreeding. Think of that. Wouldn't it be natural - that the living tissue would have some kind of re-action to newly flooded, and completely un-natural, microplastics on a cellular level & DNA level?

In my opinion, anyone who puts political spin on this issue - that results in action not being taken on containing & reducing the introduction of microplastics into the environment is a real short-sighted mind. That person is gambling with the lives of his/her next 100 generations of descendants - and for what? The alleged, God-given, right to completely pollute the environment that God created? Or, if not that – to just basically “help out” the corporate profits of some single-use plastics manufacturing company that lobbies in favor of the status-quo - which is obviously polluting the environment? (for only the last 50 years) Or is it really a political platform?

If you see the need, you need to speak out.

[john61ct]

OTOH there will be people on the other side, fine people all I'm sure, who will default to, well economic activity is by default a Good right?

And we have nothing to worry about until someone **proves** these things are bad, so until then, by default we should just carry on as normal.

Problem is, if this sort of thing does turn out to be an unmitigated disaster, unless we invent practical time travel, there is no way to undo it, to "clean it up".

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

OTOH there will be people on the other side, fine people all I'm sure, who will default to, well economic activity is by default a Good right?

And we have nothing to worry about until someone **proves** these things are bad, so until then, by default we should just carry on as normal.

Problem is, if this sort of thing does turn out to be an unmitigated disaster, unless we invent practical time travel, there is no way to undo it, to "clean it up".

What if cellular mutations and defects - occurring as a natural re-action to the flood of un-natural microplastics ingested in all living tissue - was only an increase of 1% per reproductive generation? 0.5? Multiply that by repetitive DNA inter-breeding among the effected populations (currently every living thing). What happens over 100 generations then? Even 20 generations? 10?

Has it already proven to have an effect? Are we now actually living the beginning of the problem? Where are the current increases in ADHD and autism in children coming from?

We are the 1st generation living with bodies internally flooded with microplastic particles. In the history of the world. All for plastic bottles? How did we ever get by before 1980 without plastic bottles?

[john61ct]

Of course actual scientific evidence of harm done will build up over many decades.

Likely to be countered by well-funded PR/social-media disinformation campaigns, plastics and fossil fuels are siamese twin industries.

Unlikely our political systems will be able to "solve" anything,

even if solutions are possible.

There is of course a chance there are no negative effects, but IMO very slim.

[Hardhead]

Well - our very own children are actually the 2nd generation living with bodies internally flooded with microplastic particles - so we're getting somewhere.



Let's keep going...

[GordMay]

Studying the impacts of microplastics on human health is challenging because people can’t be asked to eat plastics for experiments. Scientists know that microplastic particles are entering our bodies. They also know that the particles transport molecules that are harmful to humans at certain concentrations. They haven’t yet discovered whether the microplastic is affecting our health, however. Answering this question could be urgent.
The increasing number of reports about the ways in which microplastics are entering our body is troubling. If scientists eventually discover that the microplastic particles are causing health problems, or if the particles eventually do so if/when their concentration increases, it may be too late to avoid the health problems.

So, while the evidence is not yet conclusive, it’s beginning to look like microplastics may be/become a human health hazard.

The Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA), a European advisory body, published a 173-page meta-analysis of existing studies concluding that microplastics do not pose a widespread risk to the environment and human health. The analysis finds only isolated locations around the globe where concentrations of microplastics in sediments and water are so high that they could present a concern to human health. But that evidence is limited, and the situation could change if pollution continues at the current rate. It cites one study concluding that risks posed by microplastics could become widespread by 2060.
“A scientific perspective on microplastics in nature and society”
Summary ➥https://www.sapea.info/wp-content/up...cs-leaflet.pdf
Full Report ➥ https://www.sapea.info/wp-content/uploads/report.pdf

Another study is concerned that widespread effects could already be happening. Microplastics could be causing chronic inflammation, described as a “silent killer because it can be a prequel to other diseases,” in people’s tissues. Further investigation is warranted, the authors say.
Some insight into the possible physical effects of plastic particles can be gleaned from animal models and lab tests of human cells and tissues. They include lung and gut injury, according to the study.
“Plastic Debris Is a Human Health Issue” ~ by A. Dick Vethaak & Heather A. Leslie
➥ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b02569

“Microplastics in Seafood and the Implications for Human Health” ~ by Madeleine Smith et al.
“... Because microplastics are associated with chemicals from manufacturing and that sorb from the surrounding environment, there is concern regarding physical and chemical toxicity. Evidence regarding microplastic toxicity and epidemiology is emerging. We characterize current knowledge and highlight gaps ...”
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132564/

A recent study examined the effects of microplastics in laboratory mice. When fed to mice, the microplastics accumulated in the liver, kidneys and intestines, and increased levels of oxidative stress molecules in the liver. They also increased the level of a molecule that may be toxic to the brain.
“Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread health risks of exposure.” ~ Deng Y et al.
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28436478

[Hardhead]

That's a great, and well and researched, post GordMay.

We're literally changing the way humans have existed, biologically, since the dawn of time. The implications might possibly prove to be the most serious human threat short of nuclear annihilation. You go messing with human cells - things change.

[john61ct]

You mean you think human civilization will still exist more than a century from now?

The necessary radical changes to our regulatory/governance systems, coordinated at an international level?

What, armed popular uprisings against the 1% going to remain possible?

That "the people" would even bother anymore?

I think most are pretty resigned we're going to hell in a handbasket, we've already gone too far and human nature makes the solutions impractical.

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
— The Hollow Men, by T.S. Eliot

https://www.shmoop.com/hollow-men/poem-text.html

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

That's a great, and well and researched, post GordMay.

We're literally changing the way humans have existed, biologically, since the dawn of time. The implications might possibly prove to be the most serious human threat short of nuclear annihilation. You go messing with human cells - things change.

Agreed about Gord's well-researched & informative post (as usual!). Don't agree (respectfully) that any of the studies cited therein support your cited potential implications. I do share your concerns, however, and I would surmise that many others aware of the issue do too. I'm sure some may believe the effects on humans are and will be more benign, but there is enough evidence of other growing negative impacts that the potential for strong consensus exists.

Unless, of course, the issue becomes heavily politicized, and partisans start looking for scapegoats rather than doing the hard work of building consensus. For example, like this:

Originally Posted by john61ct

You mean you think human civilization will still exist more than a century from now?

The necessary radical changes to our regulatory/governance systems, coordinated at an international level?

What, armed popular uprisings against the 1% going to remain possible?

That "the people" would even bother anymore?

I think most are pretty resigned we're going to hell in a handbasket, we've already gone too far and human nature makes the solutions impractical.

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
— The Hollow Men, by T.S. Eliot

https://www.shmoop.com/hollow-men/poem-text.html

Maybe most are so resigned in your world, but I don't believe in the world at large. But leaving that aside, you may want to consider that, like the introduction of fossil fuels and its related technologies like the automobile towards the end of the 19th century, the invention of plastics -- and yes, even single use plastic bottles -- was also considered by many at the time to be a panacea for the ills produced from what came before. Hindsight is always genius, but never is it prescient. Real solutions to address the problem of microplastics will never come from blaming & dividing, but from achieving consensus, including from the plastics industry itself.