8 ms·
Nanoplastics accumulate in land-plant tissues: study
- instance 6y agoHere is a post summarizing the paper: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200622152542.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200622152542.h...
- dang 6y agoWe've changed to that from https://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/s41565-020-0707-4 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/s41565-020-0707-4. For specialized papers it's generally better to submit the highest-quality third party description and link to the paper in the comments.
- instance 6y agoThanks, I'll keep that in mind.
- idclip 6y agoOh wow ... :/
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoCan't interpret these results, without knowing the concentrations resemble anything like what is found in agriculture today. I suspect, but cannot seem to find it mentioned, that very large concentrations were used to make any effect easily measurable.
- rini17 6y agoAs I understood they put up to 1 gram of polystyrene per kg of growth medium. Which is easily achievable concentration when composting biomass contaminated with plastics, or near unregulated landfills.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoSo, no impact on agriculture. That's what I figured.
- goda90 6y agoIs 1 in 1000 an unbelievable concentration in topsoil? Microplastics in the atmosphere and in water supplies could result in an ever growing amount in the soil, and since the only way it leaves is by being washed away to contaminate someplace else, perhaps those concentrations will exist in a decade or so.
- sacred_numbers 6y agoIt kind of is an unbelievable concentration except in certain exceptional circumstances. A 0.1% concentration by weight for just the first 30 cm of topsoil would require about 5 tons of microplastics per hectare (or about 2 tons per acre). That's a lot of microplastics. It would be the equivalent of about 52 plastic water bottles per square meter. Unless the farm is on an extremely mismanaged landfill, I don't think that kind of concentration is likely. Edit: I'm not saying microplastics aren't a problem, they're just not likely much of a problem specifically for agricultural yields.
- 14 6y agoI agree. I also have been wondering a lot lately about where does all the tires that wear away each year go? Street sweepers, the oceans? Millions of tires each year. It’s frightening to think what that does.
- acd 6y agoPlastics is an example when market economy fails. Plastics is to cheap to buy and manufacture so it’s found everywhere. Ie plastics is an example of tradegedy of the commons where to purchaser of plastics benefits but everyone else sees a loss of the environment. Trying to explain we need to develop an economic model better than market economy or else earth will become a big waste dump. Ie we need to prize the waste. Tragedy of the commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common Environmental economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics
- chapium 6y agoThe market seems like any system really. It can be stable, but this is only common with a diverse array of variables. Otherwise it gets into positive or negative feedback loops. Human behavior acts as a dampener or an amplifier.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jaekash 6y agoNo, this is not an example of the tragedy of the commons. It is simply a negative externality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative And I guess it is an example of market failure in the technical sense but I don't think I would phrase that as "when a market economy fails" as it is not clear whether you are talking colloquially or technically. EDIT: Just to clarify why it is critical to be specific, positive externalities are also market failures. Caring about a technical market failures is a bit abstract, I would not lose sleep over it, they happen. Caring about a negative externalities and advocating for them to be internalized is a lot more concrete and actionable and not something I think anybody really disagrees with on paper. You will have more practical disagreements though because it is unlikely that microplastics being used in say Denmark has the same environmental impact as microplastics being used in say Asia or Africa: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti... and applying a tax to people in Denmark won't result in the externality being internalized in Nigeria.
- freeflight 6y agoRelevant reading from April 2020: "Atmospheric microplastics: A review on current status and perspectives" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001282521930621X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001282521...
- stevespang 6y agoSo, outlaw all polymers which do not biodegrade in a reasonable length of time ?
- exikyut 6y agoOT/meta: It's really nice to see submissions linking directly to Sci-Hub :) (It isn't yet that popular: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sci-hub.tw https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sci-hub.tw)
- crazygringo 6y agoThe more popular it is, the more worried I am it'll be shut down... I have very strong mixed feelings about seeing Sci-Hub linked from here :/
- aloisdg 6y agoIf it is shutdown we will reupload it somewhere else.
- exikyut 6y agoThe biggest substantial concern is the .tw domain. The data is all on Library Genesis (currently https://libgen.is/ https://libgen.is/) which is very firehose-friendly (eg, the download section has top-level links to mirrors, torrents, and database dumps). And IIUC the ~35TB of data is actively mirrored fairly widely, which is awesome. Chances are the Sci-Hub project has alternative domains lined up, and probably more than enough ideas for how to manage if all DNS failed.
- tombert 6y agoIt makes me wonder if, in 50-100 years, plastics will be the "lead paint" of my generation. Plastics are undeniably useful, but it does seem like the unforeseen consequences might be too large to ignore at this point. I just hope that it doesn't have neurological problems.
- leereeves 6y agoIsn't any potential, as yet unknown, health risk vastly outweighed by the proven benefits in food safety and disease control?
- manux 6y agoFrom the known risks, yes, but the unknown risks seem to possibly include biodiversity collapse and other terrible things. I think we can remain cautious either way, keep using plastic for food where it is necessary and reduce other plastics elsewhere.
- leereeves 6y ago> the unknown risks seem to possibly include biodiversity collapse and other terrible things Can you expand on that? It's not the topic of the linked paper and DDG doesn't show much on a link between biodiversity collapse (a proven problem) and nanoplastics. And what other terrible things might they cause?
- ezequiel-garzon 6y agoI believe this main comment thread, and GP in particular, is about plastics in general, and not limited to nanoplastics. Thus it involves (big) plastic ingestion and plastic islands blocking chunks of the ocean.
- leereeves 6y agoFair point. Then what's the link between plastics in general and biodiversity collapse and other terrible things?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- minerjoe 6y agoI can't imaging a just Mother Earth that would reward the massive destruction of the environment (r* and pilliage some would say) with a result that does not end in poisoning of the organisms that "benefit" from said activity.
- heratyian 6y agohttps://biggreen.company https://biggreen.company We're working on this specific problem. Our mission is to eliminate all single use plastic bags.
- mtgp1000 6y agoPlastics are so enormously useful in modern life that I'm willing to accept the seeming low health costs associated with their pollution. Yes they may be associated with certain cancers or endocrine disruption but the effects seem to be rather tiny in comparison to the myriad of ways in which plastics improve our quality of life.
- justwalt 6y agoI think the popular concern is that this problem is only going to get worse as more and more plastics are produced and old plastics continue to degrade into tinier pieces of plastic. It’s particularly worrying because we’ve found pieces of plastic in extremely locations, so containment is out of the question.
- agumonkey 6y agoHow long until evolution yields a very potent plastic fed organism ?
- therein 6y agoLonger than we can wait for, that's for sure. At the time scales relevant to evolution to work its magic here, we would be long gone.
- hinkley 6y agoIf it has to start from scratch, it took fungi about 50 million years to sort out lignin. If it turns out that existing enzymes just need to be in the right place at the right time, then who knows. 100 years of trash could pile up pretty high.
- amedvednikov 6y agoWe used to survive without plastic just fine (milk in glass bottles, paper bags etc) Don't see why we can't just go back to that.
- bluGill 6y agoWashing and returning glass bottles (even though the trips are made anyway) uses more energy than making virgin plastic so it isn't the win you might expect.
- amedvednikov 6y agoWe have renewable energy. Better than having microplastics in the water and in the air.
- firethief 6y agoThe energy used to transport glass around is mostly not renewable
- amedvednikov 6y agoThat also has to change.
- ahoy 6y agoSome amount of degrowth seems necessary. Would you quality of life suffer badly if you just bought a little bit less stuff?
- bluGill 6y agoYes it would suffer. Who are you to judge. In fact I buy less stuff than many people I know. It is how my family can live on just one income (though I do make far more than average), and save a fair bit. However that is my life choices, I avoid judging others with different lives.
- 6y ago
- hristov 6y agoBy the way there is a solution to this plastic issue. Compostable plastics are a reality. See, for example, www.naturtec.com. We could have a world where all cheap plastics that are not expected to last (e.g., water bottles, cutlery, packaging, bags) are compostable, and the expensive high performance long lasting plastics (e.g., those that are part of cars, computers, etc.) are made of traditional plastics. The latter will not create waste because they are expensive and would not be discarded willy nilly in large quantities. Hopefully they will be thrown in a proper landfill. The former will simply decompose regardless of how they are discarded (although for purely aesthetic reasons it is preferable they be discarded in a designated compost bins). At this point the barrier is not technological, it is purely political. We just need to address the externality and force everyone to use compostable plastics for things that are expected to be discarded quickly.
- markdown 6y agoBio-degradable plastic is a scam. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/biodegradable-shopping-bags-buried-for-three-years-dont-degrade/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/biode... https://theconversation.com/when-biodegradable-plastic-is-not-biodegradable-116368 https://theconversation.com/when-biodegradable-plastic-is-no... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/23/biodegradable-plastic-false-solution-for-ocean-waste-problem https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/23/biodegra...
- frazbin 6y agoHere's the problem: Take a biodegradable bag and grind it up into dust, then sprinkle it on the ground-- no problem. Bacteria in the soil will eat it and turn it into biomass and gas. Do the same with a plastic bag, and the tiny bits of plastic will just stick around, and plants grown in that soil will be contaminated by plastic per the study. These bags aren't breaking down quickly simply because they are big. Decomposition is like any other kind of eating; you keep breaking the stuff down into smaller bits until it's gas and biomass. But with plastic, where biodegradation can't happen, the tiny bits (nanoplastics) accumulate. Fun fact about nanoplastics: we can't reliably measure them! We can make a reference solution and apply it to arabidopsis, but we can't count nanoplastic particles in wastewater. I'm told they can be as small as a protein molecule.
- chrisco255 6y agoPlants across the globe are thriving, with enhanced CO2 fertilizing driving record growth, and yet we still get sensational arguments about nanoplastics. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
- devalgo 6y agoThis along with antibiotic resistance, ocean acidification and others are silent civilization killers. Male fertility has been dropping for the past several decades and accumulation of microplastics has been suggested as a possible cause. Will the species become infertile because of this? Will we sterilize our oceans? Will we go back to the 1800s medically where invasive surgeries will be nearly impossible due to no working antibiotics? Few people are aware of these problems and even fewer are working on solutions.
- gowld 6y agoPeople are adaptable. Happiness is more determined social status than improving physical comfort. Dead people aren't unhappy. Never born people aren't unhappy either.
- Jimmc414 6y agoIs this possibly a good thing? If nanoplastics accumulate in plants, that means less of it in the water and air, right?
- hinkley 6y agoYou could say the exact same thing about dioxin, mercury, arsenic. It's not when it's in the water that it's a problem. It's when it enters the food chain. Plastic in plants means plastic in ruminants. Does it stop there, or does the plastic degrade and enter the bloodstream?
- 11235813213455 6y agoEvery Sunday, I'm riding and collecting plastic trash along a bike lane. coke/beer cans and all sort of plastic and paper wrappings (+masks/gloves/gel bottles since covid19), in all sort of state (it's annoying when they start fragmenting)
- TheGrassyKnoll 6y agoYou get extra points for picking up styrofoam, because its just a compound mess waiting to happen.
- oneplane 6y agoThis makes me wonder if we could find out what else accumulates we might not have thought of. Perhaps certain carbon structures or metals that may not directly pollute but accumulate all the same to a point where it does become an issue; somewhat like the (iirc) mercury in some fish.
- TheGrassyKnoll 6y agohttps://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Graduate https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Graduate (1967) Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Benjamin: Yes, sir. Mr. McGuire: Are you listening? Benjamin: Yes, I am. Mr. McGuire: Plastics. Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean? Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]