Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Microplastics were found in sea salt several years ago. But how extensively plastic bits are spread throughout the most commonly used seasoning remained unclear. Now, new research shows microplastics in 90 percent of the table salt brands sampled worldwide.
Of 39 salt brands tested, 36 had microplastics in them, according to a new analysis by researchers in South Korea and Greenpeace East Asia. Using prior salt studies, this new effort is the first of its scale to look at the geographical spread of microplastics in table salt and their correlation to where plastic pollution is found in the environment.
"The findings suggest that human ingestion of microplastics via marine products is strongly related to emissions in a given region," said Seung-Kyu Kim, a marine science professor at Incheon National University in South Korea.
[...] The new study, she says, "shows us that microplastics are ubiquitous. It's not a matter of if you are buying sea salt in England, you are safe."
The new study estimates that the average adult consumes approximately 2,000 microplastics per year through salt. What that means remains a mystery.
A separate study by the University of York in Britain that sought to assess the risks of microplastics to the environment, published Wednesday, concluded not enough is known to determine if microplastics cause harm.
[...] That new study, funded by the Personal Care Products Council, an industry trade group, was published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Boxall added that the focus on microplastics may divert attention from worse environmental (and more easily identifiable) pollution problems, such as small particles released from car tires.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday October 21 2018, @01:25PM (2 children)
Clickbait? Not really. The summary adds a bit of alarmism that's not present in the study, but the study is bad enough [acs.org]. According to the abstract, they did analyze table salt, with most of their samples being brands that claim to be "sea salt". Which makes sense, because "prehistoric" sea salt out of a mine will not contain any microplastics. So there's no reason to analyse it, because the findings are already known.
The takeaway from the study is what we already know: Asia is a disaster. Most plastic entering the ocean comes down Asian rivers (with Africa in second place). This comes from having large populations with no effective waste disposal systems.
You know, if second- and third-world countries want the first world to pay for CO2 pollution, I think we should insist that they pay for plastic pollution. IMHO, plastics in the oceans are a far more serious environmental threat than the (seriously over-hyped) AGW happening from CO2.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday October 21 2018, @11:15PM
Try again.
You'll discover the 'civilized' way to waste disposal is to 'export' the waste to Asia and Africa.
We'll, China says now [nbcnews.com] 'you can keep you garbage':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @03:06AM
No reason? If you're a real scientist it'll be one of your control/comparison groups. And if it still shows up plastic then either you're doing stuff wrong or maybe your paper needs a different title...
But if you're a "publish crap career scientist" then you leave stuff like that decades later for a more "definitive study" before you retire.