from the I-want-to-say-one-word-to-you...plastics dept.
Everyday plastic products release trillions of microscopic particles into water:
Plastics surround us, whether it's the grocery bags we use at the supermarket or household items such as shampoo and detergent bottles. Plastics don't exist only as large objects, but also as microscopic particles that are released from these larger products. These microscopic plastics can end up in the environment, and they can be ingested into our bodies.
Now, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have analyzed a couple of widely used consumer products to better understand these microscopic plastics. They found that when the plastic products are exposed to hot water, they release trillions of nanoparticles per liter into the water.
The NIST researchers published their findings in the scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology.
"The main takeaway here is that there are plastic particles wherever we look. There are a lot of them. Trillions per liter. We don't know if those have bad health effects on people or animals. We just have a high confidence that they're there," said NIST chemist Christopher Zangmeister.
[...] In their study, the NIST researchers looked at two types of commercial plastic products: food-grade nylon bags, such as baking liners -- clear plastic sheets placed in baking pans to create a nonstick surface that prevents moisture loss -- and single-use hot beverage cups, such as coffee cups. The beverage cups they analyzed were coated with low-density polyethylene (LDPE), a soft flexible plastic film often used as a liner.
[...] In their analysis and observations, the researchers found that the average size of the nanoparticles was between 30 nanometers and 80 nanometers, with few above 200 nanometers. Additionally, the concentration of nanoparticles released into hot water from food-grade nylon was seven times higher compared with the single-use beverage cups.
"In the last decade scientists have found plastics wherever we looked in the environment. People have looked at snow in Antarctica, the bottom of glacial lakes, and found microplastics bigger than about 100 nanometers, meaning they were likely not small enough to enter a cell and cause physical problems," said Zangmeister.
"Our study is different because these nanoparticles are really small and a big deal because they could get inside of a cell, possibly disrupting its function," said Zangmeister, who also stressed that no one has determined that would be the case.
Journal Reference:
Christopher D. Zangmeister, James G. Radney, Kurt D. Benkstein, and Berc Kalanyan. Common Single-Use Consumer Plastic Products Release Trillions of Sub-100 nm Nanoparticles per Liter into Water during Normal Use, Environmental Science & Technology, 2022
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c06768
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @12:25PM (2 children)
A lot of people I know, avoid putting hot food or drink in contact with plastic. Now the experiment demonstrates they have a reason to do so.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 22 2022, @03:02PM (1 child)
I also avoid putting acidic drink (orange juice, for example) into metallic containers...
But, hey, if you like big breasts on little girls, BPA is the wonder-chemical of the recent decades, serve up everything in and on those BPA bearing containers: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160401111849.htm [sciencedaily.com] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615581/ [nih.gov] https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/8/6/492/pdf [mdpi.com]
Remember kiddies, BPA and PFOA are just two that we know about. There are thousands of organic and organic-derivative compounds out there being mass manufactured and distributed in playground equipment, food containers, toys, clothing, furniture, computer keyboards and mice, etc. that have not been linked to any particular biological effects in humans, animals, or plants... yet. But, don't worry, industrial giants like DuPont are diligently, voluntarily collecting such data as they deem necessary to ensure,,, well... profits first, of course, but also if they happen to notice massive deformities in their workers or their offspring, they'll be sure to make the necessary changes to protect, well... profits first, of course.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @03:59PM
Not a problem. If you haven't heard, Tucker Carlson is behind "testicle tanning" [theguardian.com] that will raise your testosterone back up to make you a "man's man" manly man (not some wussie liberal).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday April 22 2022, @12:30PM (24 children)
Consider this set of exemplary situations, but not necessarily limiting to these:
For me, concerning point 3., contrary to popular environmentalist ideology I consider using natural fur and leather for clothing and footwear be more friendly to natural environment than plastic and synthetics substitutes.
Because nature well knows how to deal with residuals of these.
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @12:57PM
The difference between this study and your examples is that your examples create much larger particles, in the micrometer or larger variety. Not suggesting that these aren't problems, but the body has natural mechanisms to handle things of this size. The particulates in this study are tens to a few hundred nanometers, which are small enough to get into cells. The big question, of course, is whether this is a problem that our bodies can't handle.
(Score: 4, Funny) by acid andy on Friday April 22 2022, @01:16PM (16 children)
Every animal dies exactly once. There is therefore no need to slaughter them prematurely to obtain fur or leather. You can quibble over declining quality in aging tissues, but that's just callous.
Alternatively just shear the animals and spin their wool or fur into fiber.
If we can grow meat in the lab now, how long until we can grow leather and fur commercially?
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @01:22PM (6 children)
Nonsense quote:
"Every animal dies exactly once. There is therefore no need to slaughter them prematurely to obtain fur or leather."
Leather comes from domesticated animals raised for purposes other than to be a pet. I don't think anybody raising cattle is going to put his time and money into feeding and caring for a herd of cattle until it dies of old age. That's not even financially possible.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday April 22 2022, @02:23PM (3 children)
Then put the prices up or shut it all down. Cattle farming is a huge contributor to climate change.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @07:33PM (1 child)
>> Cattle farming is a huge contributor to climate change.
Not as big as overpopulation by humans... so by your logic we should shut down the fast-breeding populations.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @08:37PM
Most definitely. Stop feeding the non-whites. Just imagine how nice it would be! The whole world's resources with only about 7% of the world's current population. Start with Negroids. No race wants them around anyways.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23 2022, @09:06AM
The meat industry in the USA produces 3% of the USA's greenhouse gases. That analysis is from the EPA and can be found on their website. The paper people quote to claim the meat industry contributes 51% of the greenhouse gases grossly miscalculated their data and the authors pulled their paper shortly after publishing. Sadly that hasn't stopped people from constantly quoting it and attacking the meat industry. Regenerative cattle farming is one of the very few farming practices that actually improves the soil instead of strip mining it of nutrients like nearly all crop farming does. Get rid of cattle farming and you'll be able to watch the dust bowel significantly expand during your life time.
Why do you believe taking the skin of an animal, one that was raised on surface resources within the circle of life, contributes more to climate change than mining oil and processing that into synthetic fibers then turning those into
clothing which ends up in a landfill after scattering billions of micro particles which are causing hormonal damage within the food chain? Those oil products weren't part of the active circle of life but we keep producing them and putting them into the cycle.
With the decline of leather and other natural products, those skins are simply thrown out. Skipping leather doesn't mean an animal is saved, it just means the skin is thrown out. Those animals are already being killed for food. By choosing synthetic products you're supporting all that oil biased production and mining while sending the animal skins to the trash. If you actually cared about the environment like you claim then all your clothing would be animal based products.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @08:14PM (1 child)
Ever tried to eat an old hen?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday April 23 2022, @12:46AM
I suppose that depends whether you were using euphemisms!
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday April 22 2022, @02:25PM
Young bulls are usually slaughtered for best meat at age of 2 years. Their leather is adequate.
Pig leather (pigsty) is also a relatively cheap commodity.
My leather clothing and accessories usually last for many years or even decades, I can't say that about
ragsfabric clothes.The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Friday April 22 2022, @02:37PM
https://www.vogue.in/fashion/content/is-lab-grown-leather-the-future-for-the-fashion-industry [vogue.in]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 22 2022, @03:06PM (5 children)
But, there's the conundrum... what's the average lifespan of a pig or cow in the wild? If we're protecting them in captivity, are we doing them any favors by letting them age into frailty, senility, etc.? Shouldn't they meet a natural end around the same lifespan as wild living members of their species? Now, talk about chickens bred for rapid growth and big breasts... put those selectively bred (genetically modified: potatoe, potato) chickens back in the wild and what would their average lifespan be? Considering the living hell that is a commercial chicken farm, isn't any killing in there a mercy killing?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday April 22 2022, @04:01PM (4 children)
Well, yeah, but you can imagine what my opinion is on factory farming...
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 22 2022, @04:45PM (3 children)
Grade A large eggs: $3.19 per dozen
Boneless chicken breasts: $1.99 per pound
Factory farming delivers at shockingly low prices, that's not an opinion.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday April 22 2022, @04:57PM (2 children)
We all know that's what happens when you optimize for profit only. Our species is an expert at externalizing suffering.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 22 2022, @05:28PM (1 child)
Seems to me that the externalized suffering is well on its way back from a round-the world trip and is about to bite us in the ass.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Saturday April 23 2022, @12:48AM
Karma...
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @07:59PM
i thought leather and fur where necromancer accessories?
i suppose the barbarian hordes got some excellent PR company to make people un-see the fact that they're wearing dead animals with a trip cut, nice design and the right cologne?
maybe for a tiny increase in fee they can make the "red dragon" clothing line more appealing. eh, come to think of it, smearin' the new rejuvenating gen-cream that was just discovered over old near dead people could make for some nice leather too? why stop at that? human bones could make some nice accessory "keep your grandma close"-hair accessory line? or maybe buttons or belt pins?
more OT, i see my supermarket is stocking more plastic tupperware(-tm) then glass based ones. also the lid hinge isn't really a hinge and snapping the lid on and off about 50 times fatigues the "hinge" enough for it to break off ... "will not buy again but united front doesn't give alternative"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 22 2022, @03:20PM (3 children)
What's wrong with linen or ethically-sourced cotton? It's not like your only choices are plastic or fur/leather.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by cmdrklarg on Friday April 22 2022, @04:33PM (2 children)
Why not use naugahyde, sourced from ethically raised naugas?
*tongue firmly planted in cheek*
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 22 2022, @04:43PM (1 child)
Have you see the teeth on those things? I am not getting anywhere near one of those...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @05:39PM
Stay away from Naugatuk, CT
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @08:44PM (1 child)
The biggest issue is so-called 'biodegradable' plastic. There is nothing biodegradable about it, it just gradually turns to powder. We literally dump millions of tonnes of that garbage into the environment every year on the theory that nature will clean it up for us, but nature has no way to do that so it builds up and is poisoning everything.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @10:07PM
.
I ran a 8 year experiment back in the 80s when one of the grocery stores was singing the praises of their bio-degradable plastic bags. Tacked a couple to the sunny side of a shed, and staked a couple more on the ground. Ten years later my wife took them down and threw them in the recycle when we moved out of that house.
Statute of limitations on false advertising had already expired.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @12:51PM (4 children)
With how much plastic we are dumping into the environment how long before some bacteria starts to eat it? Just imagine the chaos that would ensue if (some types of) plastic started rotting.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Freeman on Friday April 22 2022, @01:30PM (3 children)
Some things do eat plastic: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/03/10/the-race-to-develop-plastic-eating-bacteria/?sh=3ca619d07406 [forbes.com]
Doesn't mean it'd be safe to release tons of bacteria that "eats plastic" just to find out it eats x thing better and is a huge problem.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday April 22 2022, @01:52PM (1 child)
1) They eat it, but not very rapidly.
2) They already exist in the external environment. No need to dump them.
Actually, there are probably kinds of plastic that no bacteria will ever eat. I suspect Teflon(R) to be on of such. Just about nothing will separate fluorine from what it's attached to.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @05:14PM
I hope fluorine attaches to my teeth...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2022, @05:48PM
Unleash the mealworms!
https://www.yalescientific.org/2016/02/mealworms-an-unlikely-solution-to-styrofoam-waste-2/ [yalescientific.org]