Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Thursday November 21, @02:28PM   Printer-friendly

Science X's Phys.org site describes a report about the harm from tire particles, which account for about a third of all microplastic contamination in the environment. Unlike other types of plastic, tire particles are smaller, have greater chemical complexity, and different behavior in ecosystems. Thus the call is for them to be placed in a new, separate enviromental category.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Research, highlights the gap in current knowledge about the environmental presence, transportation, and toxic impact of these particles. The authors have identified ten priority research questions across four key themes: environmental detection, chemical composition, biotic impacts, and regulation.

The research brought together an interdisciplinary network of experts from countries including the U.K., U.S., Norway, Australia, South Korea, Finland, Austria, China, and Canada. Their findings underscore the need for a standardized framework to quantify and manage TPs and their leachates, especially as the global presence of these contaminants rises.

A second study is being carried out on the effects from tire chemicals and particles on marine life in UK waters.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 21, @02:46PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday November 21, @02:46PM (#1382706)

    I drove my college beater car all around the South Florida region for 100,000 miles during the 1987-1993 timeframe.

    During that time, it accumulated a nasty smudgy film on the windshield that ordinary measures (water, soap, various solvents) would not remove. You could sort of push it around a bit if it was hot, but it stubbornly stuck to the glass, especially at the edges of where the windshield wipers ran.

    Local lore at the time was that the smudgy stuff was tire dust residue, settled and accumulated on the glass.

    One thing did take it off: four hours of 120mph blasting with a combination of water and oak leaves (hurricane Andrew) - left the windward side glass (fortunately, the windshield) sparkling clean, and I sold the car a bit over a year later, before it had a chance to accumulate too much again.

    Whatever that stuff is: people inhale it all the time. https://news.fiu.edu/2024/its-literally-raining-forever-chemicals-in-miami [fiu.edu] and I'm sure Miami is far from the worst place on Earth for it.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday November 21, @03:00PM (7 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 21, @03:00PM (#1382715) Journal

    Climate change is just one dimension of an ongoing ecological crisis caused by a constant need for more.

    The amount of pollution caused by just cars is absolutely massive, and while the pressing need to not cook the planet is an important one, cars are the primary source of noise pollution, particulate pollution, and (when combined with road lights) light pollution. And early evidence suggests that EVs are actually worse on the particulate pollution front than ICEs.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 21, @03:17PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday November 21, @03:17PM (#1382718)

      But they are so much FUN! And we have voted with our wallets to build beautiful smooth roads for them to drive on - the average US citizen pays more in taxes for roads than they accumulate equity in their home before they die.

      Automobiles are just one step removed from exo-skeleton super-power suits for their drivers. Ever notice that most traffic jams are filled with single-driver vehicles? No coincidence, passengers aren't getting that juiced up rush of being able to run 10x faster while protected from weather, insects, direct communication with other people - provided with entertainment...

      Addiction to automobiles is probably a significant factor in the declining birth rates among wealthy nations... although now that 3 row SUVs are becoming the norm, there's not so much: oh, let's stop at two kids, there's not room in the car for a third one...

      When Skynet comes, it will probably seize control of the vehicular infrastructure first - how better to cripple h. sapiens in the modern world than to make them all walk?

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by Deep Blue on Thursday November 21, @05:23PM (2 children)

      by Deep Blue (24802) on Thursday November 21, @05:23PM (#1382726)

      cars are the primary source of noise pollution, particulate pollution, and (when combined with road lights) light pollution

      Going to need a source for that. Also are you talking about trucks and such too or just passenger cars?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday November 21, @06:37PM (1 child)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 21, @06:37PM (#1382738) Journal

        You do? Okay. I hope you don't mind I'm not using academic sources, because those are harder to pull a single sentence citation from.

        Light pollution: [eschooltoday.com]

        It has been estimated that about 35% to 50% of all light pollution is produced by roadway lighting

        Noise pollution: [iberdrola.com]

        Traffic noise accounts for most polluting noise in cities. For example, a car horn produces 90 dB and a bus produces 100 dB.

        As to particulate pollution, this very summary we're discussing tells us 30% of environmental microplastics are from tires. It doesn't mention the road dust that makes up a substantial part of other air pollutants, but it does.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 21, @06:56PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday November 21, @06:56PM (#1382742)

          Our house is roughly 2km from the nearest expressways... there are homes built less than 200m from the 10+ lanes of 120+kph endless traffic. Nevermind the noise, how can they possibly think that breathing the crap that blows off that road, not only from the pavement and tires, but exhaust emissions as well, can possibly be acceptable in the long term? I mean, even with the windows always closed, homes still have significant air infiltration carrying the dust and soot.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday November 21, @06:08PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday November 21, @06:08PM (#1382734) Journal

      On the whole, electric motors are far cleaner than combustion engines. But yes, EVs can wear tires out faster. Maybe that's what you mean about EVs supposedly being worse on the particulate pollution?

      EVs don't have to tear up tires. Go easy on the accelerator pedal, and if the car has driving "modes", use whichever one is gentlest on the tires. I think in all cases that would be the "eco mode" or equivalent, while the opposite is the "sport mode".

    • (Score: -1) by creimer_is_a_virgin on Thursday November 21, @06:33PM

      by creimer_is_a_virgin (13618) on Thursday November 21, @06:33PM (#1382736) Journal

      Excuse me, but I need to order more aliexpress RC cars while sitting in my living room and eating processed corn products.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 22, @01:11PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @01:11PM (#1382844) Journal

      Climate change is just one dimension of an ongoing ecological crisis caused by a constant need for more.

      The problem with these narratives of sacrifice is that we genuinely need more else we get more people. Poverty is a key source of high fertility people which will cause bigger problems in the long run. Further, the ecological crisis is bad because parts of the world are poor. For example, the largest source of ocean plastics comes from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa, all developing regions of the world without the environment protections of the developed world (and by majority, I mean over 60%, 95% of 67% [soylentnews.org] of plastic in oceans).

      The amount of pollution caused by just cars is absolutely massive, and while the pressing need to not cook the planet is an important one, cars are the primary source of noise pollution, particulate pollution, and (when combined with road lights) light pollution. And early evidence suggests that EVs are actually worse on the particulate pollution front than ICEs.

      It's telling that we don't actually know that there's an "absolutely massive" particulate problem in the first place! As to noise and light pollution, we have solutions to that which don't even require us to change cars in the first place (noise dampening and putting blinds in windows, for example).

      And we're missing an absolutely massive, pressing need to improve the lives of 8+ billion people on Earth. Both for its own sake and because they become low fertility in the process!

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by shellsterdude on Thursday November 21, @03:07PM (10 children)

    by shellsterdude (11969) on Thursday November 21, @03:07PM (#1382716)

    The study purports to show that tires are a significant source of a type of "microplastics", which is like saying they are significant source of "molecules". Microplastics is too broad to provide any specificity. Even then the study basically then admits basically that "we don't know if this is bad or hard on the environment, we just assume it is and give us more money to research it". How you get from these non-statements to "a Distinct Source of Environmental Damage" requires multiple rounds of begging the question.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Thursday November 21, @03:25PM (7 children)

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 21, @03:25PM (#1382719)

      Even then the study basically then admits basically that "we don't know if this is bad or hard on the environment, we just assume it is and give us more money to research it"

      ... I mean, are you expecting this layer of particulate might improve our immune systems and shorten flu season, maybe?

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Thursday November 21, @05:18PM (6 children)

        by Freeman (732) on Thursday November 21, @05:18PM (#1382725) Journal

        I posit that, if you wrap every individual in a bubble of plastic, there would be no one left to care.

        Yes, we should care about the environment. However, we should care more about the humans in that environment. Which a lot of people just don't get. Modern conveniences like Air Conditioners, Houses, Roads, and Running Water were created to improve the lives of people. Who would care, if the entire planet was a paradise and everyone was dead? Assuming more people cared about people, I posit that fixing the environment problems would be a bigger deal to more people.

        --
        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: 2) by Tork on Thursday November 21, @05:31PM (5 children)

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 21, @05:31PM (#1382728)
          It reminds me of the saying: "What if we end up cleaning the air for nothing?"
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday November 21, @06:18PM (3 children)

            by Freeman (732) on Thursday November 21, @06:18PM (#1382735) Journal

            Then we'll have been very poor engineers.

            Space Engineers game quote:

            To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

            That said, there's all kinds of horrible things wrong with the saying you quoted. Assuming we did clean up the air "for nothing", then we probably did a horrible job at cleaning it. The air quality is horrific in some places and as someone who likes to breathe, I find clean air to be a very nice thing. There's also the "what if scenario" of them being right. Assume we bankrupt the USA trying to clean the environment and either one of these two options. Scenario 1 we find out we didn't need to to do it. Scenario 2 we find out that there was no possible way to do it and/or we just couldn't due to running out of money. In either of those scenarios, pollution will inevitably get worse due to an entire country being unable to afford basic sanitation.

            There's also the assumption that the USA could "clean the air of the world" and that's beyond absurd. The only way to "clean the air of the world" is for the entire world to actually care about the pollution they pump into the air. The United Sates is country 102 of 134 on this list: https://www.iqair.com/us/world-most-polluted-countries [iqair.com]

            India is the only country in the top 10 that I expected to be there, with China hitting the #19 spot.

            --
            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: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday November 21, @07:33PM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 21, @07:33PM (#1382747)

              There's also the assumption that the USA could "clean the air of the world" and that's beyond absurd.

              I've never actually heard anyone say this. I question the value of worrying about this anyway, we know shit thrown in the air in China can reach us and if it got bad enough to cause health problems over here we'd do something about it anyway just out of necessity. What are we going to do, label alien air particles for air-filters to reject?

              I don't think it was ever about 'cleaning the air of world', just a cold reality of the fact that we're all sharing the same resource. It's also easily spun by those wanting higher profit margins.

              The only way to "clean the air of the world" is for the entire world to actually care about the pollution they pump into the air.

              Right... but not doing anything because others are worse is counter-productive. We're going to pay for pollution one way or another. If everybody develops cancer, for example, then the money savings from NOT putting shit in the air means nothing. Also... ignoring warning signs and continuing to move merrily along means a higher expense down the road to correct it. There's wisdom, and then there's just plain gambling. We lost a big important mine in our last pair of hurricanes. Is that being accounted for while deciding to keep fucking around like this?

              Assume we bankrupt the USA trying to clean the environment...

              There is a very powerful profit motive behind getting that message in front of your face, and it's been going on for decades. During that time there have been huge improvements in air quality, far better/efficient use of electricity, and we have several solid means of generating electrical power. It's less than ideal today but you CAN go buy a car and 'fuel' it with panels in your back yard, but you still can't generate a tank of gasoline. Those technical innovations are considered by some a drag on the existing market without considering the new markets they open. Wanna build a wind farm? Jobs. Wanna build a nuclear plant? Jobs. Wanna build cars that run on electricity and use gasoline to generate that electricity? Design jobs, manufacturing jobs, electrical generation jobs, you name it.

              We've been thriving for decades despite the push towards better environmental practices.

              I actually do agree with you on the point that silly extremes will get silly results, I don't agree with you that the extremes are what's playing out right now. "Babble" and "doing" are two different things, and that applies to both sides.

              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by corey on Thursday November 21, @10:07PM (1 child)

              by corey (2202) on Thursday November 21, @10:07PM (#1382773)

              I appreciate that quote. As an engineer, my mind went straight for solutions. No tyres, or change to a biodegradeable compound. Firstly, I don't think there are any non-tyre solutions? We seem to need rubber/like material to keep wheels on the ground. Until we get flying cars viable, or a hovercraft-like device (hmm starting to think of options there..). The second option, biodegradeable. I don't know anything about tyre compound (other than soft/hard etc), I am sure the tyre companies can come up with something better. But I would think that normal tyre rubber would break down anyway. Everything does, faster if it's in very small pieces, which this is.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @10:31AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @10:31AM (#1382823)

                You can do a quick fermi calc of how much of this stuff there is.1
                how many cars in your city : lets say a million
                how many years your tyres last : lets say three years
                how much rubber each tyre loses between new and bald : 3kg as a guesstimate2

                -> 1,000,000 (cars) *4 (tyres/car) * 3(Kg) / 3 (years)
                = ~ 4000 tonnes per year of this dust dropped on your city.3

                ---

                1. This is very rough, you can plug in much more accurate figures for your particular city.
                2. 1.5m circumference * 20cm width * 1 cm tread height * guessing at a rubber density of 1
                3. This also doesn't include trucks, which apparently go through way more tyres/km than cars.

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday November 22, @01:25PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @01:25PM (#1382846) Journal

            It reminds me of the saying: "What if we end up cleaning the air for nothing?"

            Or: "What if we make things worse instead of better?"

            Here, we know that developed world societies are less polluting and low population growth (driven by immigration of high fertility populations BTW). Meanwhile current environmentalism has a tough time showing it can beat this modest expectation bar - that the proposed action makes things better. It's not a simple choice between good and bad. There are substantial trade offs to environmentalism that are outright ignored. That in turn creates significant poverty and significant population growth. Until one understands the human dynamics - particularly the incredible power of developed world economies, one can't fix the problems of the world.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @05:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @05:15AM (#1382807)

      > ... tires are a significant source of a type of "microplastics", ...

      For work I watch a couple of tire industry trade magazines. There have been a few serious studies of tire particulate generation, for example, one I recall used a vacuum system mounted behind a tire and collected the wear particles while driving around. Others sample the ground at different distances from the edge of busy highways and look at the amount (and size) of tire wear particles--no surprise, the smaller particles travel further from the road and are more likely to end up in water. Sorry, no cites, but this kind of research is ongoing and you are probably going to hear more about it as time goes on.

      Another post mentions substitutions for rubber and this is also a research topic inside the rubber industry. Historically, the search for substitutes is more about future-proofing in case some disease takes out the natural rubber plants--like bananas, this tree is nearly a mono-culture. Yes, natural rubber (latex, tree sap) is still a significant part of nearly all tires, since natural rubber is lower hysteresis (lower energy loss) than all the synthetic rubbers invented so far.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday November 22, @12:34PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday November 22, @12:34PM (#1382839)

      UK government report on air pollution in the UK (and detrimental effects thereof):

      https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/annualreport/viewonline?year=2023_issue_1#report_pdf [defra.gov.uk]

      My reading is that NOx is most significant pollutant while other stuff is also significant. From the report:

      > exposure to the air pollution mixture in the UK has an annual effect equivalent to 29,000 to
      > 43,000 deaths for adults aged 30 and over (UK Health Security Agency, 2022a).

      [page 33, Note that this includes not just particulates but other air pollution sources. That corresponds to about 0.5 deaths per thousand people per year in the UK, compared to a UK mortality of a bit under 10 deaths per thousand per year.]

      > The main sources of
      > primary PM10 particulate emissions in the UK are: combustion in production processes;
      > industrial, residential and commercial fuel use; agriculture; waste treatment, and road
      > transport. In recent years, emissions from residential combustion have increased, both in
      > ...
      > ... respiratory and cardiovascular illness ... 722,660 cases of chronic bronchitis ...
      > although [the study authors] considered the evidence insufficient to establish causality
      [page 35, PM10 means particulate matter having size 10 micron]

(1)