Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
...Do people really increase their consumption because they recycle? I think they justify their consumption because they recycle, but I don't think it's likely that consumption increases...
Yeah, that was an odd conclusion; it made me wonder if they had any studies to show that or if it was just speculation. I guess it's possible, but it just doesn't seem very likely to me.
2. If a human or a fish eat polyester microfibers themselves, I think they just pass though the gut unchanged. However, any absorbed petroleum byproducts are probably solublized to some extent, e.g., by the bile, which is there to break up fats, or edible oils in the stomach and gut during digestion.
It's difficult to imagine a fish ingesting enough seawater with these fibers to actually make a measurable difference. The pollution itself would seem to be more of a hazard if it's just in the water, getting into the fish via the gills. Without actual sciencing, I have a hunch the fibers make no difference but can imagine they actually improve the situation by a tiny amount.
I spotted two things that I'd like some elaboration on.
If the fibers aren't caught by most water treatment facilities, isn't that just a matter of improving those facilities?
If fish are eating these fibers after they've absorbed a load of pollutants, doesn't that mean that without them, the pollutants would be just as prevalent, but maybe wind up in the parts of the fish we don't eat? Why do we think that ingesting these plastics means that the pollutants they carry will end up in the fish flesh? Don't the fibers hold onto most of the pollutants and just pass thru the fish? Or are the fibers so tiny that they get from the stomach to the bloodstream and into the flesh that way? At what point do the pollutants become separated from the fibers?
Further questions:
We are given large numbers to scare us, but these are large numbers of very very tiny things in vast oceans. How big a problem is this, really?
Is it a problem at all? Is the theoretical absorption of toxic-chemical sponges by fish actually happening, or is this just a moral panic being spread by scientifically ignorant activists as usual?
What about naturally-occurring microfibers? How does their prevalence compare?
Is the toxin absorption issue real? Polyesters are fairly inert—that's why they break down slowly. How is it that fairly inert molecules (because a polymer fiber is really just a very large molecule) gets toxins attached to it? Why toxins, as opposed to the vast amounts of other chemicals already in the water?
Without this form of recycling there would be more plastic bottles rattling around in the environment, rubbing against things and releasing particles. Is the net effect of recycling into clothing positive or negative in terms of release of microfibers?
After the rather dishonest factoids spewed by the same organization about electronics manufacturing why should we believe a word they say?
Are cotton and wool dust/fibers less prone to slipping through the filtration? I can imagine their effects (absorbing toxins; being ingested) are as much of a concern.
Do people really increase their consumption because they recycle? I think they justify their consumption because they recycle, but I don't think it's likely that consumption increases. Any commitment to recycling leads to reduced consumption simply because recycling is a pain.
I spotted two things that I'd like some elaboration on.
If the fibers aren't caught by most water treatment facilities, isn't that just a matter of improving those facilities?
If fish are eating these fibers after they've absorbed a load of pollutants, doesn't that mean that without them, the pollutants would be just as prevalent, but maybe wind up in the parts of the fish we don't eat? Why do we think that ingesting these plastics means that the pollutants they carry will end up in the fish flesh? Don't the fibers hold onto most of the pollutants and just pass thru the fish? Or are the fibers so tiny that they get from the stomach to the bloodstream and into the flesh that way? At what point do the pollutants become separated from the fibers?
Further questions:
We are given large numbers to scare us, but these are large numbers of very very tiny things in vast oceans. How big a problem is this, really?
Is it a problem at all? Is the theoretical absorption of toxic-chemical sponges by fish actually happening, or is this just a moral panic being spread by scientifically ignorant activists as usual?
What about naturally-occurring microfibers? How does their prevalence compare?
Is the toxin absorption issue real? Polyesters are fairly inert—that's why they break down slowly. How is it that fairly inert molecules (because a polymer fiber is really just a very large molecule) gets toxins attached to it? Why toxins, as opposed to the vast amounts of other chemicals already in the water?
Without this form of recycling there would be more plastic bottles rattling around in the environment, rubbing against things and releasing particles. Is the net effect of recycling into clothing positive or negative in terms of release of microfibers?
After the rather dishonest factoids spewed by the same organization about electronics manufacturing why should we believe a word they say?
I spotted two things that I'd like some elaboration on.
If the fibers aren't caught by most water treatment facilities, isn't that just a matter of improving those facilities?
If fish are eating these fibers after they've absorbed a load of pollutants, doesn't that mean that without them, the pollutants would be just as prevalent, but maybe wind up in the parts of the fish we don't eat? Why do we think that ingesting these plastics means that the pollutants they carry will end up in the fish flesh? Don't the fibers hold onto most of the pollutants and just pass thru the fish? Or are the fibers so tiny that they get from the stomach to the bloodstream and into the flesh that way? At what point do the pollutants become separated from the fibers?
Off the top of my head:
1. Industrial scale filtration of small particles is difficult and slow, but one could certainly destroy polyester fibers by acid catalyzed hydrolysis. That would also take time and time is money. It reminds me of carbon capture techniques which seem to work but cost money so....
2. If a human or a fish eats polyester microfibers themselves, I think they just pass though the gut unchanged. However, any absorbed petroleum byproducts are probably solublized to some extent, e.g., by the bile, which is there to break up fats, or edible oils in the stomach and gut during digestion.
Edit (to respond to questions above):
Toxins getting concentrated up the food chain is a real phenomenon. It does not occur when a toxin is diluted in the ocean, but if it is concentrated somewhere that can be eaten, then up the food chain it goes.
Many metallic "toxins" are not soluble in water or oil, but most carbon-based toxins are soluble in water, or oil, or both to some degree.
There are no naturally occurring polyester microfibers. The fact that polyester is not naturally occurring is the main reason why there are not microorganisms which can digest them (yet).
The same thing happened with wood at the beginning, which is where all the coal came from as trees fell over and never rotted.
I spotted two things that I'd like some elaboration on.
If the fibers aren't caught by most water treatment facilities, isn't that just a matter of improving those facilities?
If fish are eating these fibers after they've absorbed a load of pollutants, doesn't that mean that without them, the pollutants would be just as prevalent, but maybe wind up in the parts of the fish we don't eat? Why do we think that ingesting these plastics means that the pollutants they carry will end up in the fish flesh? Don't the fibers hold onto most of the pollutants and just pass thru the fish? Or are the fibers so tiny that they get from the stomach to the bloodstream and into the flesh that way? At what point do the pollutants become separated from the fibers?
I'm all for recycling, and not just empty food containers either. I'm for repair and reassign instead of replace when it comes to manufactured goods, and other things that used to be normal before accelerated obsolescence was embraced by consumers. That and more.
The fact remains though that there are many cubic miles of discarded trash that was created since the dawn of humankind. Even the best recycling efforts aren't doing much to slow down the increase of the rate at which humans fill and create new garbage pits, and do nothing about the old ones. Despite what decades of green propaganda has taught us, that inescapable fact is that we might be better off not separating our paper and plastics at home.
We might as well spend our money and effort elsewhere.
I've seen garbage collection that requires nothing of the throwers-out. Separation of recyclables happens later. This system is superior because it can't be sabotaged by people who recycle incorrectly or not at all. Even better, the same process works just as well with feedstock from old landfills. It doesn't care if the trash is fresh or not. And that's why this is the technology that we should concentrate on improving and making increasingly economical.
One day we might not look at garbage dumps as eyesores and threats to the ecology. We might wake up one day to discover that it's less expensive to reclaim raw materials from landfills than to explore for and mine them from virgin earth. The trash industry has gotten quite good at containing the dangers and hiding the visual and olfactory liabilities of landfills. In the long run, it just may be smarter to continue down this path until the time that the technology and economics of mass waste reclamation literally turn our trash into treasure.
Effen' insane. We need to figure out how to recycle EVERYTHING. Dirty, clean, wet, dry, doesn't matter. We cannot continue our throw-away existence on a finite planet. It's very simple math, people - get. a. fucking. clue.
Just read the rules for proper recycling of paper towels from Waste Management of Orange County.
" paper towels (must be clean and dry)"
Just WTF is going on out here and how did it get this way ?
No wonder there is a water shortage out here, you have to wash everything before throwing it out.
Jeezuz, what happened to just plain garbage anyway ?
How much does a used paper towel inspector get an hour ?
Effen' insane. We need to figure out how to recycle EVERYTHING. Dirty, clean, wet, dry, doesn't matter. We cannot continue our throw-away existence on a finite planet. It's very simple math, people - get. a. fucking. clue.
There's no real science to show that UV light actually exists. It's just another scare tactic to create a market where no market exists. Big Business as usual.
There's no real science to show that UV light actually exists. It's just another scare tactic to create a market where no market exists. Big Business as usual.
There's no real science to show that UV light actually exists. It's just another scare tactic to create a market where no market exists. Big Business as usual.
That's a long trip and a lot of UV exposure. PET embrittles in sunlight unless combined with UV absorbing compounds—which bottle don't have, on purpose, so they'll break down in sunlight. So I hope the outer layers are UV stabilized or the boat may not make it to be recycled.
Otherwise a cool project.
There's no real science to show that UV light actually exists. It's just another scare tactic to create a market where no market exists. Big Business as usual.
