The warning for this impending disaster already was published in 2021 but unfortunately, ignored (guess why) - pdf available. BTW O2 production from algae is impacted as well as most MNP winds up in the oceans.
Impacts of Micro- and Nanoplastics on Photosynthesis Activities of Photoautotrophs: A Mini-Review
Yes, plus the issue that there are no relevant scientists in any US regime, contrary to the Chinese leadership. Most scientific papers now are "made in China".
China always gets the blame for being the largest CO2 emitter but without mentioning what really matters, "per capita" and what would be even better, related to industrial output. The "per capita" output is provided in this video:
Indeed, and I think that for quite some time, one of the C's in CCP means "Conficianist" as that could be described as a system for civilization based on harmony, moral, ethics, cooperation, meritorious behavior and a sense of community / collectivism. There's no other way to explain the meteoric rise of science and engineering there. From that perspective, Chinese scientists will be the first to design large scale NMP capturing. From the West one can only expect more war, alas.
Micro and nano-plastics might "look" like plant food to algae and plankton, in the same way that plastic Chinese food in the restaurant window looks like food.
Here we present a biological fragmentation pathway that generates nanoplastics during the ingestion of microplastics by rotifers, a commonly found and globally distributed surface water zooplankton relevant for nutrient recycling. Both marine and freshwater rotifers could rapidly grind polystyrene, polyethylene and photo-aged microplastics, thus releasing smaller particulates during ingestion.
This study was harder than usual to find but understanding Gaia as a complex thermodynamical feedback system (from earthquake events to microbiology) plus the existence of "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" I knew something like this would exist. It isn't the end of the story as plastic "eating" bacteria already exist but not in quantities that make a meaningful difference.
This study you cite claims that "it is still difficult to quantify the impact and determine their acting mechanisms" of MNPs, thus challenging the subsequent article mentioned here.
Yes, I agree that it's time to be very precautionary about NMP's. However, inaccurate or incomplete studies never really help, and sometimes if they are politically motivated, they backfire.
Isn't the issue "photosynthesis negatively affected by nano-plastics" bad enough already? For humans, the harm no longer is questioned, only "how" (the pathways causing damage).
Nano/Micro-Plastic, an invisible threat getting into the Brain
"we won't be able to say we didn't deserve what we are getting." I have a problem with this because it needs definition of one of the words: we. Which we deserves the horrendous future we are settling on all our progeny and all living things--none of which have any voice whatsoever? And even for those of us who are adults now, who have been beating our heads against the wall for decades trying to change things--do we deserve this because we have been unable to prevail in a capitalist system in which only those with a great deal of money have power? It's true that a hefty percentage of my countrymen go out and buy a giant truck or SUV whenever the price of gas goes down, live in oversize houses, and vote for Trump. But they are products of a massive propaganda industry--their heads have been stuffed with mental junk food since they were toddlers. We could make change despite the sociopathic billionaires if the rest of us--or even a hefty percentage of us--were united. But since the rich control the legacy media and the gatekeeper monopolies (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Paypal, Amazon, Xitter) they have been able to prevent this. So far. This is why I see the advent of the Trump-Musk team as possibly a good thing--because the Democrats are all about maintaining Business as Usual, while these guys are on a maniacal rampage. And their selfish irresponsibility is equaled by their stupidity and incompetence, so they are very likely to bring down the US empire quire rapidly, along with its economy and at least to some extent, that of the rest of the world. And I'm afraid collapse is our best hope of stopping the destruction before it totally wrecks ecosystems and before these maniacs who clearly don't find international law or the US Constitution to be limitations, can realize their dystopian fantasies of pushing AI-directed bioengineering, chips in everyone's heads, universal constant surveillance, space-based weapons, etc. When things begin to fall apart, those who are prepared will be able to lead in the formation of sane, healthy communities at the local level.
I'm all for getting rid of most of this plastic, especially the packaging. But the answers are not as simple as some would have us believe.
I'm old enough to remember when all soft drinks were sold in glass bottles that carried a deposit. I even used to scrounge pocket money as a kid by hunting up empties and returning them. But nowadays, returnable containers (by which I mean "those intended for reuse" and not simply "recycled") are extremely rare. Even when you can get a product in glass, it is almost always intended for single use. Those few that actually are designed to be returnable impose an environmental burden of their own in different ways.
First there is the energy consumed in their production, which includes gathering the material and putting it through the industrial processes necessary to manufacture it. I'm not sure how this compares to plastic. Then the added weight imposes an energy burden over and above plastic during its transportation. Then, for those containers that are not single use, we have the water and energy consumed in washing them out and transporting them to the return point for reuse.
Of course, one could simply avoid buying packaged products entirely, but try that and see how it works out for you. I buy dairy in returnable glass bottles, and am glad to do so. But it is virtually the only product out there that comes in a returnable container.
And I won't even start on the plastic waste generated by the packaging used to ship all those on-line purchases to people.
It would seem that part of Ugo's job as the author here would be to assess the study that he bases his conclusions on. For instance, The Guardian cites two Western scientists commenting on this Chinese study that appeared in the PNAS:
-Prof Denis Murphy, at the University of South Wales, said: “This analysis is valuable and timely in reminding us of the potential dangers of microplastic pollution and the urgency of addressing the issue, [but] some of the major headline figures require more research before they can be accepted as robust predictions.”
-Prof Richard Lampitt, at the UK’s National Oceanography Centre, said the conclusions should be treated with caution. “I have considerable concerns about the quality of the original data used by the model and this has led to overspeculation about the effects of plastic contamination on food supplies,” he said. The researchers acknowledged that more data was needed and said this would produce more accurate estimates.
The study uses just 3000 data points to extrapolate a conclusion for the trillions of individual plants on earth, then uses a machine-learning model to summarize. I think we'd need to test this model on the real world. It's hard for me to see how corn crops in the US are losing 10% of yield by microplastics, for instance. If this is the case, we are screwed, but I have doubts.
The warning for this impending disaster already was published in 2021 but unfortunately, ignored (guess why) - pdf available. BTW O2 production from algae is impacted as well as most MNP winds up in the oceans.
Impacts of Micro- and Nanoplastics on Photosynthesis Activities of Photoautotrophs: A Mini-Review
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356286320_Impacts_of_Micro-_and_Nanoplastics_on_Photosynthesis_Activities_of_Photoautotrophs_A_Mini-Review
Another one of those ideas swamped by the cries that "CO2 is plant food"
Yes, plus the issue that there are no relevant scientists in any US regime, contrary to the Chinese leadership. Most scientific papers now are "made in China".
That, too!
China always gets the blame for being the largest CO2 emitter but without mentioning what really matters, "per capita" and what would be even better, related to industrial output. The "per capita" output is provided in this video:
https://statisticsanddata.org/data/co2-emissions-by-country-1850-2020/
And they are decarbonizing without stabbing any religion in the heart
They are not decarbonizing right now, nor in the past decades.
Indeed, and I think that for quite some time, one of the C's in CCP means "Conficianist" as that could be described as a system for civilization based on harmony, moral, ethics, cooperation, meritorious behavior and a sense of community / collectivism. There's no other way to explain the meteoric rise of science and engineering there. From that perspective, Chinese scientists will be the first to design large scale NMP capturing. From the West one can only expect more war, alas.
Micro and nano-plastics might "look" like plant food to algae and plankton, in the same way that plastic Chinese food in the restaurant window looks like food.
I'm speculating.
;-(
No need to speculate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375523536_Microplastic_fragmentation_by_rotifers_in_aquatic_ecosystems_contributes_to_global_nanoplastic_pollution
Here we present a biological fragmentation pathway that generates nanoplastics during the ingestion of microplastics by rotifers, a commonly found and globally distributed surface water zooplankton relevant for nutrient recycling. Both marine and freshwater rotifers could rapidly grind polystyrene, polyethylene and photo-aged microplastics, thus releasing smaller particulates during ingestion.
This study was harder than usual to find but understanding Gaia as a complex thermodynamical feedback system (from earthquake events to microbiology) plus the existence of "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" I knew something like this would exist. It isn't the end of the story as plastic "eating" bacteria already exist but not in quantities that make a meaningful difference.
They just chew it a little, which can't be really good for them, right?
This study you cite claims that "it is still difficult to quantify the impact and determine their acting mechanisms" of MNPs, thus challenging the subsequent article mentioned here.
In science and engineering there used to be the warning "err on the side of caution!".
There's enough material on the harm / damage due to NMP already, like this:
Microplastics exposure: implications for human fertility, pregnancy and child health
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2023.1330396/full
(Wondering if Ugo's new book re population includes this issue as well)
It does
Yes, I agree that it's time to be very precautionary about NMP's. However, inaccurate or incomplete studies never really help, and sometimes if they are politically motivated, they backfire.
Isn't the issue "photosynthesis negatively affected by nano-plastics" bad enough already? For humans, the harm no longer is questioned, only "how" (the pathways causing damage).
Nano/Micro-Plastic, an invisible threat getting into the Brain
https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/en/publications/nanomicro-plastic-an-invisible-threat-getting-into-the-brain
"we won't be able to say we didn't deserve what we are getting." I have a problem with this because it needs definition of one of the words: we. Which we deserves the horrendous future we are settling on all our progeny and all living things--none of which have any voice whatsoever? And even for those of us who are adults now, who have been beating our heads against the wall for decades trying to change things--do we deserve this because we have been unable to prevail in a capitalist system in which only those with a great deal of money have power? It's true that a hefty percentage of my countrymen go out and buy a giant truck or SUV whenever the price of gas goes down, live in oversize houses, and vote for Trump. But they are products of a massive propaganda industry--their heads have been stuffed with mental junk food since they were toddlers. We could make change despite the sociopathic billionaires if the rest of us--or even a hefty percentage of us--were united. But since the rich control the legacy media and the gatekeeper monopolies (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Paypal, Amazon, Xitter) they have been able to prevent this. So far. This is why I see the advent of the Trump-Musk team as possibly a good thing--because the Democrats are all about maintaining Business as Usual, while these guys are on a maniacal rampage. And their selfish irresponsibility is equaled by their stupidity and incompetence, so they are very likely to bring down the US empire quire rapidly, along with its economy and at least to some extent, that of the rest of the world. And I'm afraid collapse is our best hope of stopping the destruction before it totally wrecks ecosystems and before these maniacs who clearly don't find international law or the US Constitution to be limitations, can realize their dystopian fantasies of pushing AI-directed bioengineering, chips in everyone's heads, universal constant surveillance, space-based weapons, etc. When things begin to fall apart, those who are prepared will be able to lead in the formation of sane, healthy communities at the local level.
System transformation will contain some collapse.
Just set a good example and don't check to see if anybody is copying you...
It's easier that way.
I found this Initiative about Ocean destruction very informative
https://goesfoundation.com/
“It is what it is” is all there’s left to say.
I'm all for getting rid of most of this plastic, especially the packaging. But the answers are not as simple as some would have us believe.
I'm old enough to remember when all soft drinks were sold in glass bottles that carried a deposit. I even used to scrounge pocket money as a kid by hunting up empties and returning them. But nowadays, returnable containers (by which I mean "those intended for reuse" and not simply "recycled") are extremely rare. Even when you can get a product in glass, it is almost always intended for single use. Those few that actually are designed to be returnable impose an environmental burden of their own in different ways.
First there is the energy consumed in their production, which includes gathering the material and putting it through the industrial processes necessary to manufacture it. I'm not sure how this compares to plastic. Then the added weight imposes an energy burden over and above plastic during its transportation. Then, for those containers that are not single use, we have the water and energy consumed in washing them out and transporting them to the return point for reuse.
Of course, one could simply avoid buying packaged products entirely, but try that and see how it works out for you. I buy dairy in returnable glass bottles, and am glad to do so. But it is virtually the only product out there that comes in a returnable container.
And I won't even start on the plastic waste generated by the packaging used to ship all those on-line purchases to people.
It would seem that part of Ugo's job as the author here would be to assess the study that he bases his conclusions on. For instance, The Guardian cites two Western scientists commenting on this Chinese study that appeared in the PNAS:
-Prof Denis Murphy, at the University of South Wales, said: “This analysis is valuable and timely in reminding us of the potential dangers of microplastic pollution and the urgency of addressing the issue, [but] some of the major headline figures require more research before they can be accepted as robust predictions.”
-Prof Richard Lampitt, at the UK’s National Oceanography Centre, said the conclusions should be treated with caution. “I have considerable concerns about the quality of the original data used by the model and this has led to overspeculation about the effects of plastic contamination on food supplies,” he said. The researchers acknowledged that more data was needed and said this would produce more accurate estimates.
The study uses just 3000 data points to extrapolate a conclusion for the trillions of individual plants on earth, then uses a machine-learning model to summarize. I think we'd need to test this model on the real world. It's hard for me to see how corn crops in the US are losing 10% of yield by microplastics, for instance. If this is the case, we are screwed, but I have doubts.