Discussion > The New War on Plastics
oops typo in previous URL
Ben Pile tweeted the url of the BBC anti-plastic POLITICAL campaign page
https://static-forms.tectonicinteractive.com/bbc/index-bbc-plastics.html
Times : shout of conflict of interest against David McDowell cos he produced an INDEPENDENT report for Food standatoagency onbthe importance to health of plastic packaging.
And yet he had done a previous report Pack2Go which represents manufacturers
FSA said that doesn't break any rules.
Today the Times gave its Thunderer column over to pseudo-green PR outfit CPRE
Samantha Harding used it to campaign against plastic drinks containers
... no mention was made of CPRE receiving money fro the Dutch manufacturer of reverse vending machines.
Catching up from the Times June 12th
Humans ingest 5g of plastic per week
ie a whole credit cards worth
...bet they don't
thats 250g per year
Sure we inhale some
+ some we get some in via our mouth and stomach
but it all goes through
No one is saying that dead person has 1Kg of plastic in their body.
Stewgreen: while they might not call it “plastic”, initially, they will declare that the body contains hydrocarbons (well, d’uuuh….) – and what is plastic, if not hydrocarbon? Q.E.D. and case closed. Next!
What I've never understood about plastic in the Pacific is how the micro-organisms can tell the difference between carbohydrate polymers derived from the petrochemical industry and those derived from trees.
The difference between wood and plastic is quite hard to define without a historical perspective.
Hydrocarbon. A compound composed ONLY of carbon and hydrogen. Compounds with additional elements, like oxygen and sulphur, including plastics, are not hydrocarbons.
M.Courtney. don't know for sure but 1) may be due to the predominance of certain isomers in those of biological origin, whereas other isomers are present in non-biological materials and cannot be used or are not preferred by organisms and 2) Most organic compounds, even tars containing hundreds or thousands of carbon atoms are ultimately consumed, given enough time. Most spilt oil, for example, is ultimately consumed.
Interesting Life Scientific this morning - all about microplastics. Only one failing , no discussion of removal mechanisms.
The idea that polymers may break down into right-handed stereoisomers is interesting. But most won't break down into stereoisomers at all.
We could easily ban the few that do with no loss.
Many plastics contain Sulphur and Oxygen which can be consumed even though thermo-sets may be hard to break up mechanically.
And I admit that halogenated polymers may be harder to digest. But adding chloride to the ocean isn't the worst form of pollution.
It just seems like a silly thing to worry about. It's a subset of littering - which is a real problem. It's no more than that.
Littering is the problem , not the plastic.
It's like banning metals cos some is used in guns.
\\ Doctor Who to push eco message by highlighting plastic waste in new episode
EXCLUSIVE: Next series tackles climate change after issues like gender politics, racism and imperialism were explored in previous episodes //
University of Bali
The Times : Whale sharks Eat thousands of plastic pieces a day
Why it is PR BS
#1 What kind of unit is that ?
..the article doesn't specify size
#2 The article makes no health claims
..no dead or sick sharks ..no reduction in numbers etc.
... Its just "COULD disrupt regular gut functioning"
Some developments
#1 Plastic was marked as evil
..then came Covid ..and suddenly the libmob realised it is very useful
#2 2017 story Plastic-eating caterpillar could munch waste, scientists say
By Helen Briggs
The scientist guy explained that they found a bacteria that had evolved to eat cellulose
and it does eat PET also
a catalysts dramatically speeds the process
..that still leaves the other 80% of plastics
The war on plastic is very right. We need to take care of the environment. The resources of our earth are very thin right now.
The Times reviwer gave Bonin's prog 5/5