Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 232 posts

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#151

Post by tempestn »

hinkley wrote: post #51
tedsanders wrote: post #6

This is one reason why I don't like living near freeways, especially near on-ramps, off-ramps, and interchanges. Car pollution isn't just tailpipe emissions - I believe a lot of airborne particulates come from tires and brakes (especially during acceleration, deceleration, and turning). https://www.cdc.gov/air/particulate_matter.html

Came up in conversation when I took my car in that up until recently they were using little bits of copper in brake pads for... noise control? heat? I can't recall which. But that's been outlawed now, presumably due to potential for metal toxicity (any mineral you need in your diet is also lethal at higher doses). We're leaving powdered copper at every stop light.

I don't know about copper in particular, but metallic content is very common in sport or racing pads for additional 'bite' (higher friction) and heat tolerance.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#152

Post by newnewpdro »

cwkoss wrote: post #79
tedsanders wrote: post #6

This is one reason why I don't like living near freeways, especially near on-ramps, off-ramps, and interchanges. Car pollution isn't just tailpipe emissions - I believe a lot of airborne particulates come from tires and brakes (especially during acceleration, deceleration, and turning). https://www.cdc.gov/air/particulate_matter.html

Cody's Lab did an episode where he collected and refined freeway dust: it's actually decent grade platinum 'ore' from catalytic converter deposition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5GPWJPLcHg

Sure, in small quantities, it's not the majority of the volume they collected though.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#153

Post by rootusrootus »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #36
likpok wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford was shipping cars with asbestos brakes in 1993. Asbestos brakes are still readily available on the aftermarket. Brake pads since 2015 sold in California and Washington must have less than 0.1% asbestos by weight (it's unclear to me if that's asbestos alone, or asbestos and other heavy metals like cadmium or mercury). Since the ban was put into place in 2015, you can reasonably infer a) that there were brake pads…

the subway brakes in washington dc are abestos brakes. you can smell them quite strongly.

That is not correct. WMATA hasn't used asbestos brake pads in many years. Whatever you think you smell, that's not it

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#154

Post by acomjean »

reaperducer wrote: post #68
hinkley wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came up in conversation when I took my car in that up until recently they were using little bits of copper in brake pads for... noise control? heat? I can't recall which. But that's been outlawed now, presumably due to potential for metal toxicity (any mineral you need in your diet is also lethal at higher doses). We're leaving powdered copper at every stop light.

Weren't brakes made of asbestos at one time?

they were. But they used asbestos in a lot of things back in the day. I worked in a building with asbestos in the floor tiles. When they did constructions that involved removing the tiles, it became a big deal.

Asbestos isn't that harmful, until it goes airborne. My understanding from research (I worked expanding a landfill that took asbestos at one point). is that the particles are too small to be caught by our bodies defenses and when it ends up in your lungs its cancerous. Asbestos in brakes seems like a bad idea.

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#155

Post by bluGill »

undersuit wrote: post #121
umvi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and can only go to select locations at certain times that may or may not align with your final destination or schedule.

I mean cars have the same problems right? Or have traffic jams, road closures, and parking restrictions by time of day gone away?

Similar, but not exactly the same. My car goes when I want to go. The train goes when it goes even when I'm not there. I ride the bus to work, I am often annoyed to arrive at work 20 minutes early when I really wanted to sleep in those 20 minutes, but the bus runs on a half hour schedule - too bad for my preference. Traffic jams, road closures and parking restrictions are an issue for some, but I'm lucky enough that for the places I go they are not (between living in a small town and alternate routes I can get around by car with no problems).

I take the bus, I'm trading a bit of time for the convenience of having someone else drive, and a forced exercise program walking to the bus stop. Several times a month I need to go someplace where the bus doesn't go without an unreasonably long walk.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#156

Post by manigandham »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #73
manigandham wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can separate the issue better by saying intercity and intracity. Getting from your home to a location is usually not much more time than getting from your home to a station. This makes trains unviable for most inner-city travel outside of some lightrail in dense urban areas. For intercity, trains quickly start competing against airlines which are better for most domestic travel because the US is so big.

Subways are one of the most effective inner-city travel systems available. I'd consider that a train system.

Like I said, it depends on density. If the home-to-station time is short enough then it already exists (like in New York) but in other places it's faster to just drive to the location rather than to/from a station on both ends (like in Los Angeles).

Density and last mile is the critical factor. Most cities in the US are too spread out currently.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#157

Post by labawi »

whyenot wrote: post #144
seph-reed wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather go with the less people travelling further on bikes route. There's a 1:1 ratio between amount of space (and therefor nature) per person, and the distance we're willing to travel on foot/bike/etc.

bikes have tires too

and shoes are made of plastics as well

Bicycle tires are made of and release much less rubber than cars.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#158

Post by manigandham »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #76
manigandham wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can separate the issue better by saying intercity and intracity. Getting from your home to a location is usually not much more time than getting from your home to a station. This makes trains unviable for most inner-city travel outside of some lightrail in dense urban areas. For intercity, trains quickly start competing against airlines which are better for most domestic travel because the US is so big.

Have you lived in a city with a subway? Give it a few years, and all the stuff is nearer the trains stops anyways. The train is rarely out of the way.

I currently live in both New York and Los Angeles. The subways in NY work because of density, but they won't work in LA. Lightrail can be improved, and more lines added, but you're not going to get NY mobility in LA with trains alone. Not until someone solves the last-mile reach with something other than cars.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#159

Post by petschge »

allannienhuis wrote: post #145
bradlys wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you live more than a mile away... Lots of people don't live in densely populated areas near train tracks where getting off the train and getting home is Obviously, it makes sense for those who do but most of America is sprawly and isn't designed for rail transit efficiency. I'd appreciate good quite rail but it isn't anywhere near feasible in these sprawly landscapes.

> Lots of people don't live in densely populated areas but MOST of the people do live (or around) densely populated areas, no? (just checked - google says 82% of US population is in urban areas). Addressing issues for most of the people first would have the most impact.

I will repeat a comment that I have made on HN before:

50% of the US population live in just 35 metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA; Washington, DC; Detroit, MI; Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; Dallas, TX; Boston, MA; San Bernardino, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Minneapolis, MN; Orange County, CA; San Diego, CA; Nassau, NY; St. Louis, IL; Baltimore, MD; Seattle, WA; Tampa, FL; Oakland, CA; Pittsburgh, PA; Miami, FL; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO; Newark, NJ; Portland, OR; Kansas City, MO; San Francisco, CA; Fort Worth, TX; San Jose, CA; Cincinnati, OH; Orlando, FL; Sacramento, CA; Fort Lauderdale, FL) that together have 173328 square miles. That is a density of 654 inhabitants per square mile or 253 inhabitants per square kilometer. Compare that with the 232 inhabitants per square kilometer in Germany, or the 118 inhabitants per square kilometer in France. And yes you can live without a car even in rural Germany (at least if you don't have kids).

The 20 densest metropolitan areas contain 25% of the US population and have 400 inhabitants per square kilometer, comparable to the 416 inhabitants per square kilometer averaged over the Netherlands.

The lack of public transport in the US is not a density problem. That is just the excuse because people don't want to change.

And before anybody says "but the density in German cities is much higher": I lived for years in a German district with a density of 217 inhabitants per square kilometer, without needing a car.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#160

Post by jartelt »

tedsanders wrote: post #6

This is one reason why I don't like living near freeways, especially near on-ramps, off-ramps, and interchanges. Car pollution isn't just tailpipe emissions - I believe a lot of airborne particulates come from tires and brakes (especially during acceleration, deceleration, and turning). https://www.cdc.gov/air/particulate_matter.html

California air quality regulators have stated that we shouldn't have any housing within 500 feet of freeways. Living near freeways increases your risk of a host of negative health effects (asthma, heart issues, etc).

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-freeway-pollu...

Post reply on HN