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

Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#31

Post by rickdale »

yellowapple wrote: post #18

Are there non-plastic alternatives on the books? I'm all for protecting nature, but these microbeads are useful as an abrasive element (meaning more thorough cleaning). Maybe sterilized sand?

Salt. I poor kosher or sea salt in my hand, then dish soap on top and rub that around. And I discovered that when I started buying sea salt body scrub from the store[0]. I can get pretty damn stinky and this is the best I have come across for a deep revitalizing clean.

[0]http://www.amazon.com/Alba-Botanica-Revitalizing-Hawaiian-Sc...

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#32

Post by ptx »

buckbova wrote: post #26

>The highest concentration was found in Lake Ontario, with counts of up to 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre. 1.1 million 1mm diameter beads in 1 sq km doesn't seem like much, like 1 bead per million sq mm. But there shouldn't really be any of these. Kind of a ridiculous idea to begin with.

> 1 bead per million sq mm

Perhaps better expressed as "1 bead per square meter". :)

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#33

Post by nnnnni »

mturmon wrote: post #27
guelo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you pay for the upgrade of all water treatment plants? A special tax on microbeads?

We'd also need a Federal-level "Microbead Czar".

They'll eventually need to create a position to manage all of these "Czar" positions.

Perhaps it would be called "Czar Czar". Gah, a bore of a job it'd be, though.

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#34

Post by JoeAltmaier »

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #5
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #4

I'm confused. Nobody talks about any measurable harm these beads are doing. The ocean is full of sand already. What's the impetus?

"Often buoyant, the beads can soak up toxins like a sponge. And since they resemble the size of fish eggs, environmentalists fear the micro-plastics are making their way into the food chain via fish, birds and mammals." Edit: unlike sand.

That sounds like speculation. Again, I wonder if any actual measurements were done by anybody, ever.

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#35

Post by JoeAltmaier »

RobAley wrote: post #6
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #4

I'm confused. Nobody talks about any measurable harm these beads are doing. The ocean is full of sand already. What's the impetus?

Er, lots of people talk about the measurable harm. Start here and google a bit for even more : http://beatthemicrobead.org/en/science

Sure, I see there vague alarmist statements of what COULD be. With honest appraisals of the risks like "the full extent and consequences is hard to quantify" and "In theory, ingested POPs could remain on the surface of ingested microplastics and could be egested" but no numbers or attempt at measurement.

I just mean to suggest that the alarm is premature.

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#36

Post by cb3 »

yellowapple wrote: post #18

Are there non-plastic alternatives on the books? I'm all for protecting nature, but these microbeads are useful as an abrasive element (meaning more thorough cleaning). Maybe sterilized sand?

I hope this is satire. "It might royally fuck up the environment, but I've been so manipulated by marketing, that if I don't rub microscopic plastic on my body, I just feel so... unclean... guys, guys? Where are you going?"

The 'sterilized' sand bit at the end was a nice touch too, alluding to the dominant scorched earth policy we have in regards to shaping the environment in ways we (mistakenly, deludedly) think will be most conducive to our well-being.

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#37

Post by JoeAltmaier »

thathonkey wrote: post #8
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #4

I'm confused. Nobody talks about any measurable harm these beads are doing. The ocean is full of sand already. What's the impetus?

You are confused: you've confused sand and plastic. Two totally different things.

I meant to suggest that plastic particles in the environment fill a similar niche to sand particles, as far as being indigestible and already being dealt with by marine life.

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#38

Post by JoeAltmaier »

astrodust wrote: post #3
worklogin wrote: post #2

>A number of personal care product manufacturers have promised to cut microbeads from their products in the coming years, but dates vary. Unilever is aiming for 2015, Colgate-Palmolive in 2014, Procter & Gamble vowed to be free by 2017, while Johnson & Johnson and L'Oréal haven't given a date. Do we need a law for this? So far, all action has been spurred by consumer and environmental groups. Sure, it may not happen…

Something this ridiculously damaging needs to be banned outright. If I were a corporation making products of this sort I'd rather tell my shareholders "Sorry, environmental regulations prevent us from making that product" rather than "We decided to abandon a profitable product line because scientists told us to." This is the same principle behind architecture review boards for cities. If the architect has peers to su…

The damage is speculative so far. It remains to be seen whether any significant environmental damage has been done. The mere presence of plastic particles is not enough. Marine life has dealt with particles in the water for a billion years.

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#39

Post by buckbova »

ptx wrote: post #32
buckbova wrote: post #26

>The highest concentration was found in Lake Ontario, with counts of up to 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre. 1.1 million 1mm diameter beads in 1 sq km doesn't seem like much, like 1 bead per million sq mm. But there shouldn't really be any of these. Kind of a ridiculous idea to begin with.

> 1 bead per million sq mm Perhaps better expressed as "1 bead per square meter". :)

Shows you the power of numbers. I get a different feel for each equivalent phrasing:

- 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre

- 1 bead per million sq mm

- 1 bead per square meter

And I agree, the article should have used the latter.

Re: Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

#40

Post by cb3 »

cb3 wrote: post #36
yellowapple wrote: post #18

Are there non-plastic alternatives on the books? I'm all for protecting nature, but these microbeads are useful as an abrasive element (meaning more thorough cleaning). Maybe sterilized sand?

I hope this is satire. "It might royally fuck up the environment, but I've been so manipulated by marketing, that if I don't rub microscopic plastic on my body, I just feel so... unclean... guys, guys? Where are you going?" The 'sterilized' sand bit at the end was a nice touch too, alluding to the dominant scorched earth policy we have in regards to shaping the environment in ways we (mistakenly, deludedly) think wil…

People wonder what happened to great nations of the past. When you have men(you'll understand my assumption,) whining about cosmetic products instead of plotting courses to the moon, there's your answer.

Oh but the two aren't mutually exclusive you say? I beg to differ.

Post reply on HN