Tons of microplastic rain onto western US • Hacker News Board

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#101

Post by sergeykish » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #90

sergeykish wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

63% from cars (tyres, road surfaces, paint marks) [0]. No one yet know has bad it is. Plus living near the road causes * cancer, asthma, reduced lung growth in children [1] * dementia, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis [2] Killing millions worldwide [3] and injuring millions just in USA [4] That's inequality. [0] https://www.celticwater.co.uk/bloghow-does-plastic-get-into-... [1] https:/…

I can’t find it any more, but there used to be a fine grained map of the bay area’s air pollution. It it basically the inverse of per capita income.

This one https://www.environmentalhealth.org/index.php/en/who-we-are/... ?

I've also found Chicago pollution map https://www.bettergov.org/news/interactive-map-pollution-hit...

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#102

Post by joveian » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

kortex wrote: post #30

techntoke wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rayon is still incredibly toxic to produce because of the process.

How so? Carbon disulfide is rather nasty, but it's straightforward to recover most of it. TLV is 10 ppm, while the effluent air from Teepak is 100 ppm [0], meaning you could spend hours a day with just over a 10:1 dilution of the factory exhaust. And there are lots of efforts to get those emissions way lower. If it means less microplastics, I'm all for it. [0] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5518183

Tencel brand is a closed-loop version of the lyocell rayon process.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#103

Post by GaryNumanVevo » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #77

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most consumer plastic ends up in a landfill and typically don't leech microplastics in to the watertable. Fishing nets on the other hand? Top polluter in the ocean https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/great-pacifi...

I don't know about the oceans proper or the rest of the "western US" that we seek to address in our parent article, but I was specifically told the biggest source of microplastics in Califonia's coastal waster was car tires . https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/us/microplastic-pollution-car... And that synthetic fibers were only #2.

Ocean pollution, especially in fishing areas is especially detrimental due to biomagnification. Unfortunately the more I learn about micro-plastics, the more bleak my outlook gets.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#104

Post by longtom » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

sergeykish wrote: post #80

longtom wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> stop wearing those stupid fucking polyester hoodies According to this chart, the main sources of pollution are by far wear and tear from car tyres and road surfaces. Synthetic clothing comes last. https://i.imgur.com/KmbY72h.jpg That being said, one should never forget secondary effects of reducing consumption which is economic stagnation, which in turn leads to inequality and social unrest. At the same time, it is…

63% from cars (tyres, road surfaces, paint marks) [0]. No one yet know has bad it is. Plus living near the road causes * cancer, asthma, reduced lung growth in children [1] * dementia, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis [2] Killing millions worldwide [3] and injuring millions just in USA [4] That's inequality. [0] https://www.celticwater.co.uk/bloghow-does-plastic-get-into-... [1] https:/…

Even though that may be true it is not clear there is a way out that does not jeopardize millions of existences/sources of purpose and meaning for millions of people. Without a careful plan out it will be a disaster. It's a complex problem that has no simple solution and most solutions tend to drive people apart, e.g. the elites may decide it is best to get rid of most of the population using drones or bio-weapons.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#105

Post by carapace » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 11:22 PM UTC

Biodegradable plastic has been a thing since the late 70's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic

My dad once showed me transparent cellulose-based plastic envelopes you could eat. They didn't taste like anything but were totally non-toxic. That was in the 80's.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#106

Post by dungdongdang » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 1:41 AM UTC

wcoenen wrote: post #78

dungdongdang wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weight from a full Year? Absolutely. Volume - probably not. It won't take up even close to as much space as the flour. That diesel exhaust also weighs much more than the hydro(1)carbon(12) chains flour is made from, simply because things like N(14)O(16) and metals in the particulate matter are much, much heavier.

Diesel exhaust soot density is in the 1 to 2 g/cm3 range. Flour is about 0.6 g/cm3. So the soot is indeed a bit heavier. But you can adjust the amount of flour you weigh out to visualize the volume, and it still seems like a lot. The point your parent comment was making still seems valid to me. I could not immediately find a reference for typical soot exposure.

volume of 4mg of flour vs the 10 proposed is not "a bit heavier" - it's quite a bit less flour. A single puff of a cigarette I believe deposits about 6-20mg (depending on study) of crap into your lungs. I'm guessing about 10-15 puffs per cig.

so, 10mg/puff * 10 puffs/cig * 20cigs = 2g per pack of cigs. so the comment is saying 4-5 packs of cigs worth of soot, over a Year. that's literally nothing.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#107

Post by dungdongdang » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 1:44 AM UTC

firethief wrote: post #88

dungdongdang wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point you are trying to make though? Are you saying to make a cotton tshirt a chemical reaction takes place and 2700 liters of water is destroyed and is no longer water? The Aral Sea, a place I have visited, was dried up by digging to redirect rivers that filled it to irrigate crops. Now, let's say they made tshirts instead by pulling the water out of those rivers. They'd make the tshirt, and dump the dir…

I can't tell if this is satire or an extreme example of the logic motivated reasoning leads to

as opposed to the comment I was replying to, which is straight up misinformation to prove the opposite of what is actually happening. so someone who works at fox news.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#108

Post by eru » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 6:01 AM UTC

488643689 wrote: post #95

eru wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought cotton was pretty much the default fibre?

I assume you shop in the dude's section. In the dudette's market there is polyester everywhere.

I guess for female clothing I mainly only have exposure to the higher quality stuff, so don't see much polyester?

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#109

Post by eru » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 6:04 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #36

briefcomment wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Praying for cotton and wool to become stylish. And I hope we get creative with natural fibers like linen, beech fiber, spider silk, et.

Buy good quality clothing with timeless styling (not fashionable, or worse fast fashion). Take good care of it. They can potentially last decades if taken care of properly (obviously not cycling the same three shirts every week, but a proper wardrobe that’s seasonal with enough option for any occasion). Goes a long way.

> obviously not cycling the same three shirts every week

Wouldn't the total amount of use you get out of your shirts count? So while only using any single shirts once a year will easily get you decades of use out of them, it's not really beneficial or is it?

Or do clothes get better with resting in between uses? (I heard leather shoes do benefit from a rest.)

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#110

Post by eru » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 6:06 AM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #42

mc32 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy good quality clothing with timeless styling (not fashionable, or worse fast fashion). Take good care of it. They can potentially last decades if taken care of properly (obviously not cycling the same three shirts every week, but a proper wardrobe that’s seasonal with enough option for any occasion). Goes a long way.

I think most people don't have enough money for a "proper" wardrobe.

It's not a binary thing. Within any budget you can move towards more or less 'proper'.

However, there are also trade-offs with convenience. Basic cotton t-shirts are so cheap, that it can be worth it for some people to not bother taking care of them and just replacing them more often.