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

41–48 of 48 posts

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

#41

Post by astrodust »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38
astrodust wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Particles, yes, but plastic particles? These didn't even exist a hundred years ago.

The damage is being documented, and it's far more obvious with larger contaminants, the most prevalent being plastic nurdles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurdle) that sometimes escape into the environment.

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

#42

Post by ConceptJunkie »

cb3 wrote: post #40
cb3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It turns out lunar dust is an excellent exfoliant!

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

#43

Post by cb3 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38
astrodust wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Marine life has dealt with particles in the water for a billion years.

Precisely, and that actually potentially works against the organisms' defenses. It's like the Trojan Horse, it looks okay on the outside. The particles being dealt with for a billion years I imagine have varied little in their molecular construction and bio-reactivity.

Your idea is that we can introduce tons of new plastic particles into the environment having all the disruptive properties plastics have been shown to have, but it's okay because there are already 'particles' in the environment.

Elsewhere you question what studies have been conducted to quantify damage done by these particles.

As you may know, the earth is an immensely complex system. Sometimes it is relatively easy to draw a causal line from A to B. Other times the effects of something are no doubt there, but the interworkings of so many factors make it hard to precisely quantify the effects of any one factor.(see Honeybees and Colony Collapse Disorder[1])

So your idea that we should go ahead and saturate the environment with this substance that has been shown in other realms and at other scales to be detrimental, and then if someone happens to take an interest in precisely quantifying damage that it is doing, then we can do something about it, seems wrongheaded.

Maybe you're just playing the reflexive contrarian like worklogin, "shouldn't we avoid laws?" This is precisely what laws are for, to protect the common good! And it isn't a stretch to infer damage being done based on what we know about plastic.

[1]http://cdn.billmoyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/6729628...

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

#44

Post by RobAley »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #35
RobAley wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe we are reading a different page, there are some papers showing what IS, not what COULD be :

> it was shown that over 663 different species were negatively impacted by marine debris with approximately 11% of reported cases specifically related to the ingestion of microplastics

> Increased oceanic microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic insect

And so on. The rest aren't "vague alarmist statements", but sensible evidence based predictions. They may or may not turn out to be premature, but given that :

- the absense of microbeads isn't a serious issue for humanity or even quality of life

- there are known alternatives (listed in the article)

- if the predictions turn out to be true, it will be too late to do anything about it then as they can't be cleaned up

it seems sensible to take precautionary measures now.

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

#45

Post by JoeAltmaier »

astrodust wrote: post #41
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Particles, yes, but plastic particles? These didn't even exist a hundred years ago. The damage is being documented, and it's far more obvious with larger contaminants, the most prevalent being plastic nurdles ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurdle ) that sometimes escape into the environment.

The presence is being documented, but presence isn't damage.

I'm not an industry apologist. But we can't spend billions on everything, and there are real issues that need addressing.

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

#46

Post by yellowapple »

makomk wrote: post #22
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?

You mean, aside from the ones mentioned in the linked article: "natural alternatives like ground almonds, sea salt or oatmeal" (which is, I believe, what was used before microbeads were available).

Ah, missed that. Pretty cool.

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

#47

Post by yellowapple »

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…

It was a serious question, and it received many excellent answers. Yours was not among them.

Abrasive elements are commonplace in soaps for auto shops and other places where most conventional soaps have a hard time with the gunk accumulated from automotive grease and such. The particulates help to actually scrape off that gunk (in a manner that doesn't cause skin injuries), rather than rely on the hope that soap's chemical properties alone will suffice.

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

#48

Post by astrodust »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #45
astrodust wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particles, yes, but plastic particles? These didn't even exist a hundred years ago. The damage is being documented, and it's far more obvious with larger contaminants, the most prevalent being plastic nurdles ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurdle ) that sometimes escape into the environment.

The presence is being documented, but presence isn't damage. I'm not an industry apologist. But we can't spend billions on everything, and there are real issues that need addressing.

This isn't about spending billions. It's about not putting beads in facial scrubs.

Surely the industry will survive if they use something like walnuts or pumice instead.

Post reply on HN