Live data from Hacker News

Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

earthsky.org

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#81

I don't like plastic in the air any more than anyone else does, but 1) stop wearing those stupid fucking polyester hoodies (and other artificial fibers; aka your socks, gym shirts and underpants) -that's where most of it comes from. I'm looking at you, SF hacker nerds. 2) Even assuming the entire population of the Western US breathed all that plastic waste in and it was permanently deposited in the lungs: 1000e3 kg/…

I imagine you already do not drive car, wear only rawhide sole shoes and use eco packaging - to prevent all the bigger real pollution sources by longtom.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#82

"Rocky Mountain National Park, which had the greatest amount of microplastics among the national parks and wilderness areas in the study" Surprised to see Colorado so affected.

That is surprising, especially considering that it's on the continental divide and has mostly headwaters.

I live a bit south of there in the mountains, also close to the divide. A lot of our precip, especially in winter, is moisture carried by the jet stream from the north pacific that gets caught on the mountains. Could be the source, but that's a wild guess.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#83
post #73
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nice looking shirts (that are hardly dated nor much frayed) from 20 years ago. I buy all cotton, and organic if I can. Proper and not too-frequent washing can help.

What makes washing proper (or improper)? How frequent is too frequent?

Machine drying removes a tremendous amount of fibre from clothes, vs. line-drying. That's what dryer lint is. Both tumbling and temperature contribute to wear.

Clothes washing itself as well, though I believe to a lesser extent.

Sufficient vs. excessive laundering helps greatly.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990831080157.h...

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#84
post #75

We can legislate to stop producing it, or drastically reduce it. We did so with CFCs to stop destroying the ozone layer. The doomsayers weren't the scientists who predicted the problems, but those who said we'd lose refrigeration etc. They were wrong. Legislation helped the ozone layer and society did fine. The same will happen if we legislate on plastic as we did on CFCs.

plastic is a slightly larger category than CFCs

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#85
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil was bubbling to the surface of the Earth before we harvested the stuff that was easy to get at. Not that microplastics are okay -- they're my biggest environmental concern -- but oil itself is "natural".

> but oil itself is "natural". Burning it in mass quantities, is not so "natural", unless you go down the rabbit hole of calling all human activities "natural".

Is there any reason not to go down that rabbit hole? How do we distinguish natural from unnatural?

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't absorbing 10g, 10mg or 1mg of plastic in your lungs every year. Most of it is falling on the ground and being turned into dirt. It's gross and people should do something about it, but it is a neurotic worry rather than a real problem. Most accounts (including this one) even have the temerity to try to link plastic bottles to it (which, also gross, are not a problem as far as plastic fibers in the environme…

It seems you have anger towards a group of people you have defined as bad. That seems to be clouding your judgement. For example, you somehow have convinced yourself that the use of metal water bottles is bad if used by synthetic fabric hoodie wearers in SF. First, everyone wears synthetics, not just in SF. Second, less plastic is less plastic.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis, pal. How many polyester garments do you own?

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#88
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One cotton t-shirt equals 2,700 liters of water—what one person drinks in two-and-a-half years. Google about Aral Sea. Cotton farming is also responsible for 24 percent of insecticides and 11 percent of pesticides despite using about 3 percent of the world’s arable land. https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/07/apparel-industrys-environme...

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

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#89
post #85
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but oil itself is "natural". Burning it in mass quantities, is not so "natural", unless you go down the rabbit hole of calling all human activities "natural".

Is there any reason not to go down that rabbit hole? How do we distinguish natural from unnatural?

> How do we distinguish natural from unnatural?

I can think of a few ways to answer that question.

One is whether or not the material can be re-consumed or otherwise recycled and isolated from broader ecosystem damage by non human-designed biological or physical processes. Petroleum derived plastics don't fit that definition (yes I know that every few years there is a "breakthrough" plastic-eating microbe engineered or discovered, but it hasn't really dealt with the scale of the current problem). Curiously CO2 is "natural" by this definition (plants consume it), but unfortunately not anywhere near the rate needed to remove how much of it humans put into the atmosphere.

The other is that consumed material is "natural" if there is a near-term counter process, either pre-existent or emergent, that will shut down the "natural" process. For example, overgrazing by wild ruminant herds in an area will result in a population explosion, which will eventually result in population reduction either via starvation or predation. We know that the overgrazing by wild ruminants is a "natural" occurrence because the ecosystem has evolved counter measures. In the case of humans burning petroleum, there is no natural counter-measure.

Then again, perhaps climate-change and the resulting social upheavals will be exactly that. It's too early to know whether humans are going to be able to dodge the impact of that, or if climate change is to us as the disappearing pasture is to the wild ruminants.

Re: Tons of microplastic rain onto western US

#90
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:/…

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.
Post reply on HN