Thread by @salonium on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "I read this recent 'microplastics in the brain' article and I have a lot of questions. š§µ
First, the reporting of this study... The Guardian article says it's "a pre-print paper still undergoing peer review that is posted online by the National Institutes of Health" Note the NIH has many disclaimers on their site explaining they don't endorse the content of articles (For context, the NIH's PubMed provides public access to studies, republishing them from journals where they were originally published. In this case, the preprint was originally published on Research Square, and is under review at the journal Nature Portfolio. Not by NIH.)
The Guardian article says the researchers looked at brain samples from people with & without dementia including Alzheimer's. But this isn't mentioned anywhere in the paper Or in other papers by the same author. Where's this claim from?...
The article has this quote: "You can draw a line - it's increasing over time." When I read this, I thought the study found consistently rising concentrations over the years between 2016 and 2024. But in fact, there were samples from only two years: 2016 and 2024. The samples come from the Office of the Medical Investigator (OMI) in New Mexico, which conducts statewide autopsies of any sudden deaths each year. But the study doesn't give any detail about why samples only came from two specific years. This is not just a matter of transparency, but having data from more years helps understand whether this was an actual trend, rather than a discrepancy or fluctuation. One more: the Guardian article originally comes from this article in The New Lede. It has some alarming quotes which didn't make it into the Guardian piece.
Note, in the study, there were a total of 27 samples from 2016 and 24 samples from 2024. That's seems fine for a preliminary study. But I question how much we can learn from these specific samples about microplastics concentrations across New Mexico, let alone at a global scale. Let's actually look at the study though. To recap, the study is a preprint where 27 samples from 2016 and 24 samples from 2024 were obtained from the statewide autopsy department and analysed for concentrations of microplastics in different organs. Here's the link:
As I understand it, a major challenge with microplastics studies is properly accounting for potential contamination while handling or analysing samples. Indeed, the study mentions some reasons the authors believe their results aren't due to contamination. For example, they say in the Limitations that they had KOH blank samples and measured the polymer composition of all plastic tubes and pipette tips, which are essential in the digestion and measurement process. But these aren't mentioned anywhere else in the study or supplement. No KOH blanks, pipette tips, tubes. What were the results of these quality assurance steps? How about potential contamination at other steps before the researchers obtained the samples from the autopsy department — including the fixation and storage of the samples? The graphs in the results sections also have some oddities that aren't clarified in the paper. For example, the concentrations in brain samples in 2024 have much less variation than the other data. I think this is implausible, but the authors don't comment on it.
Maybe these questions will be answered during the review process at Nature Portfolio, but maybe they won't — either way, the reporting of this preprint is very poor. In my view, science journalists should ask questions to researchers and peers about the methods of studies, and tell us what they said. Tell us what was done and why. We shouldn't only hear impressions of the headline results... It would also be good to hear from others e.g. chemists and forensics/autopsy researchers, on whether they think the specific methods were appropriate, aside from the points I made."
Thread by @eugyppius1 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - " Since July, all plastic bottles sold in EU must have tethered caps – they remain attached after unsrewing and interfere obnoxiously with attempts to drink. This is to save the oceans, altho Europe contributes almost no plastic waste to the seas. The big source is Asia. Retrofitting bottle factories to manufacture the new caps is estimated to have cost millions of Euros. They also, ironically, tend to use somewhat more plastic. Packings experts/engineers have told the press multiple times that this will achieve nothing & merely annoy people. The new regulation goes back to this 2016 EU Commission report on Marine Beach Litter in Europe, compiled by someone named Georg Hanke who I'm sure is a total shit. It compiles various surveys, ultimately showing that plastic bottle caps ... are a numerically frequent but otherwise minor source of ocean litter – vastly outpaced by things like fishing nets and random polystyrene debris. Hard to do anything about that stuff. The EU Commission looked at this report and picked the one thing they thought they could easily fix with a regulation, so now our plastic bottles have to suck. I know this is a small thing but it's basically the entire EU in microcosm. One thing that would really help, not only here but with global warming hysteria and virus lunacy and so many other things, is if we could get these ret@rds to stop measuring and surveying every last fucking thing. Every data trove, every report, becomes a new obnoxious project."
Meme - Person: "I NEED TO SAVE THE OCEAN FROM ALL THE PLASTIC!"
Seal tangled in plastic: "YES, THE NETS!"
Person: "THIS STRAW IS SO EVIL"
Seal tangled in plastic: "NO, THE NETS!"
"FISHING NETS MAKE UP HALF OF THE PLASTIC IN THE OCEAN"
Zero-Waste Stores Aren't As Good As People Think - "Zero-waste or refill stores all operate similarly: You bring your own containers, whether that’s Tupperware or other sealable plastic bowls, glass jars, or literally any container that can be filled, sealed, and then cleaned for re-use. Most products are offered raw, in bulk, in large dispensers or pump stations without individual packaging; some products (like dissolvable cleaning tablets that you mix with water) are sold individually. Most stores offer containers for sale (or for free, via donations) if you don’t have your own, or if you miscalculate and need a few extra...
Sanitation. You have to clean your reusable containers very thoroughly if you’re going to prevent bacteria or mold from creeping in—but the act of washing them can actually make them less safe to use, as rough scrubbing or dishwasher cycles can create grooves where bacteria can grow, as well as break the plastic down, allowing its components to leach into food.
Reusable math. The plastic, glass, or metal container you bring to a refill store most likely required a lot more resources to create than the flimsy single-use plastic in a standard grocery store—which means you have to use them a lot to actually have a net-positive impact. If this is a permanent shift in how you shop, you’ll eventually get there—but the number of uses resets every time you have to introduce a new container, further eroding the impact.
Price. Zero-waste shops usually have some pretty tough margins, and can be as much as three times more expensive for certain products than a traditional grocery store.
Spoilage and spillage. Single-use plastics are pretty good at keeping food fresh and free from blemishes—one study demonstrated that plastic-wrapped cucumbers lasted more than a week longer than “naked” ones. Unwrapped produce may spoil faster, leading to increased food waste. There’s also the issue of spillage in the store—mistakes with dispensers or knocking loose produce onto the floor leads to waste and bruising, further increasing the potential for food waste.
Choice. Most zero-waste stores are fervently local and focused on environmentally friendly products, which makes sense. But that means that you might not find a lot of familiar brands in those dispensers, so you might need to adjust your expectations and preferences."
Asphalt: The #1 Recycled Material in the Country - "Asphalt pavement is recycled and reused at a rate of over 99%.
A wide variety of waste materials can be incorporated into asphalt pavements. Rubber tires, glass, slags, certain types of sand, and even pig manure can be found in modern asphalt paving mixtures."
Sustainable showdown: plastic vs. paper bags - "Paper bags are often viewed as the greener alternative because paper is made from trees, a renewable source. Ironically, plastic bags were introduced in the UK over 60 years ago to replace the widely used paper bag which was being blamed for widespread deforestation. Plastic was introduced to protect natural resources and save the trees... In 2011, the Northern Ireland Assembly produced a research paper to compare the environmental impact of plastic, paper and cloth bags. The Assembly said that it takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag. In that report they drew on research that had been done in 2005 by the Scottish Government who conducted an environmental assessment comparing plastic and paper bags – some of the results are outlined below... Paper bags are made from trees, a renewable source, but are paper bags the best option? They tear easily, limiting their reuse, and their production creates 70% more air pollution than plastic bag production. Another important factor to consider is that plastic bags consume less than 6% of the water needed to make paper bags. It takes 1,004 gallons of water to produce 1,000 paper bags, and 58 gallons of water to produce 1,500 plastic bags. On the flip side, paper does not pollute the ocean and can degrade quickly. However, this depends on paper’s end-of-life use. According to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s report, paper that ends up in landfill does not degrade “at a substantially faster rate than plastic does”... You may be surprised to learn that plastic bags are the greenest ones, according to Omnicalculator.com’s study of eco-friendly bags. In eight out of nine of their impact categories, it has the lowest impact of all tested bags (plastic, paper, and cotton tote)."
Virtue signalling is not about helping, but looking like you're helping
New single-use and takeaway item bylaw in Toronto comes into effect Friday - "Getting take-out in Toronto is about to look slightly different as the city’s new single-use and takeaway item bylaw comes into effect later this week. Starting Friday, businesses will be required by law to ask customers if they’d like a single-use “accessory food item,” such as utensils, straws, napkins, paper shopping bags etc. before providing them. The bylaw was approved by Toronto City Council on Dec. 15 after being presented in a staff report as a way of reducing the single-use plastic waste that comes with take-out. Businesses will also be required to accept reusable shopping bags and reusable cups if customers choose to use them... Businesses who do not follow the new rule could face a fine of no less than $500 and no more than $100,000. The city previously estimated that it will cost $450,000 to run and enforce the program, $250,000 in 2024 and $100,000 each in 2025 and 2026. Any further spending would need to be considered as part of the 2025 budget."
Shit like this is one reason property taxes are so high. But of course left wingers will still try to force everyone to live in cities, claiming that they are more efficient, while contradicting themselves by complaining that taxes there are too low
Fruit, vegetable producers warn plastic reductions could increase grocery costs - "A proposed federal plan to curb plastic packaging is on a timeline fruit and vegetable producers are calling “problematic” and “unrealistic.”... She insists the industry is working on ways to reduce its use of plastics, but currently biodegradable alternatives are too expensive. “The technology just isn’t there yet,” Steward said. “(The) biodegradable (plastic) industry is quite greenwashed right now.” A study obtained by CTV News from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association said the proposed rules are expected to pass on a 30 per cent additional cost to the consumer. The higher prices come from transition to more expensive packaging materials, inefficiencies in shipping and increased food waste. “Everybody gets upset about the wrap on cucumbers,” said CPMA President Ron Lemaire. "The challenge you have is you have two days at home with your cucumber, as opposed to 15 days."... More than two-thirds of all produce consumed in Canada is imported, so there are concerns of a trade chill as well. “You’re dealing with international trade partners, and manufactures that may just say ‘you know what, were not ready to shift our production lines,’” said Michael Zabaneh, Retail Council of Canada's vice-president of sustainability."
Damn greedy companies raising food prices when people can't afford to live!
Australia is one of the most taxed countries in the world. Now millions of households could be slugged with a new, world-first 'recycling tax' - "Aussies could be slugged with a world-first 'recycling tax' in a further blow to households already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis. The Albanese government has proposed several changes be made to exporting paper and cardboard waste from Australia from July 1. Under the proposed scheme, exporters will need to pay $30,000 for a licence and a fee of $4 on every tonne that is sent overseas. The National Waste and Recycling Industry Council (NWRIC) warned tens of millions of dollars would have to be passed onto Australians to cover the increased costs... In 2022, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) revealed Australia had the fourth highest income tax in the world. The average Aussies was taxed 23.2 per cent of their wages - a figure that is well above the average of 14.9 per cent across all 38 OECD nations... Visy and Opal are the only Australian companies who buy paper and cardboard recyclables. This means each year there is a surplus of about 1.2 million tonnes – about half of the total – that needs to be exported for recycling."
Obviously greedy companies need to just swallow the cost
Actually, having the costs of recycling made apparent is a good way to bring home the real costs of feel-good virtue signalling
Meme - "Me realizing I forgot to bring my reusable bags for the 47th time"
"Saving the environment" is not easy!
Plastic bags were created to save the planet, inventor’s son says - "Plastic bags were invented to save the planet, according to the son of Swedish engineer Sten Gustaf Thulin who created them in 1959. The bags were developed as an alternative to paper bags, which were considered bad for the environment because they resulted in forests being chopped down. They were significantly stronger than paper bags, which meant – in theory – they could be used over and over again... alternatives to plastic bags are not necessarily the greener option. Although opting for paper or cotton bags would reduce litter and waste, they have other significant environmental effects. According to the UK Environment Agency, a paper bag has to be used three times to be as environmentally friendly as a plastic bag that is recycled. Making paper bags uses more energy and water and they are also heavier, which makes them more expensive to transport. Bags made of cotton – a crop which requires huge amounts of water to grow – need to be used at least 131 times to be as good as a recycled plastic bag."
ģ“ģ°½ģ©ģ“ķģ, 0301 - PLASTIC BAGS SUPPOSED TO HELP THE PLANET - "plastic bags are very efficient to make. We need very little oil. Super little energy and then we have a plastic bag"
New bylaw would force Toronto customers to specifically request plastic cups - "As early as March 1, 2024, businesses like restaurants and retail stores would be required to ask guests if they would like a disposable item, such as single-use plastic cups, containers, and even paper shopping bags, rather than simply giving them away. The bylaw also means that businesses will be required to accept reusable containers from patrons and will face fines set by the provincial government if they do not comply. Reports estimate that implementation of the new reduction strategy could cost the city $250,000 in the first year, reaching around $450,000 by the time the strategy is fully implemented in 2028"
When elites' lives are too good, they come up with ways to make normal people's lives worse. And then elites will complain budget deficits are so high because taxes are too low
Good luck with the lawsuits from people who get sick from their own dirty reusable containers
Plastic straw bans hurt kids and adults with disabilities, advocates say - "The family was thrilled when Von learned how to drink from a straw at the age of 3, she wrote in an online column. He otherwise doesn’t eat much by mouth, but still loves to go to restaurants to watch other families with their kids. It gives him a sense of normalcy and independence when he can sit with his parents during meal time and enjoy his juice, Paulson said. Bendable plastic straws work best for her son. Indeed, the “Flex-Straw,” invented by Joseph B. Friedman in the 1930s, was first sold to hospitals as an easy, sanitary way to help patients easily drink from any position, according to the Smithsonian's Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. Paulson has tried every non-disposable alternative, but none works as well. Metal straws get hot or cold, depending on the drink, so Von could burn himself. They’re also stiff, which could lead him to choke or chip his teeth, Paulson said, calling them “so dangerous.”... The other alternatives don’t work either, Paulson said: Silicone straws are too soft, while paper straws dissolve... Some restaurants have stopped automatically giving out straws, but are supposed to give them out on request. That doesn’t always happen. A woman’s tweets recently went viral when she described what happened when she asked for a straw at a restaurant. The waitress refused because she didn’t think the customer looked “disabled enough.” The woman, who has a joint condition that makes it difficult to pick up a glass, complained that a waitress should not get to decide if a person is “validly disabled or not.” She later deleted the tweets, citing online threats... The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund has heard of more and more cases like that since the straw bans went into effect, said spokesman Lawrence Carter-Long. “There seems to be this almost shaming of people. While some disabilities might be obvious, others are less than obvious,” Carter-Long said. “Then it gets into this almost interrogation. If you just want to get a coffee or a cold drink, do you want to give the barista your medical history? A person shouldn’t be required to do that.” In almost every single case, straw bans have been made without input from people with disabilities"
Of course, one cope is that they can just ask for plastic straws. It's weird how "stigma" is not an issue when it comes to conflicting elements of the liberal agenda. And of course the reduced demand for plastic straws absolutely won't hurt the disabled in terms of reduced supply, because liberals are economically illiterate
Plastic straw alternatives bad for planet, people with disabilities - "Most straws pose injury risks, and are expensive, says the Center for Disability Rights... two of the most common straw alternatives — paper and metal — have drawn criticism for environmental experts such as Walker. Paper straws use a lot of raw materials, and because of their single-use nature, do not lessen one's carbon footprint, Walker told USA TODAY. Stainless steel, on the other hand, uses a fair amount of energy as well as mining resources to make."
Metal straws are killing people too - "a British woman was holding her drink, she fell over, and a metal straw stabbed her and killed her - the straw may have been eco, but it sure wasn’t friendly. Metal straws had turned evil too: they were chipping teeth, slashing gums, puncturing brain stems"
Of course, one sea turtle is a lot more important than a human
Should You Swap Plastic Straws For Paper Straws To Reduce Your Environmental Impact? - "paper straws really aren’t much more environmentally friendly than plastic straws. In fact, it’s possible that they’re actually worse for the environment. We might think of paper as a material which is easily recyclable, but unfortunately that isn’t always true. Once used, paper straws will be soggy and contaminated by whatever you’ve drunk through them. That means that most councils in the UK do not have the infrastructure to recycle them. McDonalds came upon this problem when they made the switch from plastic to paper straws, and had to admit that the 1.8 million straws used in their ‘restaurants’ every day across the UK could not be recycled and so were being sent straight to landfill. Of course, it isn’t only about where the straw goes at the end of its life. Paper is also pretty resource intensive to produce. It’s made from trees, which can make it seem like a good choice environmentally — trees are a renewable source. However, they’re also an incredibly valuable source of carbon capture, so we shouldn’t be cutting them down and using them up for anything other than an incredibly good reason. In my eyes, paper straws are not that. Some studies argue that paper items are more resource and energy intensive to produce than paper. This includes statistics like:
Producing paper bags creates 70% more air pollution than producing plastic bags
Manufacturing paper creates 80% more greenhouse gases than plastic
Ultimately, the problem with plastic straws is the same as the problem with paper straws: is the energy used to produce them and transport them to your cocktail glass really worth the 20 minutes of use that you get out of it before you throw it away? They’re unnecessary single-use items. It all comes down to thoughtless consumption in the end. The vast majority of us have absolutely no need for a straw to consume a drink. It’s just something we’ve come to expect, and that we use and discard without thinking about it... if you really can’t do without a straw in your drink, why not get yourself a reusable metal, glass, or silicon straw which you can take with you and reuse forever — a much better option."
Of course the "solution" is to degrade quality of life. We better ban disposable forks and spoons soon - people can always eat with their hands
Why banning plastic straws isn't helping the oceans - "The straw that got stuck in that sea turtle’s nose? It almost certainly came from an Asian community with bad waste management. But here’s the good news: We actually know how to fix both ghost gear and poor waste practices in the developing world. With ghost gear, you set up buyback programs with fishers to disincentivize them from simply chucking broken gear overboard. As for poor waste management, countries like Canada are actually really, really good at safely managing garbage. And the bang for the buck is huge: Kick a few million dollars towards a dump project in Indonesia, and you’re instantly diverting thousands of tonnes of plastic from the ocean. So with all that in mind, the next time you feel a pang of guilt at the plight of the oceans, ask yourself why the single most visible action against ocean plastic to date was to force millions of people to use crappy technology that does virtually nothing to solve the initial problem."
Too bad virtue signalling is more important than actually doing something useful
Paper straws contain more potentially toxic ‘forever chemicals’ than plastic. Should you give them up? - "in the journal Food Additives and Contaminants. A study by a European research group showed there are significant health and environmental risks associated with the paper-based and bamboo-based straws that have replaced plastic straws... They studied plastic, paper and plant-based straws obtained in the USA. It showed that paper and plant-based straws contain PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These are fluorine-based chemicals that have remarkable properties in repelling water, grease and pretty much anything. They are widely used in products designed to resist water and oil such as raincoats, furniture, cookware and food packaging. PFAS are chemically and thermally very stable which means that almost nothing reacts or degrades them. This means they persist in the environment and will do so for thousands of years. For this reason, they have been dubbed ‘forever chemicals’. They have been found literally everywhere from the Arctic ice to the Amazon rainforest. They also make it into the human body by migrating from packaging into our food and drink. Once PFAS are in our blood they are associated with a number of health effects such as liver and kidney disease. There is also evidence that PFAS may lead to increased risk of high blood pressure in pregnant women, and decreased immune response. Some studies show an association of PFAS exposure with kidney and testicular cancer. They have been shown to harm wildlife too. All the evidence points to paper and plant-based straws having significant PFAS in them. PFAS have also been found in plastic straws but at lower levels. The only material determined to be free of PFAS was stainless steel."
Saving one imaginary sea turtle is more important than avoiding possibly toxic chemicals. Of course the "solution" will be to force everyone to use steel straws
Is recycling plastic pointless? Hard truths about what happens to your recyclable waste - "Only 6 per cent of this waste was recycled. Is there any point, however, in trying to boost this rate?... The first challenge in recycling plastic is that there are many different types of plastic. Generally, there are seven categories of plastic, each with different properties, said Tong Yen Wah, an associate professor in the department of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the National University of Singapore (NUS)... “All of them melt at different temperatures,” he said. “If we want to produce high-quality resins from recycling of the plastics, we need to separate them into a single stream of … plastics.” It is a “big challenge” separating and baling the plastics accordingly, he added — as seen at one materials recovery facility (MRF), where recyclable items of all types are sorted and baled before being sent to recycling plants... Under the Basel Convention, which Singapore acceded to in 1996, exporters must ensure that contamination of their plastic bales for export by other plastic types is capped at 0.5 per cent, otherwise the receiving country can ship them back. In fact, Ang said his facility generally sends only three types of plastics for recycling: PET, HDPE and low-density polyethylene. Among the other plastics, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) — used for raincoats, for example — is not highly sought after, as the plasticisers commonly added to PVC can pose health risks when heated during the recycling process. Even what gets recycled is becoming increasingly difficult to export. In 2019, it was estimated that 92 per cent of Singapore’s recyclable plastic was exported, as there were few plastic recycling companies in Singapore. But countries that Singapore exports its plastic to have tightened restrictions... illegal recyclers may indiscriminately dump or burn plastic waste when they realise the waste they imported is contaminated and there is no means of recycling it... Would building more plastic recycling facilities in Singapore to manage the plastic waste here be an option then? According to SEC deputy executive director Goh Wee Hong, this would not make sense. “You’d need a big piece of land, and it’d be very labour-intensive,” he said and cited Singapore’s high energy costs too. “We don’t have economies of scale: We don’t have the volume that could help to sustain the factory.” And the fact remains that recycled resin costs more than virgin resin. “How do we find more buyers to buy from us?” he questioned. “We already have a small pool of buyers buying recycled resin. To complicate matters, there may be a problem with the end product of plastic recycling. Recycled PET is most commonly used to make bottled drinks. But last year, researchers from Brunel University London found higher concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals in drinks bottled using recycled PET compared with bottles made from new PET. When Talking Point sent four regular plastic bottles of water and one bottle made of recycled PET for tests, the laboratory found a higher level of disinfectant known as quaternary ammonium compounds in the water from the recycled bottle compared with all the others. These disinfectants are used in many cleaning solutions, according to Karina Gin, a professor in the NUS’ department of civil and environmental engineering. “This probably came about from the washing procedures,” she said. “Disinfectant or detergent would have to be used to wash all the bottles. “But (with) recycled plastic, they’d probably have to wash it more thoroughly — several times — to meet the food-grade quality … and therefore, very likely, incorporate more of this disinfectant in the process.” While the traces of disinfectant were “at safe levels”, it was “quite a surprise that we found disinfectant at all”, she said. “This is something that we don’t expect to find in our drinking water.”... About 60 to 70 per cent of all recyclable waste received is contaminated, according to Chye Thiam Maintenance senior plant manager Derek Chong. Contaminated items are non-recyclable and will be incinerated... Some shopping centres in Singapore have segregated bins for different recyclable materials. But sustainability professional Kavickumar Muruganathan noted that shopping centres are typically projects initiated by large developers with sustainability and environmental ambitions. Scaling up such a system on a national basis can only come with “more resources”. “You need to buy compartmentalised bins for that and … also do the labelling,” said Kavickumar, an NUS College of Design and Engineering adjunct lecturer. “A year or two could be the duration you’re probably looking at, or sometimes even longer if it’s hard to find those relevant materials to create the system. So we’re not likely to see that in the near future.”"
