https://patch.com/california/los-angeles/la-tests-streets-made-recycled-plastic-bottles
They say the binder is stronger and lasts longer than ordinary asphalt, resulting in a 50% reduction in lifecycle costs. And because it's made from recycled plastic bottles, it's supposed to be better for the environment. I wonder how this compares to rubberized asphalt.
What happened to paving the streets with gold? I'm not sure if this new method of making asphalt is the "wave of the future"; I'd rather they stick to the old way of making asphalt, unless this new way is conclusively proven to work as advertised.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2020, 06:43:40 PM
What happened to paving the streets with gold? I'm not sure if this new method of making asphalt is the "wave of the future"; I'd rather they stick to the old way of making asphalt, unless this new way is conclusively proven to work as advertised.
The title says they're
testing the new method, precisely to see if it works as advertised.
This sounds promising. If it's successful, it might become part of the solution for the global plastic recycling problem.
Quote from: roadfro on December 19, 2020, 05:12:32 PM
This sounds promising. If it's successful, it might become part of the solution for the global plastic recycling problem.
And it would greatly reduce the cost of road maintenance, freeing up DOT budgets for highway improvements and reducing the need for tolls or gas tax increases.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 05:38:59 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 19, 2020, 05:12:32 PM
This sounds promising. If it's successful, it might become part of the solution for the global plastic recycling problem.
And it would greatly reduce the cost of road maintenance, freeing up DOT budgets for highway improvements and reducing the need for tolls or gas tax increases.
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 05:38:59 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 19, 2020, 05:12:32 PM
This sounds promising. If it's successful, it might become part of the solution for the global plastic recycling problem.
And it would greatly reduce the cost of road maintenance, freeing up DOT budgets for highway improvements and reducing the need for tolls or gas tax increases.
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
With enough heat applied, anything containing carbon could be made into asphalt.
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
I read something a while back that seemed to indicate there are problems with recycling plastic. Something about successive generations of plastic are poorer in quality. I don't know how that would affect using it as paving material, however.
Quote from: US71 on December 19, 2020, 08:44:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
I read something a while back that seemed to indicate there are problems with recycling plastic. Something about successive generations of plastic are poorer in quality. I don't know how that would affect using it as paving material, however.
There definitely is such a problem. That's why I mentioned carpeting as an application for less than prime material.
Overall, cost benefit, and supply steam come into the equation. How many lane miles can be made with available bottles supply? Should be a fairly easy thing to check
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 19, 2020, 08:44:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
I read something a while back that seemed to indicate there are problems with recycling plastic. Something about successive generations of plastic are poorer in quality. I don't know how that would affect using it as paving material, however.
There definitely is such a problem. That's why I mentioned carpeting as an application for less than prime material.
Overall, cost benefit, and supply steam come into the equation. How many lane miles can be made with available bottles supply? Should be a fairly easy thing to check
If we manage to blow through the supply of used plastic bottles for paving roads, that would be a good thing from an environmental standpoint, and oil refineries could just sell virgin plastic directly to paving companies.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 09:01:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 19, 2020, 08:44:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
I read something a while back that seemed to indicate there are problems with recycling plastic. Something about successive generations of plastic are poorer in quality. I don't know how that would affect using it as paving material, however.
There definitely is such a problem. That's why I mentioned carpeting as an application for less than prime material.
Overall, cost benefit, and supply steam come into the equation. How many lane miles can be made with available bottles supply? Should be a fairly easy thing to check
If we manage to blow through the supply of used plastic bottles for paving roads, that would be a good thing from an environmental standpoint, and oil refineries could just sell virgin plastic directly to paving companies.
Thing is, PET is used to replace sand in the mixture. I can think of PET being beneficial due to better pavement quality if it is dirt cheap (or sand cheap, pun intended); no way a virgin material would approach that pay grade.
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 09:01:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 19, 2020, 08:44:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
I read something a while back that seemed to indicate there are problems with recycling plastic. Something about successive generations of plastic are poorer in quality. I don't know how that would affect using it as paving material, however.
There definitely is such a problem. That's why I mentioned carpeting as an application for less than prime material.
Overall, cost benefit, and supply steam come into the equation. How many lane miles can be made with available bottles supply? Should be a fairly easy thing to check
If we manage to blow through the supply of used plastic bottles for paving roads, that would be a good thing from an environmental standpoint, and oil refineries could just sell virgin plastic directly to paving companies.
Thing is, PET is used to replace sand in the mixture. I can think of PET being beneficial due to better pavement quality if it is dirt cheap (or sand cheap, pun intended); no way a virgin material would approach that pay grade.
Sand is becoming a scarce resource. This BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand) talks about the amount of usable construction sand is running out. I'm not sure how that will affect prices here in the near future, but it is something to think about.
I can think of several problems with this concept.
The first being the way plastics behave when exposed to sunlight. UV light breaks the bonds between the plastic molecules causing them to break into smaller and smaller pieces, especially when they are subjected to mechanical force. So in my mind, a road sitting out in the sun all day every day and then having vehicles driving over it is likely to result in flecks of microplastic shedding from the road to be carried away by the wind and rain doing unknown things to the environment. It seems unlikely the plastic component of the mix would be bonded strongly enough to the other materials of the asphalt mix to avoid this over the lifespan of the pavement.
That pretty much defeats the hope for a net positive environmental effect of mixing plastic in with asphalt. The microplastic thing is the one of the main reasons to be concerned about all of our waste plastic in the first place. This just seems to add a few steps to that process. We have so much waste plastic because it's dirt cheap to make. If plastic binder makes for better asphalt, what the industry will do is go straight to the chemical companies to get those plastics wholesale, rather than mess around with expensive collecting and sorting of waste plastic. Sure, they'll throw a few Coke bottles in the mix for a little PR, but the bulk of it would be fresh material, straight from the refinery or whatever because that's going to be cheaper.
Now there is a future where we still have mountains of plastic waste to deal with and a bunch of our roads are flaking even more plastic into our environment.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2020, 11:11:11 AM
I can think of several problems with this concept.
The first being the way plastics behave when exposed to sunlight. UV light breaks the bonds between the plastic molecules causing them to break into smaller and smaller pieces, especially when they are subjected to mechanical force. So in my mind, a road sitting out in the sun all day every day and then having vehicles driving over it is likely to result in flecks of microplastic shedding from the road to be carried away by the wind and rain doing unknown things to the environment. It seems unlikely the plastic component of the mix would be bonded strongly enough to the other materials of the asphalt mix to avoid this over the lifespan of the pavement.
That pretty much defeats the hope for a net positive environmental effect of mixing plastic in with asphalt. The microplastic thing is the one of the main reasons to be concerned about all of our waste plastic in the first place. This just seems to add a few steps to that process. We have so much waste plastic because it's dirt cheap to make. If plastic binder makes for better asphalt, what the industry will do is go straight to the chemical companies to get those plastics wholesale, rather than mess around with expensive collecting and sorting of waste plastic. Sure, they'll throw a few Coke bottles in the mix for a little PR, but the bulk of it would be fresh material, straight from the refinery or whatever because that's going to be cheaper.
Now there is a future where we still have mountains of plastic waste to deal with and a bunch of our roads are flaking even more plastic into our environment.
Regular asphalt also gets damaged by UV radiation, and I'm sure it's also pretty bad for the environment.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2020, 11:45:37 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2020, 11:11:11 AM
I can think of several problems with this concept.
The first being the way plastics behave when exposed to sunlight. UV light breaks the bonds between the plastic molecules causing them to break into smaller and smaller pieces, especially when they are subjected to mechanical force. So in my mind, a road sitting out in the sun all day every day and then having vehicles driving over it is likely to result in flecks of microplastic shedding from the road to be carried away by the wind and rain doing unknown things to the environment. It seems unlikely the plastic component of the mix would be bonded strongly enough to the other materials of the asphalt mix to avoid this over the lifespan of the pavement.
That pretty much defeats the hope for a net positive environmental effect of mixing plastic in with asphalt. The microplastic thing is the one of the main reasons to be concerned about all of our waste plastic in the first place. This just seems to add a few steps to that process. We have so much waste plastic because it's dirt cheap to make. If plastic binder makes for better asphalt, what the industry will do is go straight to the chemical companies to get those plastics wholesale, rather than mess around with expensive collecting and sorting of waste plastic. Sure, they'll throw a few Coke bottles in the mix for a little PR, but the bulk of it would be fresh material, straight from the refinery or whatever because that's going to be cheaper.
Now there is a future where we still have mountains of plastic waste to deal with and a bunch of our roads are flaking even more plastic into our environment.
Regular asphalt also gets damaged by UV radiation, and I'm sure it's also pretty bad for the environment.
Yes, but no. Dark tar used in asphalt should be a very efficient absorber, preventing UV from going beyond top few 0.001". That is pretty similar to black outdoor cables being plastic, typically polyethylene, impregnated with disperse carbon for UV absorption.
I don't see a big problem with plastic degradation beyond that depth if tar is still used (and it should be)
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2020, 12:31:45 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 09:01:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 19, 2020, 08:44:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
I read something a while back that seemed to indicate there are problems with recycling plastic. Something about successive generations of plastic are poorer in quality. I don't know how that would affect using it as paving material, however.
There definitely is such a problem. That's why I mentioned carpeting as an application for less than prime material.
Overall, cost benefit, and supply steam come into the equation. How many lane miles can be made with available bottles supply? Should be a fairly easy thing to check
If we manage to blow through the supply of used plastic bottles for paving roads, that would be a good thing from an environmental standpoint, and oil refineries could just sell virgin plastic directly to paving companies.
Thing is, PET is used to replace sand in the mixture. I can think of PET being beneficial due to better pavement quality if it is dirt cheap (or sand cheap, pun intended); no way a virgin material would approach that pay grade.
Sand is becoming a scarce resource. This BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand) talks about the amount of usable construction sand is running out. I'm not sure how that will affect prices here in the near future, but it is something to think about.
Give me a call when sand is cheaper than oil...
Quote from: kalvado on December 21, 2020, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2020, 12:31:45 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 09:01:31 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 19, 2020, 08:44:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
Likely not. PET is pretty much recyclable as is. I have no idea if surplus amount of bottles exists, and if it does - is it due to issues with material processing or something else. I belive a lot of floor carpets were cola bottles in previous life, for example.
The only real benefit would be ability to accept bottles mixed 50-50 with crap like used diapers without additional processing.
I read something a while back that seemed to indicate there are problems with recycling plastic. Something about successive generations of plastic are poorer in quality. I don't know how that would affect using it as paving material, however.
There definitely is such a problem. That's why I mentioned carpeting as an application for less than prime material.
Overall, cost benefit, and supply steam come into the equation. How many lane miles can be made with available bottles supply? Should be a fairly easy thing to check
If we manage to blow through the supply of used plastic bottles for paving roads, that would be a good thing from an environmental standpoint, and oil refineries could just sell virgin plastic directly to paving companies.
Thing is, PET is used to replace sand in the mixture. I can think of PET being beneficial due to better pavement quality if it is dirt cheap (or sand cheap, pun intended); no way a virgin material would approach that pay grade.
Sand is becoming a scarce resource. This BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand) talks about the amount of usable construction sand is running out. I'm not sure how that will affect prices here in the near future, but it is something to think about.
Give me a call when sand is cheaper than oil...
When h^ll freezes over?
The world is reportedly running out of sand.
https://www.cnet.com/news/the-world-is-running-out-of-sand-and-you-need-to-care/
At some point society world-wide will have to make far more significant efforts at "mining" existing and even long-closed landfills for any reusable resources. The same goes for trash thrown directly into our oceans. The trick is how to sort such materials in a manner that is both safe and cost-effective. So far all I've seen is cursory efforts, like tapping into landfills to use the gases building inside of them for power.
Quote from: triplemultiplexNow there is a future where we still have mountains of plastic waste to deal with and a bunch of our roads are flaking even more plastic into our environment.
This isn't the first time I've heard of odd materials getting mixed in with asphalt. "Glasphalt" has been around since the 1970's, although it has limited uses. I'm all for anyone experimenting with different materials to find something that may be more durable and/or cost effective compared to standard asphalt. Any new alternative has to pass a number of tests, the least of which is safety. IIRC, glasphalt doesn't work so well on high speed highways since it increases skidding distance.
The growth of microplastics in our environment is a potentially very dangerous problem. The crap is infesting our oceans. The stuff gets eaten by fish, winds up in birds and creeps farther and farther up the food chain
until it is getting into our food. There is no telling how much microplastics are already getting into the meat and produce we eat now. I wonder how well our water treatment systems work on filtering out the stuff. The long term effects of ingesting plastics cannot be good. For now, mankind seems all too happy turning the oceans and waterways into a giant toilet.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2020, 04:06:40 PM
....
This isn't the first time I've heard of odd materials getting mixed in with asphalt. "Glasphalt" has been around since the 1970's, although it has limited uses. I'm all for anyone experimenting with different materials to find something that may be more durable and/or cost effective compared to standard asphalt. Any new alternative has to pass a number of tests, the least of which is safety. IIRC, glasphalt doesn't work so well on high speed highways since it increases skidding distance.
....
I know Fairfax County was using glasphalt for something recently, but I don't know all the details. Curbside pickup for glass recycling ended either last year or the year before and instead we drop it off at designated "purple bins." At some point they were crushing the glass and grinding it up for use in asphalt, though I'm pretty sure it wasn't used in any VDOT projects. Part of the reason for all that had to do with problems selling the recycling to China due to broken glass being hard to separate from paper and plastic. I'm not sure they're still using glasphalt–I read something about them having found a customer that will recycle it into new glass products.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2020, 04:06:40 PM
The growth of microplastics in our environment is a potentially very dangerous problem. The crap is infesting our oceans. The stuff gets eaten by fish, winds up in birds and creeps farther and farther up the food chain until it is getting into our food. There is no telling how much microplastics are already getting into the meat and produce we eat now. I wonder how well our water treatment systems work on filtering out the stuff.
Not good. Remember microbeads being advertised in shampoos? They were also in cosmetics and toothpaste. Congress banned them in 2015 because they were getting past treatment plants and into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
Does bitumen not create environmental problems?
Quote from: kernals12Does bitumen not create environmental problems?
I would think bitumen poses its own hazards. But that poses another question. Would bitumen be used as a hot liquid binder in asphalt made with recycled plastic? I'm inclined to think it would still be a necessary ingredient in this new kind of asphalt just like with regular asphalt.
Quote from: skluthRemember microbeads being advertised in shampoos? They were also in cosmetics and toothpaste. Congress banned them in 2015 because they were getting past treatment plants and into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
The whole situation is disgusting. We already have enough failures in our food and water safety systems that all kinds of cattle run-off shit and piss (among many other pollutants) are getting into the food and water we eat and drink. We're doing things barely good enough to get by, just good enough to be barely above third world standards. But let's throw a bunch of hormones and other stuff into our meat. That way we can have kids hitting puberty before age 10!
This microplastics stuff is on a whole other dimension for how pervasive it is in our waterways
and the life forms that live in those waters. I don't know if it's just unchecked advertising from Big Pharma or if it's an indication of growing medical problems. But it seems like more people than ever have all sorts of odd allergy issues, gastro-intestinal issues (like IBS, Chron's, etc), ADHD and on and on. I can't help but wonder if that is a side effect to the unnatural foods we're eating, stuff we're drinking and even the air we're breathing in some locations. I'm sure there are other factors involved too (like parents doing lots of drugs and alcohol while pregnant). But the way our food and water is being altered is really pretty scary.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2020, 11:43:44 PM
Quote from: kernals12Does bitumen not create environmental problems?
I would think bitumen poses its own hazards. But that poses another question. Would bitumen be used as a hot liquid binder in asphalt made with recycled plastic? I'm inclined to think it would still be a necessary ingredient in this new kind of asphalt just like with regular asphalt.
Quote from: skluthRemember microbeads being advertised in shampoos? They were also in cosmetics and toothpaste. Congress banned them in 2015 because they were getting past treatment plants and into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
The whole situation is disgusting. We already have enough failures in our food and water safety systems that all kinds of cattle run-off shit and piss (among many other pollutants) are getting into the food and water we eat and drink. We're doing things barely good enough to get by, just good enough to be barely above third world standards. But let's throw a bunch of hormones and other stuff into our meat. That way we can have kids hitting puberty before age 10!
This microplastics stuff is on a whole other dimension for how pervasive it is in our waterways and the life forms that live in those waters. I don't know if it's just unchecked advertising from Big Pharma or if it's an indication of growing medical problems. But it seems like more people than ever have all sorts of odd allergy issues, gastro-intestinal issues (like IBS, Chron's, etc), ADHD and on and on. I can't help but wonder if that is a side effect to the unnatural foods we're eating, stuff we're drinking and even the air we're breathing in some locations. I'm sure there are other factors involved too (like parents doing lots of drugs and alcohol while pregnant). But the way our food and water is being altered is really pretty scary.
By all objective measures, waterways in the United States and all developed countries have never been cleaner. My Mom grew up on Lake Erie in the 1970s, she knows how bad things used to be.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2020, 11:43:44 PM
Quote from: kernals12Does bitumen not create environmental problems?
I would think bitumen poses its own hazards. But that poses another question. Would bitumen be used as a hot liquid binder in asphalt made with recycled plastic? I'm inclined to think it would still be a necessary ingredient in this new kind of asphalt just like with regular asphalt.
Quote from: skluthRemember microbeads being advertised in shampoos? They were also in cosmetics and toothpaste. Congress banned them in 2015 because they were getting past treatment plants and into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
The whole situation is disgusting. We already have enough failures in our food and water safety systems that all kinds of cattle run-off shit and piss (among many other pollutants) are getting into the food and water we eat and drink. We're doing things barely good enough to get by, just good enough to be barely above third world standards. But let's throw a bunch of hormones and other stuff into our meat. That way we can have kids hitting puberty before age 10!
This microplastics stuff is on a whole other dimension for how pervasive it is in our waterways and the life forms that live in those waters. I don't know if it's just unchecked advertising from Big Pharma or if it's an indication of growing medical problems. But it seems like more people than ever have all sorts of odd allergy issues, gastro-intestinal issues (like IBS, Chron's, etc), ADHD and on and on. I can't help but wonder if that is a side effect to the unnatural foods we're eating, stuff we're drinking and even the air we're breathing in some locations. I'm sure there are other factors involved too (like parents doing lots of drugs and alcohol while pregnant). But the way our food and water is being altered is really pretty scary.
Frankly speaking, after looking at things - I am not totally convinced microplastics are THAT worse than sand.
And a clear result of non-natural foods can be seen in life expectancy. it increased from ~37 years in 18th century when the food was all natural to ~80 years today. Keep in mind, natural selection almost stopped working for humans, so those who, health-wise, should have died as kids (including your's truly) are living much longer and keep farting about poor health care.
That would be nice if indeed digestive systems handled microplastic the same as it does inert geological material like sand. (Life forms have been incidentally swallowing sand and other minerals for as long as there has been eating, so nature knows how to poop that out no problem.). One of the many uncontrolled experiments our species is running on a planetary scale these days. :-/
Worth noting that asphalt itself was once a waste product of oil refining. One that was repurposed into something useful when applied to roofs or mixed with sand and gravel for road surfaces. It's a know respiratory health hazard when volatilized, yet it's ubiquitous in our built environment.
Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2020, 05:46:54 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2020, 11:43:44 PM
Quote from: kernals12Does bitumen not create environmental problems?
I would think bitumen poses its own hazards. But that poses another question. Would bitumen be used as a hot liquid binder in asphalt made with recycled plastic? I'm inclined to think it would still be a necessary ingredient in this new kind of asphalt just like with regular asphalt.
Quote from: skluthRemember microbeads being advertised in shampoos? They were also in cosmetics and toothpaste. Congress banned them in 2015 because they were getting past treatment plants and into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
The whole situation is disgusting. We already have enough failures in our food and water safety systems that all kinds of cattle run-off shit and piss (among many other pollutants) are getting into the food and water we eat and drink. We're doing things barely good enough to get by, just good enough to be barely above third world standards. But let's throw a bunch of hormones and other stuff into our meat. That way we can have kids hitting puberty before age 10!
This microplastics stuff is on a whole other dimension for how pervasive it is in our waterways and the life forms that live in those waters. I don't know if it's just unchecked advertising from Big Pharma or if it's an indication of growing medical problems. But it seems like more people than ever have all sorts of odd allergy issues, gastro-intestinal issues (like IBS, Chron's, etc), ADHD and on and on. I can't help but wonder if that is a side effect to the unnatural foods we're eating, stuff we're drinking and even the air we're breathing in some locations. I'm sure there are other factors involved too (like parents doing lots of drugs and alcohol while pregnant). But the way our food and water is being altered is really pretty scary.
Frankly speaking, after looking at things - I am not totally convinced microplastics are THAT worse than sand.
And a clear result of non-natural foods can be seen in life expectancy. it increased from ~37 years in 18th century when the food was all natural to ~80 years today. Keep in mind, natural selection almost stopped working for humans, so those who, health-wise, should have died as kids (including your's truly) are living much longer and keep farting about poor health care.
That's a far more complex subject and not really relevant here. However, increased life expectancy is largely because poor people are no longer starving, clean drinking water, cleaner air in urban environments, fewer work fatalities, child labor being banned, better hygiene, and most importantly better medical care. People used to just die from severe allergies and auto-immune diseases so fewer people had them. We didn't recognize conditions like autism back then, much less understand them. IMO, organic farming is garbage (it's often worse for the environment). I'll happily eat a GMO-modified tomato. I don't care if my ballpark hot dog has a few ground insects and other things. I care about the environment, but I'm a firm believer in discussing it rationally. For the record, I'm someone who's politically left-of-center. I'll get off my soapbox now. I've offended enough folks.
It's also worth noting that the immune system needs to be "calibrated"; as such, a perfectly clean environment with not enough dirt is one of the reasons why there are so many people with allergies today. Also the fact that the immune system evolved in a world where everyone had at least one parasite, which is no longer true in developed countries.
Quote from: skluth on December 22, 2020, 07:06:33 PM
IMO, organic farming is garbage (it's often worse for the environment).
It's garbage because 'organic' food is no more nutrient rich or healthier than 'regular' food. And it takes MORE land to grow the same amount of food, making it completely unsustainable to feed the world without a severe reduction in population. It's all slick marketing to appeal to some 'back to nature' mentality some people out there have. The organic stuff often even tastes worse in blinded taste tests, so it can't even claim to be more delicious. It gets under my skin because I see people who I otherwise think have the right idea about other issues in society falling for this obvious scam from the organic/non-GMO lobby.
Microplastics are chump change to the raw sewage, detergents, and industrial effluent we used to freely dump into our rivers and lakes.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 23, 2020, 10:42:32 AM
Microplastics are chump change to the raw sewage, detergents, and industrial effluent we used to freely dump into our rivers and lakes.
Not sure what your point is here. Yes, we used to dump that crap in our water and now we try not to. Same goes for microplastics: We used to allow them and now we don't. Both were good actions to take to protect the environment.
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2020, 11:13:38 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 23, 2020, 10:42:32 AM
Microplastics are chump change to the raw sewage, detergents, and industrial effluent we used to freely dump into our rivers and lakes.
Not sure what your point is here. Yes, we used to dump that crap in our water and now we try not to. Same goes for microplastics: We used to allow them and now we don't. Both were good actions to take to protect the environment.
Thing is, there is a different level of good and bad.
Things like acid rains, mercury, or raw sewage are pretty obvious problems, understood and being handled; or - like simple plastic waste (or just regular trash outside designated areas, after all) - being handled slower than one would love to see.
There are problems which are being understood recently, or not yet fully appreciated - drugs in treated sewage, BPA.
And there are problems which seem to be more political than understood; I would say miroplastics fall into that range.
Microplastics are not an ideology-based political issue. This stuff is a real problem. The problem is bad enough that it makes me want to avoid seafood completely. The oceans are already getting polluted badly enough as it is, but the microplastics stuff adds a whole new layer to the situation.
Plastics are not a benign material safe to eat and digest. They slowly poison the fish and birds that consume them. The chemicals from those ingested plastics wind up in the meat of fish that eat it. The same fish can wind up on your dinner plate. One fish with traces of plastic compounds in its meat may not be enough to harm someone. But it raises the health risks for anyone eating that kind of fish on a regular basis.
There are many other kinds of waste and pollution. We have reasonably effective methods for treating and disposing of sewage. We have many regulations regarding the disposal of hazardous chemicals and materials. Most other developed nations do the same thing. Someone pretty much has to travel to a poor, third world country and/or a highly impoverish area to find places where a flushed toilet dumps directly into a ditch next to the house and then goes straight into a river.
Plastics are a more difficult issue due to the prevalence of single use packages made with plastics (water bottles, food containers, product packaging, etc). If you're going to get rid of used motor oil, a broken air conditioner or some buckets of old paint thinner you can't just throw those things into the garbage can or dump it on the side of a road. But people frequently toss plastic drink bottles and all sorts of other stuff out of the window of a speeding car or off the side of a boat. The plastic materials are not biodegradeable in any traditional sense. The effects of weather, water and incidental impacts just breaks the material into smaller and smaller pieces. In small enough pieces the stuff can be carried into waterways and wind up in lakes or the ocean. There are companies working on ways how to clean up things like the giant trash pile floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. But they're at a loss on how to filter microplastics from the water at any kind of effective scale.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2020, 02:31:10 PM
Microplastics are not an ideology-based political issue. This stuff is a real problem. The problem is bad enough that it makes me want to avoid seafood completely. The oceans are already getting polluted badly enough as it is, but the microplastics stuff adds a whole new layer to the situation.
Plastics are not a benign material safe to eat and digest. They slowly poison the fish and birds that consume them. The chemicals from those ingested plastics wind up in the meat of fish that eat it. The same fish can wind up on your dinner plate. One fish with traces of plastic compounds in its meat may not be enough to harm someone. But it raises the health risks for anyone eating that kind of fish on a regular basis.
There are many other kinds of waste and pollution. We have reasonably effective methods for treating and disposing of sewage. We have many regulations regarding the disposal of hazardous chemicals and materials. Most other developed nations do the same thing. Someone pretty much has to travel to a poor, third world country and/or a highly impoverish area to find places where a flushed toilet dumps directly into a ditch next to the house and then goes straight into a river.
Plastics are a more difficult issue due to the prevalence of single use packages made with plastics (water bottles, food containers, product packaging, etc). If you're going to get rid of used motor oil, a broken air conditioner or some buckets of old paint thinner you can't just throw those things into the garbage can or dump it on the side of a road. But people frequently toss plastic drink bottles and all sorts of other stuff out of the window of a speeding car or off the side of a boat. The plastic materials are not biodegradeable in any traditional sense. The effects of weather, water and incidental impacts just breaks the material into smaller and smaller pieces. In small enough pieces the stuff can be carried into waterways and wind up in lakes or the ocean. There are companies working on ways how to clean up things like the giant trash pile floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. But they're at a loss on how to filter microplastics from the water at any kind of effective scale.
Just to put things in perspective - what is your major? Biochemistry, biology?
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2020, 10:14:12 PM
Remember microbeads being advertised in shampoos? They were also in cosmetics and toothpaste. Congress banned them in 2015 because they were getting past treatment plants and into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
Dang, so THAT'S why I can't seem to find any exfoliating body wash in the store lately? I figured it had to be something like that. Just last week, though, I noticed a few brands selling exfoliating liquid soap, so now I'm curious to know what they're using these days instead of microbeads.
Quote from: kphoger on January 13, 2021, 10:37:33 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2020, 10:14:12 PM
Remember microbeads being advertised in shampoos? They were also in cosmetics and toothpaste. Congress banned them in 2015 because they were getting past treatment plants and into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
Dang, so THAT'S why I can't seem to find any exfoliating body wash in the store lately? I figured it had to be something like that. Just last week, though, I noticed a few brands selling exfoliating liquid soap, so now I'm curious to know what they're using these days instead of microbeads.
There are natural substances that work about as well. Perlite, a volcanic mineral often found in potting soil mixtures, is often used. Biodegradable microbeads can also be manufactured from cellulose. Plastic microbeads are just extremely cheap; they're not unique.
I know Fast Orange hand cleaner (which was the soap of choice at the mechanic shop my dad worked at) has ground-up pumice, a volcanic rock, in it. Talk about exfoliating...it feels like scrubbing your hands with sandpaper!
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2021, 03:17:06 AM
I know Fast Orange hand cleaner (which was the soap of choice at the mechanic shop my dad worked at) has ground-up pumice, a volcanic rock, in it. Talk about exfoliating...it feels like scrubbing your hands with sandpaper!
now try to think about sewage pumps which have to deal with that stuff...
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2021, 03:17:06 AM
I know Fast Orange hand cleaner (which was the soap of choice at the mechanic shop my dad worked at) has ground-up pumice, a volcanic rock, in it. Talk about exfoliating...it feels like scrubbing your hands with sandpaper!
Oh yeah, that stuff is great for getting grease off your hands! I like the NAPA brand one.
Quote from: kphoger on January 13, 2021, 10:37:33 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2020, 10:14:12 PM
Remember microbeads being advertised in shampoos? They were also in cosmetics and toothpaste. Congress banned them in 2015 because they were getting past treatment plants and into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
Dang, so THAT'S why I can't seem to find any exfoliating body wash in the store lately? I figured it had to be something like that. Just last week, though, I noticed a few brands selling exfoliating liquid soap, so now I'm curious to know what they're using these days instead of microbeads.
Quote from: kphoger on January 18, 2021, 12:09:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2021, 03:17:06 AM
I know Fast Orange hand cleaner (which was the soap of choice at the mechanic shop my dad worked at) has ground-up pumice, a volcanic rock, in it. Talk about exfoliating...it feels like scrubbing your hands with sandpaper!
Oh yeah, that stuff is great for getting grease off your hands! I like the NAPA brand one.
I was about to jokingly suggest feldspar, the component of many sandpapers, as an alternative to microbeads, but yeah, Lava soap has pumice in it as well.
My dad, being a bicycle-building guy, keeps a tub of the Phil Wood brand in the kitchen. I don't know what's in it, though.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0378/1413/products/Hand_Cleaner_16oz_480x.jpg?v=1567535087)
WHO finds no evidence that microplastics are harmful (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753324757/who-study-finds-no-evidence-of-health-concerns-from-microplastics-in-drinking-wa)
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 12:36:01 AM
WHO finds no evidence that microplastics are harmful (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753324757/who-study-finds-no-evidence-of-health-concerns-from-microplastics-in-drinking-wa)
Nice to know you trust the WHO. Please accept their coronavirus recommendations.
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2021, 08:31:41 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 12:36:01 AM
WHO finds no evidence that microplastics are harmful (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753324757/who-study-finds-no-evidence-of-health-concerns-from-microplastics-in-drinking-wa)
Nice to know you trust the WHO. Please accept their coronavirus recommendations.
Frankly speaking, I don't see anything really damning regarding micropastics. Looks like normal caution spiced up with alarmist agenda. Release of methane from plastic decomposition and associated greenhouse effects seem to be one of bigger concerns.
Help to mitigate the problem, stop farting!
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2021, 08:31:41 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 12:36:01 AM
WHO finds no evidence that microplastics are harmful (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753324757/who-study-finds-no-evidence-of-health-concerns-from-microplastics-in-drinking-wa)
Nice to know you trust the WHO. Please accept their coronavirus recommendations.
I don't think he's ever indicated anything to the contrary.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 08:45:00 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2021, 08:31:41 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 12:36:01 AM
WHO finds no evidence that microplastics are harmful (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753324757/who-study-finds-no-evidence-of-health-concerns-from-microplastics-in-drinking-wa)
Nice to know you trust the WHO. Please accept their coronavirus recommendations.
Frankly speaking, I don't see anything really damning regarding micropastics. Looks like normal caution spiced up with alarmist agenda. Release of methane from plastic decomposition and associated greenhouse effects seem to be one of bigger concerns.
Help to mitigate the problem, stop farting!
Just because it isn't harmful to us doesn't mean it's not harmful to other stuff on the planet.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2021, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 08:45:00 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2021, 08:31:41 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 12:36:01 AM
WHO finds no evidence that microplastics are harmful (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753324757/who-study-finds-no-evidence-of-health-concerns-from-microplastics-in-drinking-wa)
Nice to know you trust the WHO. Please accept their coronavirus recommendations.
Frankly speaking, I don't see anything really damning regarding micropastics. Looks like normal caution spiced up with alarmist agenda. Release of methane from plastic decomposition and associated greenhouse effects seem to be one of bigger concerns.
Help to mitigate the problem, stop farting!
Just because it isn't harmful to us doesn't mean it's not harmful to other stuff on the planet.
But the burden of proof is on the people who claim it's harmful.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 10:22:24 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2021, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 08:45:00 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2021, 08:31:41 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 12:36:01 AM
WHO finds no evidence that microplastics are harmful (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753324757/who-study-finds-no-evidence-of-health-concerns-from-microplastics-in-drinking-wa)
Nice to know you trust the WHO. Please accept their coronavirus recommendations.
Frankly speaking, I don't see anything really damning regarding micropastics. Looks like normal caution spiced up with alarmist agenda. Release of methane from plastic decomposition and associated greenhouse effects seem to be one of bigger concerns.
Help to mitigate the problem, stop farting!
Just because it isn't harmful to us doesn't mean it's not harmful to other stuff on the planet.
But the burden of proof is on the people who claim it's harmful.
Burden met...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariellasimke/2020/01/21/there-is-plastic-in-your-fish/?sh=3ea5a8037071
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/05/microplastics-impact-on-fish-shown-in-pictures/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132564/
https://www.wired.com/story/baby-fish-are-feasting-on-microplastics/
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-fish-microplastics-die-younger.html
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2021, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 10:22:24 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2021, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 08:45:00 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2021, 08:31:41 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 12:36:01 AM
WHO finds no evidence that microplastics are harmful (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753324757/who-study-finds-no-evidence-of-health-concerns-from-microplastics-in-drinking-wa)
Nice to know you trust the WHO. Please accept their coronavirus recommendations.
Frankly speaking, I don't see anything really damning regarding micropastics. Looks like normal caution spiced up with alarmist agenda. Release of methane from plastic decomposition and associated greenhouse effects seem to be one of bigger concerns.
Help to mitigate the problem, stop farting!
Just because it isn't harmful to us doesn't mean it's not harmful to other stuff on the planet.
But the burden of proof is on the people who claim it's harmful.
Burden met...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariellasimke/2020/01/21/there-is-plastic-in-your-fish/?sh=3ea5a8037071
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/05/microplastics-impact-on-fish-shown-in-pictures/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132564/
https://www.wired.com/story/baby-fish-are-feasting-on-microplastics/
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-fish-microplastics-die-younger.html
There is approximately 1 research article in the list, and the conclusion is
QuoteShellfish and other animals consumed whole pose particular concern for human exposure. If there is toxicity, it is likely dependent on...
Things like Scientific American shouldn't be touched without at least 10 foot pole.
I looked quite a bit deeper, and there is very little conclusive information about harm.
There is definitely a phenomenon of chemical absorbtion on plastic surfaces, e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135418302835
But that is not unique for plastic. Crashed shells would exhibit similar behavior, as well as aquatic plants which tend to concentrate a lot of things.
Everything else seem to be pretty remote guesswork.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 01:23:16 PM
Things like Scientific American shouldn't be touched without at least 10 foot pole.
Yeah, 175 years of quackery coming from them... :paranoid:
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2021, 01:37:37 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 01:23:16 PM
Things like Scientific American shouldn't be touched without at least 10 foot pole.
Yeah, 175 years of quackery coming from them... :paranoid:
Well, CNN and FOX had been respectable news outlets at some point as well.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2021, 01:37:37 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 01:23:16 PM
Things like Scientific American shouldn't be touched without at least 10 foot pole.
Yeah, 175 years of quackery coming from them... :paranoid:
Well, CNN and FOX had been respectable news outlets at some point as well.
Kinda not really. Apples to a-bombs comparison there. Both of those orgs screamed objectivity when neither were remotely ever doing so in reality. Fox News was never respectable and CNN maybe had a decade before people wised up.
Only thing you can mock SA for is getting political of late, but even in doing so only limited their politics strictly within the scope of science-related issues.
Let's please try to keep things civil and cut down on the snark. The damages of microplastics are a real concern so let's try to stick to citing facts and expressing opinions instead of sarcastic replies that add nothing or political content that drives controversy. Thanks!
I read an article recently about a South American factory making bricks with old plastic. I'll have to see if I can find it again.
https://hackaday.com/2021/02/07/these-plastic-pavers-are-earth-savers/
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2021, 01:50:24 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2021, 01:37:37 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 01:23:16 PM
Things like Scientific American shouldn't be touched without at least 10 foot pole.
Yeah, 175 years of quackery coming from them... :paranoid:
Well, CNN and FOX had been respectable news outlets at some point as well.
Kinda not really. Apples to a-bombs comparison there. Both of those orgs screamed objectivity when neither were remotely ever doing so in reality. Fox News was never respectable and CNN maybe had a decade before people wised up.
Only thing you can mock SA for is getting political of late, but even in doing so only limited their politics strictly within the scope of science-related issues.
My bigger issue with SA is that they seem to use general purpose journalists to write their texts. There are plentiful technical mistakes, inexcusable for a "scientific" publication.
I am trying to find serious publications on the subject of microplastics - and they are much less alarming. Problem exists, but the scale seems to be way smaller than whatever is sold to general public.
Quote from: US71 on February 08, 2021, 02:50:10 PM
I read an article recently about a South American factory making bricks with old plastic. I'll have to see if I can find it again.
https://hackaday.com/2021/02/07/these-plastic-pavers-are-earth-savers/
There seems to also be progress in mushroom based materials.
https://daily.jstor.org/company-uses-mushrooms-grows-plastic-alternatives/
Also, there's gotta be a way to cleanly incinerate plastic and break it down into carbon and hydrogen.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 03:54:48 PM
Quote from: US71 on February 08, 2021, 02:50:10 PM
I read an article recently about a South American factory making bricks with old plastic. I'll have to see if I can find it again.
https://hackaday.com/2021/02/07/these-plastic-pavers-are-earth-savers/
There seems to also be progress in mushroom based materials.
https://daily.jstor.org/company-uses-mushrooms-grows-plastic-alternatives/
Also, there's gotta be a way to cleanly incinerate plastic and break it down into carbon and hydrogen.
Problem is that plastic needs to be in one container ready to go to the furnace be incinerated. Many people are pigs, they throw stuff all over the place (my apology to pigs for comparison, though)
Once in a container, plastic may be considered as a valuable material rather than dangerous waste, though.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 04:16:42 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 03:54:48 PM
Quote from: US71 on February 08, 2021, 02:50:10 PM
I read an article recently about a South American factory making bricks with old plastic. I'll have to see if I can find it again.
https://hackaday.com/2021/02/07/these-plastic-pavers-are-earth-savers/
There seems to also be progress in mushroom based materials.
https://daily.jstor.org/company-uses-mushrooms-grows-plastic-alternatives/
Also, there's gotta be a way to cleanly incinerate plastic and break it down into carbon and hydrogen.
Problem is that plastic needs to be in one container ready to go to the furnace be incinerated. Many people are pigs, they throw stuff all over the place (my apology to pigs for comparison, though)
Once in a container, plastic may be considered as a valuable material rather than dangerous waste, though.
If waste plastic becomes a valuable raw material, then people looking for a quick buck will pick it up from the side of the highway by their own volition.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 04:35:40 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2021, 04:16:42 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 03:54:48 PM
Quote from: US71 on February 08, 2021, 02:50:10 PM
I read an article recently about a South American factory making bricks with old plastic. I'll have to see if I can find it again.
https://hackaday.com/2021/02/07/these-plastic-pavers-are-earth-savers/
There seems to also be progress in mushroom based materials.
https://daily.jstor.org/company-uses-mushrooms-grows-plastic-alternatives/
Also, there's gotta be a way to cleanly incinerate plastic and break it down into carbon and hydrogen.
Problem is that plastic needs to be in one container ready to go to the furnace be incinerated. Many people are pigs, they throw stuff all over the place (my apology to pigs for comparison, though)
Once in a container, plastic may be considered as a valuable material rather than dangerous waste, though.
If waste plastic becomes a valuable raw material, then people looking for a quick buck will pick it up from the side of the highway by their own volition.
A few months ago, I picked up plastic bottles by the side of the road to recycle.
$7.25 per hour (assuming federal) / (400 bottles / 5 hours) = 9¢ per bottle [no, I didn't actually get paid to do this]
$3.00 / 24 bottles = 12.5¢ per bottle
It's almost no difference, especially once you factor in people's time being worth more than minimum wage and receiving 24 bottles of water rather than empty bottles.
They could develop a robot that vacuums up litter alongside roads
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 04:55:59 PM
They could develop a robot that vacuums up litter alongside roads
If it's that good of an idea, feel free to explore developing it.
Quote from: GaryV on February 08, 2021, 05:12:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2021, 04:55:59 PM
They could develop a robot that vacuums up litter alongside roads
If it's that good of an idea, feel free to explore developing it.
I'll leave that up to Boston Dynamics.