When disposable contacts were first released I said it seemed like they would just contribute to pollution at an even greater rate than regular contacts. Several people said to me, āCome on, contacts are so tiny.ā I pointed out that they individual contacts are tiny, but add up all the people buying contacts theyād wear once then throw away every single day and they become a big problem.
I never thought about the pollution potential of micro-beads. Then again it sounds like no one else did either.
I was only able to read the abstract because I didnāt want to pay to read the paper. It said that 20% of the particles were aluminum silicate from coal burning and the remainder were believed to be from cosmetic products. I would love to see further analysis to confirm or disprove this origin. In order to know if this is a problem or not one needs to know how long these particles last in the natural environment and what, if any, are the harmful effects from them.
In the abstract, was there mention of their sampling point in Lake Erie? Between Detroit, Port Huron, Sarnia, Windsor and DTEās coal burning power plants in the NE corner of Ohio, I could easily imagine 20% coming from coal burning/oil refining.
I would also like to know if there is really any purpose to micro-beads in cosmetics, because it seems like wasteful (and potentially toxic) gimmickry.
Oh, itās awfully heartwarming of some cosmetics companies to decide to āphase outā microbeads now that theyāve discovered they were harmful. That seems awfully fair, Iām sure other industries would love to follow the model. Discover e. coli contamination in beef? Weāll start phasing out the use of the contaminated beef. Poorly made Baby-walkers killing kids? No worries, weāll be phasing out that model.
Itās for exfoliation. But the plastic beads certainly arenāt needed. Iāve seen body scrubs made with bits of nut shells or sugar. Which is why I donāt understand why people donāt just sprinkle a bit of sugar in regular body gel. It doesnāt need to be fancy, just a bit abrasive (coffee grinds work well too).
Iām not sure why the āaquatic ecosystemā is being so whiny about a gentle, but vigorous, exfoliation that will leave its skin looking and feeling its best, all day longā¦ People pay for that sort of thing, you know.
Facial scrubs are household waste water, which is supposed to be processed through a treatment plant before being dumped anywhere. So the real story is not that facial scrubs contain micro-beads, but that some cities are failing to treat their waste water properly. Blame the cities, not the soap factories.
Iāve been reading Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, And it reads like a horror novel. Itās not that thereās anything intrinsically wrong with using plastic, itās the single use philosophy that plasticās low cost empowers.
There are some instances of overt failure-to-treat; but most historical wastewater infrastructure (and some current) is biased heavily toward some flocculation and settling to get the solids, along with the appropriate conditions to encourage decomposition of biological material, and a shift in the microbial balance toward the non-pathogenic decomposers and away from parasites and pathogens.
Unless you are willing to get out the checkbook, in a serious way, ātreatment plantā doesnāt imply some sort of broad-spectrum filtration, unless specially fitted for chemical plant wastewater or the like. Itās mostly about solving the old ādrinking your own shit makes you sickā problem. Thatās a major part of the concern about āunconventionalā waste (certain plastics, pharmaceuticals and metabolites, heavy metals and persistent toxins, that sort of thing) that largely survive conventional processing unchanged.
Wow, I guess I never thought about it. I just assumed that these scrubs were made with something like ground pumice like in lava soap. I never really paid enough attention to realize they were plastic. I think a lot of people just plain havenāt noticed exactly what the grit is.
I find this headline very difficult to believe that quantities of facial scrubs (which are not used by every person) are āchokingā the great lakes.
Theyāre plastic, they last forever. Consider this; ever plastic straw, toy and toothbrush youāve ever used is still out there being plastic.
Because you need to actually see a choking fish? Perhaps you donāt want to do anything because itās not polluted enough for you to believe in? Hereās a concept, letās err on the side of caution.
Well, strictly speaking, UV breakdown causes them to break into smaller bits, the kind that are easier for filter feeders at the bottom of the food chain to handleā¦
Because government, especially local government, should happily clean up whatever the soap factories want to put into their product.
It may be fair to say the lakes are not really choked here. The average particle count from the article is 0.043 per m2, up to 0.466 in some samples. How bad that is depends on how dangerous they are - what compounds they might leach, how they affect filter feeders and travel up food chains, and so on. But microplastics havenāt been common that long, and since they seem to persist a long time, this at least shows their current use can be expected to give choked lakes.
Good point. Be sure to check the ingredients labelāit should indicate the solids being used for the scrubber.
This topic was automatically closed after 10 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
