Microplastics and nanoplastics are a growing concern in terms of the health of both humans and the environment. We’re at the top of many food chains, so what we consume also affects the rest of the world.
In a June 2023 article, I wrote about what micro and nano plastics are and where we are finding them: in human brains, in human placentas on both the maternal and foetal side, and in other organs.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
According to a study published in Nature, “The ingestion of (microplastics) has been shown to cause an inflammatory response and can damage the gut, disrupt gut microorganisms, cause organ damage, and affect reproduction and metabolism. Breathing in (microplastics) can cause inflammation and chemical toxicity and introduce pathogenic microorganisms into the body.”
In addition, polypropylene microplastics promote metastatic features in human breast cancer.
Just a bit concerning
Another study, published in Nature Medicine by researchers of the University of New Mexico, found that these substances accumulate more in human brains than in any other human organ. The plastic accumulation also appears to be growing over time, having increased 50 per cent over just the past eight years.
Maybe that explains, at least to a degree, why we are seeing such strange behaviour in many politicians these days. Think: inflammatory responses….
Microplastics have also been found in blood, semen and bone marrow.
It’s time to get serious about clean-ups and reducing the use of plastics where possible. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening.
A study published in Elsevier in November 2024 expects the global use of plastics to increase from 464 million tonnes (Mt) in 2020 to up to 884 Mt in 2050.
We are (getting) stuffed, quite literally, with plastics
Moving on, let’s talk about pollution more generally.
We mostly talk about greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution when CO2 is just a portion of the actual stuff polluting our atmosphere.
Scientists have agreed on using a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) calculation to make all the various greenhouse gas pollutants more comparable, but unfortunately, in our attempt to simplify the matter, we have given room for disingenuous arguments to be made.
The argument is often made that CO2 is good for plant growth, and yes, plants can absorb four times atmospheric CO2, but only twice a day, at dusk and dawn, for a limited period of time.
However, let’s take, for example, nitrous oxides or NOX, which have a greenhouse warming potential of 300 times that of CO2. Every time we burn something, we create NOX. Let me add for the record that the most modern emitters have or ought to have NOX detox technologies in place.
Globally, we emit around three billion metric tonnes of CO2e in NOX.
NOX emissions are not CO2, we just measure them as CO2e. Many people don’t get that.
I can’t, for the life of me, understand how anyone can think these volumes of emissions have zero impact.
Plea for a change in language
We should stop talking about CO2e. Let the scientists measure in any way they like or prefer, but when it comes to explaining this to the public, we should speak in a language that can actually be understood by laypeople. NOX are pollutants. Let’s talk about pollution. You don’t want to breathe this stuff in.
Now, I will discuss the feedback I received on my first plastic article, Plastic Recycling 101.
One comment showed surprise at my statement that “recycling plastics codes 1 to 6 is pretty much standard today”.
What I mean by this is that the technology exists to recycle these plastics, and the recycling is happening on a daily basis. Maybe not to the same extent as the usual suspects (PET and HDPE), and maybe not as much in Australia as it is in Europe, but it is happening.
Talking for example about PVC, the more difficult polymer, PVC pipes recovered from construction and demolition waste jobs are usually separated and sent to recyclers to be made into new pipes.
There are several companies specialising in this, especially in Victoria and New South Wales. There are also very serious attempts under way to build national stewardship schemes including setting up collection points, recyclers and developing markets for various PVC products, such as resilient flooring products, which are used in settings such as hospitals, schools and train stations.
Similar things are happening with other plastics. Even Western Australia now has a low-density polyethylene recycling facility.
It looks like we are on the right path, albeit a long and winding one.
A larger plastic recycling facility was just rejected in the NSW Southern Highlands due to community concerns. This shows we still have a long road of educating people in front of us. The issue of social licence is a particularly difficult one, and without more engagement by the state government, nothing much will happen.
Another comment on my earlier story tripped me up on confusing yield parameters. To rectify this, the yield of mechanical recycling is very much dependent on the level of contamination but typically varies between 75 and 90 per cent, not 10 and 25 per cent, as I wrote in the article. Sorry about that.
Another comment lamented the NSW energy from waste regulations, asserting that they hinder the recycling of plastics and that I should cover this in a later article. I did, albeit in an earlier article you can find here.
As I also said much earlier, the NSW energy from waste regulations are inefficient and not leading to the desired outcomes, in particular when it comes to recycling mixed plastics. Those regulations deserve only one treatment: the shredder! I am really curious about when the NSW EPA will wake up. The policy is up for review this year.
So, I hope you have read something new. I am sorry that the information is not uplifting, as we already live in dark times.
Wait until I write something about PFAS. Then you may never want to read anything again.