147
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Studies find red, blue and green plastic decomposes into microplastic particles faster than plainer colours

Retailers are being urged to stop making everyday products such as drinks bottles, outdoor furniture and toys out of brightly coloured plastic after researchers found it degrades into microplastics faster than plainer colours.

Red, blue and green plastic became “very brittle and fragmented”, while black, white and silver samples were “largely unaffected” over a three-year period, according to the findings of the University of Leicester-led project.

The scale of environmental pollution caused by plastic waste means that microplastics, or tiny plastic particles, are everywhere. Indeed, they were recently found in human testicles, with scientists suggesting a possible link to declining sperm counts in men.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago

I think it's bad to have more micro plastics rather than less, at any given point in time

You're still going to have the same amount in the long run, though. All this is doing is delaying the inevitable.

[-] DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago

Sure, but the impact would be less bad if you have the same amount spread over a longer time.

[-] Traister101@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago

It's the same impact. It's the same amount of microplastic it just takes longer. If I give you the choice of 100 beans today or 1 bean each day for 100 days it's still 100 beans. The total impact is identical it just takes longer.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

By that logic, we may as well burn all of our trash, because eventually it will be pollution so why not get it over with now?

Burning and breaking down are two different things.

Microplastics will last for thousands of years, so unless the less colorful plastics take thousands of years to break down to the point of bright ones, the difference is irrelevant.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

It's just so silly though. You're dismissing the uncountable number of people absorbing unknowable amounts of micro plastics over the next few decades as unimportant.

Not only do we want to reduce exposure in the near term, we may find a way to effectively remove micro plastics from the environment in the future, so no, it's not settled that releasing as many micro plastics as possible is fine as long as it would happen eventually anyhow

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

How about we reduce all plastics. It's not going to happen in my lifetime but it would be something.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Yes obviously. we don't have to do only one thing

[-] Kelly@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

it's not settled that releasing as many micro plastics as possible is fine as long as it would happen eventually anyhow

Is anyone making that argument? My thoughts are that we should reduce plastics (both macro amd micro) entering the ecosystem.

As 22% ends up as litter and directly enters the ecosystem, and 49% is put in landfill (which may enter the ecosystem later) is seems using less plastic is the best solution to this problem.

Edit: I forgot the link:

https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-waste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.htm

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

We can and should use less plastic and also limit the rate of micro plastics...?

this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
147 points (96.8% liked)

News

23644 readers
3057 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS