Re: Does anything else really matter?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2024 12:27 pm
52.3C in Delhi
Funk that
Funk that
I’m assuming the humidity would be high as well.
I’m assuming the humidity would be high as well.
It’s not waste it’s carbon incorporated into membranes from waste. Study suggests the plastic waste source of this carbon can substitute for fatty acid metabolism to get across the blood brain barrier. What is needed now is a longitudinal assessment of the health risks of that alternative carbon source measured by epidemiology coupled to quantification of relative nanoplastic presence. Nothing gets passively into the brain so assessing the liver is important here. These findings should also be replicated in other phyla, fish and anything that has a functional blood brain barrier comparable to mammals, specifically primates. Diet is a vital variable here.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:39 pm 1/200th of our brain mass is actually micropastic waste. Quite scary:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ion-health
Seems the brain is much better than retaining them than other organs, up to 0.5% by weightDonny osmond wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:10 pm Have heard of a few microplastic studies lately that have found microplastics in everything from testes to placentas. I would just take it as read that your body is full of microplastics.
Can you explain this distinction a bit more? Of the plastic accumulating in the brain, the paper says 'the majority being nanometer-scale, shard-like particulates'.morepork wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:08 pmIt’s not waste it’s carbon incorporated into membranes from waste. Study suggests the plastic waste source of this carbon can substitute for fatty acid metabolism to get across the blood brain barrier. What is needed now is a longitudinal assessment of the health risks of that alternative carbon source measured by epidemiology coupled to quantification of relative nanoplastic presence. Nothing gets passively into the brain so assessing the liver is important here. These findings should also be replicated in other phyla, fish and anything that has a functional blood brain barrier comparable to mammals, specifically primates. Diet is a vital variable here.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:39 pm 1/200th of our brain mass is actually micropastic waste. Quite scary:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ion-health
This should be right up moreporks alleySon of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 8:23 pmCan you explain this distinction a bit more? Of the plastic accumulating in the brain, the paper says 'the majority being nanometer-scale, shard-like particulates'.morepork wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:08 pmIt’s not waste it’s carbon incorporated into membranes from waste. Study suggests the plastic waste source of this carbon can substitute for fatty acid metabolism to get across the blood brain barrier. What is needed now is a longitudinal assessment of the health risks of that alternative carbon source measured by epidemiology coupled to quantification of relative nanoplastic presence. Nothing gets passively into the brain so assessing the liver is important here. These findings should also be replicated in other phyla, fish and anything that has a functional blood brain barrier comparable to mammals, specifically primates. Diet is a vital variable here.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:39 pm 1/200th of our brain mass is actually micropastic waste. Quite scary:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ion-health
One slightly hopeful note was that in zebrafish studies, the contamination plateaued at a certain level of exposure and then cleared after exposure ended. Whether that's applicable to our big mammal brains, who knows?
Human stupidity causes environmental changes which increase human stupidity.morepork wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 7:53 pm I'm completely wrong about this. Plastic is metabolized and gets into the blood stream and into the brain via regulated conduits, but it seems raw plastic can also cross the blood brain barrier and fuck with cells there:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3522007548
The blood brain barrier is the first line of defense against unregulated responses to foreign non-self antigens, and it appears plastic can breach that line and promote a redox environment that increases the risk of neurodegeneration. Welcome to the Anthropocene. Apologies for trying to get too cute with biological observation.
What is needed now is to apply the detection methods to post mortem brain bank samples and see if there is a correlation between plastic load and clinical phenotype. Especially in age-related conditions like dementias. I'm thinking there probably is.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 9:24 amHuman stupidity causes environmental changes which increase human stupidity.morepork wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 7:53 pm I'm completely wrong about this. Plastic is metabolized and gets into the blood stream and into the brain via regulated conduits, but it seems raw plastic can also cross the blood brain barrier and fuck with cells there:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3522007548
The blood brain barrier is the first line of defense against unregulated responses to foreign non-self antigens, and it appears plastic can breach that line and promote a redox environment that increases the risk of neurodegeneration. Welcome to the Anthropocene. Apologies for trying to get too cute with biological observation.
Positive feedback. Or death spiral.
I guess, now the problem is being recognised, we can begin to identify the materials, items and processes which are the biggest contributors to this and take action to phase them out/improve them. No doubt there will be anti-ULEZ type reactions as the corporates and the right fights for our right to poison ourselves (and every other life form on the planet).
Also we need to find the main routes microplastics are entering our bodies via. Food? Is it particularly bad in processed food? Plastic containers? Drink? Is it in our water? Drinking bottles? How much are we breathing in? Is it particularly bad in certain places or is lifestyle a bigger factor?morepork wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 5:14 pmWhat is needed now is to apply the detection methods to post mortem brain bank samples and see if there is a correlation between plastic load and clinical phenotype. Especially in age-related conditions like dementias. I'm thinking there probably is.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 9:24 amHuman stupidity causes environmental changes which increase human stupidity.morepork wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 7:53 pm I'm completely wrong about this. Plastic is metabolized and gets into the blood stream and into the brain via regulated conduits, but it seems raw plastic can also cross the blood brain barrier and fuck with cells there:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3522007548
The blood brain barrier is the first line of defense against unregulated responses to foreign non-self antigens, and it appears plastic can breach that line and promote a redox environment that increases the risk of neurodegeneration. Welcome to the Anthropocene. Apologies for trying to get too cute with biological observation.
Positive feedback. Or death spiral.
I guess, now the problem is being recognised, we can begin to identify the materials, items and processes which are the biggest contributors to this and take action to phase them out/improve them. No doubt there will be anti-ULEZ type reactions as the corporates and the right fights for our right to poison ourselves (and every other life form on the planet).
BBC StoryWorks is the content studio of BBC Global News. Building on our century-long pedigree as the world’s most trusted storytellers, we work with brands to create beautifully crafted stories that move and inspire curious minds, across platforms and across the globe.
Everyday Plastic said volunteers placed Apple tracking devices in 40 bundles of plastic packaging that were then dropped at Sainsbury's and Tesco collection points across England.
The bundles were tracked after they left the stores from July 2023 to February 2024 and collectively travelled more than 25,000km across the UK and overseas, the campaigners said.
Out of the trackers known to have reached a final destination, seven were found to have been turned into fuel pellets, which are commonly used by industry such as in cement kilns.
Five were burned for energy, four were downcycled into lower-value plastic products overseas, mostly in Turkey, and just one was downcycled in the UK, the investigators said.
Eight of the tracked bundles were found to have been sent overseas and 70 per cent of the bundles that reached a known destination were burned for energy, not recycled.
The East Coast Cluster is backed by oil companies including BP and Equinor. The HyNet North West project is being developed by the Italian oil company Eni.
The advantage of it is that it can be applied to plants and processes that physically can't go carbon neutral and get in at the source of the emissions. It is definitely an important part of rescuing the planet (although as you say, have to be careful not to let it be a fig leaf) and all the more infuriating that it was very close to implementation over a decade ago, before being utterly defunded when Cameron "cut all the green shit" and wasted years of investment and planning.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 6:34 pm I have to say I'm skeptical about this investment in carbon capture:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-projects
It's unclear what kind of CCS technology they're talking about here. CCS has been looked at for decades but has never been used at scale. It has been used as an excuse for not phasing out fossil fuel tech though - we don't need to change anything, we'll just capture the carbon. Yeah. And the fact that oil companies are heavily involved in this should ring all the alarm bells:
The East Coast Cluster is backed by oil companies including BP and Equinor. The HyNet North West project is being developed by the Italian oil company Eni.
Agreed CCS (IF it works at this scale - which is absolutely not known) is something that we need to use on processes like cement and steel making. But the facilities being built here are for production of so-called blue hydrogen. As far as I understand it, this hydrogen can be added to natural (fossil fuel) gas at low percentages to reduce the emissions of gas power to some extent. And (if scaled up) presumably could be used for power production in new or adapted? power stations on its own.Puja wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 9:59 pmThe advantage of it is that it can be applied to plants and processes that physically can't go carbon neutral and get in at the source of the emissions. It is definitely an important part of rescuing the planet (although as you say, have to be careful not to let it be a fig leaf) and all the more infuriating that it was very close to implementation over a decade ago, before being utterly defunded when Cameron "cut all the green shit" and wasted years of investment and planning.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 6:34 pm I have to say I'm skeptical about this investment in carbon capture:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-projects
It's unclear what kind of CCS technology they're talking about here. CCS has been looked at for decades but has never been used at scale. It has been used as an excuse for not phasing out fossil fuel tech though - we don't need to change anything, we'll just capture the carbon. Yeah. And the fact that oil companies are heavily involved in this should ring all the alarm bells:
The East Coast Cluster is backed by oil companies including BP and Equinor. The HyNet North West project is being developed by the Italian oil company Eni.
Puja
Open Letter by Climate Scientists
to the Nordic Council of Ministers
Reykjavik, October 2024
We, the undersigned, are scientists working in the field of climate research and feel it is urgent to draw the attention of the Nordic Council of Ministers to the serious risk of a major ocean circulation change in the Atlantic. A string of scientific studies in the past few
years suggests that this risk has so far been greatly underestimated. Such an ocean circulation change would have devastating and irreversible impacts especially for Nordic countries, but also for other parts of the world.
Science increasingly confirms that the Arctic region is a "ground zero" for tipping point risks and climate regulation across the planet. In this region, the Greenland Ice Sheet, the Barents sea ice, the boreal permafrost systems, the subpolar gyre deep-water formation and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) are all vulnerable to major, interconnected nonlinear
changes. The AMOC, the dominant mechanism of northward heat transport in the North Atlantic,
determines life conditions for all people in the Arctic region and beyond and is increasingly at risk
of passing a tipping point.
Tipping point risks are real and can occur within the 1.5-2°C climate range of the Paris Agreement. The world is currently heading well beyond this range (> 2.5°C). In the Synthesis report of the IPCC (2023) it is stated with high confidence that the likelihood of abrupt or irreversible changes in the climate system will increase with the level of global warming, and similarly the probability of outcomes that may be considered low-likelihood but are associated with potentially very large adverse impacts increases. The IPCC further specifies that “risks
associated with large-scale singular events or tipping points … transition to high risk between 1.5°C - 2.5°C” of global warming.
A recent OECD report has concluded that “the current scientific evidence unequivocally supports
unprecedented, urgent and ambitious climate action to tackle the risks of climate system tipping
points.”
Regarding the risk of tipping the ocean circulation in the Atlantic, the IPCC concludes that “there is medium confidence that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation will not collapse abruptly before 2100, but if it were to occur, it would very likely cause abrupt shifts in regional weather patterns, and large impacts on ecosystems and human activities.”
Recent research since the last IPCC report does suggest that the IPCC has underestimated this risk and that the passing of this tipping point is a serious possibility already in the next few decades.
Despite significant research into the possibility and mechanisms of a collapse, the probability of
such an occurrence remains highly uncertain. The purpose of this letter is to draw attention to the
fact that only “medium confidence” in the AMOC not collapsing is not reassuring, and clearly
leaves open the possibility of an AMOC collapse during this century. And there is even greater
likelihood that a collapse is triggered this century but only fully plays out in the next.
Given the increasing evidence for a higher risk of an AMOC collapse, we believe it is of critical
importance that Arctic tipping point risks, in particular the AMOC risk, are taken seriously in
governance and policy. Even with a medium likelihood of occurrence, given that the outcome
would be catastrophic and impacting the entire world for centuries to come, we believe more
needs to be done to minimize this risk.
The impacts particularly on Nordic Countries would likely be catastrophic, including major cooling
in the region while surrounding regions warm (Figure)1
. This would be an enlargement and
deepening of the ‘cold blob’ that already has developed over the subpolar Atlantic Ocean, and
likely lead to unprecedented extreme weather. While the impacts on weather patterns,
ecosystems and human activities warrant further study, they would potentially threaten the
viability of agriculture in northwestern Europe.
Many further impacts are likely to be felt globally, including a shift in tropical rainfall belts, reduced
oceanic carbon dioxide uptake (and thus faster atmospheric increase) as well as major additional
sea-level rise particularly along the American Atlantic coast, and an upheaval of marine
ecosystems and fisheries.
Recognizing that adaptation to such a severe climate catastrophe is not a viable option, we urge
the Council of Nordic Ministers to (a) initiate an assessment of this significant risk to the Nordic
countries and (b) take steps to minimize this risk as much as possible. This could involve
leveraging the strong international standing of the Nordic countries to increase pressure for
greater urgency and priority in the global effort to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, in
order to stay close to the 1.5 °C target set by the Paris Agreement.
Sincerely, the signatories (see next page)