Good doco on plastic. Well.made by Deutsche Welle- German state-owned public broadcaster.
It is thought that by 2020 there will be more plastics (by weight, I guess) in the ocean than fish.
We are currently consuming microplastics, usually without knowing it. The effect on human health is not yet clear.
There is definitely a risk in consuming this garbage
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/index.cfm
Not sure I have the stomach for that one, but ironically on the news today or yesterday I heard about, hold on a moment … … …
https://fishbio.com/field-notes/the-fish-report/tiny-plastic-pieces-found-in-seafood-and-marine-lifeA study published last month confirmed that fish and shellfish on sale for human consumption in California and Indonesia indeed contain plastic debris and fibers (Rochman et al 2015a). Of the individual fish sampled, 28 percent in Sulawesi, Indonesia, and 25 percent in California had debris from human products in their digestive tracts. This finding was not limited to just a few species: six out of 11 sampled species in Indonesia and eight out of 12 sampled species in California (including striped bass and Chinook salmon) had ingested this debris. There was a surprising difference in the types of debris found in fish from the two locations.
Curr Environ Health Rep. 2018; 5(3): 375–386. Published online 2018 Aug 16. doi: 10.1007/s40572-018-0206-z PMCID: PMC6132564 PMID: 30116998 Microplastics in Seafood and the Implications for Human Health Madeleine Smith,1 David C. Love,1,2 Chelsea M. Rochman,3 and Roni A. Neff 1,2https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132564/
Summary
Human activity has led to microplastic contamination throughout the marine environment. As a result of widespread contamination, microplastics are ingested by many species of wildlife including fish and shellfish. Because microplastics are associated with chemicals from manufacturing and that sorb from the surrounding environment, there is concern regarding physical and chemical toxicity. Evidence regarding microplastic toxicity and epidemiology is emerging. We characterize current knowledge and highlight gaps. We also recommend mitigation and adaptation strategies targeting the life cycle of microplastics and recommend future research to assess impacts of microplastics on humans. Addressing these research gaps is a critical priority due to the nutritional importance of seafood consumption.
ENVIRONMENT
SEPTEMBER 12, 2019Today’s Special: Grilled Salmon Laced With Plastic
We used to think microplastics stayed in a fish’s guts. Chilling new research suggests the tiny particles migrate into its flesh.
Reports on a study:
Human Consumption of Microplastics
Kieran D. Cox*
Garth A. Covernton
Hailey L. Davies
John F. Dower
Francis Juanes
Sarah E. DudasCite this:Environ. Sci. Technol.201953127068-7074
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517?rand=rm71i91o
Abstract
Microplastics are ubiquitous across ecosystems, yet the exposure risk to humans is unresolved. Focusing on the American diet, we evaluated the number of microplastic particles in commonly consumed foods in relation to their recommended daily intake. The potential for microplastic inhalation and how the source of drinking water may affect microplastic consumption were also explored.
Our analysis used 402 data points from 26 studies, which represents over 3600 processed samples. Evaluating approximately 15% of Americans’ caloric intake, we estimate that annual microplastics consumption ranges from 39000 to 52000 particles depending on age and sex. These estimates increase to 74000 and 121000 when inhalation is considered.
Additionally, individuals who meet their recommended water intake through only bottled sources may be ingesting an additional 90000 microplastics annually, compared to 4000 microplastics for those who consume only tap water. These estimates are subject to large amounts of variation; however, given methodological and data limitations, these values are likely underestimates.
Correction: I mistakenly posted above that the plastic in the oceans would exceed the fish in the oceans by 2020, but the year for that statement that I saw was 2050. I didn’t realize I had said 2020, until I happened to re-read it, just now.
I wonder if some new sea creatures will evolve who live off of microplastics.
Seems to me that’s inevitable. Those little microbes know how to learn more new tricks than were capable of imagining.
Seems to me plastics winding up in the tissue is an indication that it’s somehow being metabolized in complex creatures.
Wait a minute … … …
How plastic-eating bacteria actually work – a chemist explains April 18, 2018(google, not perfect, still, an amazing tool)
But scientists recently discovered a strain of bacteria that can literally eat the plastic used to make bottles, and have now improved it to make it work faster. The effects are modest – it’s not a complete solution to plastic pollution – but it does show how bacteria could help create more environmentally friendly recycling.
Plastics are complex polymers, meaning they are long, repeating chains of molecules that don’t dissolve in water. The strength of these chains makes plastic very durable and means it takes a very long time to decompose naturally. If they could be broken down into their smaller, soluble chemical units, then these building blocks could be harvested and recycled to form new plastics in a closed-loop system.
In 2016, scientists from Japan tested different bacteria from a bottle recycling plant and found that Ideonella sakaiensis 201-F6 could digest the plastic used to make single-use drinks bottles, polyethylene terephthalate (PET). It works by secreting an enzyme (a type of protein that can speed up chemical reactions) known as PETase. This splits certain chemical bonds (esters) in PET, leaving smaller molecules that the bacteria can absorb, using the carbon in them as a food source.
Although other bacterial enzymes were already known to slowly digest PET, the new enzyme had apparently evolved specifically for this job. This suggests it might be faster and more efficient and so have the potential for use in bio-recycling. …
That’s how it starts and then genes start moving around and getting adapted by other critters, it’s a age old process. It’s reassuring to know that our planet at least knows how to deal with our shit and is at it already. Even if it’s going to take much, much longer than any of us have to wait.
I’ve been reflecting on this a couple times today, was a fun mental exercise see what I could dredge up from all I’ve read/listened to about the Krebs Cycle, the energetic foundation of life. Seafood (and probably other animals) are absorbing plastics into their tissue.
Makes one wonder, Could that mean that life might learn to metabolize plastics into a food source.
But then I thought of what I’ve learned about the Kerbs Cycles and life’s dependence on a proton gradient, where every reaction sets up the rest by the take up of a Hydrogen proton. Or something like that. The foods we eat all supply the correct chemical molecular components to feed that cycle, which energizes our cells.
But the thing with plastics is they don’t have the molecular ability to contribute those particularly molecular components, all it can do is clog up the system.
Oh well . . .
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-is-the-krebs-cycle-608204Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated July 28, 2018
The Krebs cycle, which is also known as the citric acid cycle or tricarboxylic acid cycle, is part of a series of chemical reactions that organisms use to break food down into a form of energy that cells can use. The cycle occurs in mitochondria of cells, using 2 molecules of pyruvic acid from glycolysis to produce the energy molecules. The Krebs cycle forms (per two molecules of pyruvic acid) 2 ATP molecules, 10 NADH molecules, and 2 FADH2 molecules. NADH and the FADH2 produced by the cycle are used in the electron transport system.
The Reason the Krebs Cycle Is a Cycle
The final product of the Krebs cycle is oxaloacetic acid. It is a cycle because oxaloacetic acid (oxaloacetate) is the exact molecule needed to accept an acetyl-CoA molecule and start another turn of the cycle.
No, I don’t understand it in the least, but it’s fun to ponder, especially with that diagram staring at ya.