it reminds me of something I read from K. Vonnegut:
“Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence, they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne.”
except we’re killing ourselves and everything else on a planetary scale and there won’t be champagne at the end, just heaps of rubbish in the desert
It was always going to happen eventually. No one had a problem with this pollution that is definitive, until we got to the point, we knew that will come. I mean… there is something really wrong with our civilization, that makes us hit every dark prediction one after another.
> **We submit that the safe operating space of the planetary boundary of novel entities is exceeded since annual production and releases are increasing at a pace that outstrips the global capacity for assessment and monitoring**. The novel entities boundary in the planetary boundaries framework refers to entities that are novel in a geological sense and that could have large-scale impacts that threaten the integrity of Earth system processes. We review the scientific literature relevant to quantifying the boundary for novel entities and highlight plastic pollution as a particular aspect of high concern. An impact pathway from production of novel entities to impacts on Earth system processes is presented. We define and apply three criteria for assessment of the suitability of control variables for the boundary: feasibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness. We propose several complementary control variables to capture the complexity of this boundary, while acknowledging major data limitations. > > We conclude that humanity is currently operating outside the planetary boundary based on the weight-of-evidence for several of these control variables. The increasing rate of production and releases of larger volumes and higher numbers of novel entities with diverse risk potentials exceed societies’ ability to conduct safety related assessments and monitoring. We recommend taking urgent action to reduce the harm associated with exceeding the boundary by reducing the production and releases of novel entities, noting that even so, the persistence of many novel entities and/or their associated effects will continue to pose a threat.
Some interesting details.
> Production of novel entities is rapidly increasing. The chemical industry is the second largest manufacturing industry globally. **Global production increased 50-fold since 1950, and is projected to triple again by 2050 compared to 2010**. Material extraction as feed stocks for novel entities was approximately 92 billion tonnes globally in 2017, and is projected to reach 190 billion tonnes by 2060. > > **There are an estimated 350 000 chemicals (or mixtures of chemicals) on the global market**. Nearly 70 000 have been registered in the past decade; many chemicals (nearly 30 000) have only been registered in emerging economies, where chemical production has increased rapidly, but chemicals management and disposal capacity often are limited. The production of intended chemicals entails the unintended production of byproducts, transformation products, and impurities which may not be considered under chemicals assessments and management measures.
And yet
> Reliable information for the various relevant aspects that describe more or less the entire impact pathway along the chemical’s life cycle is not available for most chemicals. **However, the total cumulative chemical pressure on biosphere integrity is likely to be dominated by a limited number of chemicals** (reflecting the quantities produced, used and released to the environment in combination with the inherent characteristics of the chemicals like persistence, mobility and toxicity). Posthuma and colleagues **investigated the toxicity pressure from more than 12 000 chemicals in over 22 000 European water bodies and found that 15 compounds explained nearly 99.5% of the cumulative ecotoxicity pressure**. Walters et al. modeled the biomagnification potential of organic chemicals, thus contributing with another tool for screening. While such studies are based on modeling with several limitations such as the interaction of novel entities, the approach could help to prioritize substance classes, regional patterns, or effect trends. > > To make the monitoring of the planetary boundary operational, chemicals that dominate cumulative impacts could be used as “indicator” chemicals. These would be identified in a prescreening process, combining estimates for production volume or capacity (e.g., market statistics) with environmental persistence (e.g., using the inverse of degradation half-life estimates as proxy) and impact potency (e.g., chronic ecotoxicity test data). To consider the transformation of various chemicals into persistent transformation products, total production data could be combined with metabolism rates for chemicals that contribute to the formation of such persistent “indicator” chemicals. And finally, the ratio of the cumulative chemical impact and the available space within the boundary for a given biosphere compartment could define whether the boundary is transgressed and to what extent, while allowing the main contributing chemicals to be identified.
And this.
> Another effect-focused control variable could consider plastics’ disturbances to biosphere integrity, through physical and toxic effects of plastics and resulting changes in species distribution. **While the perception of impacts of marine debris is larger than the accumulated evidence of ecological impacts, reviews and meta-analyses of published experimental data show that microplastics do have negative effects in numerous species**. Impacts of microplastics on individual organisms and communities have been studied using numerous laboratory models, providing understanding of mechanisms of toxicity in marine organisms ranging from zooplankton to large vertebrates. Although there are still mismatches between the concentrations and types of microplastics documented in the environment and those used in laboratory effect studies, meta-analyses allow for some generalized understanding of the toxicity of microplastic particles. Newly developed mathematical models account for the large diversity in microplastic particles themselves, by applying extrapolation factors to account for underestimation in concentrations, and including species sensitivity distribution based on ecotoxicity data, allowing for more robust comparison of data sets. > > Traditional risk assessment of chemical substances uses the ratio between predicted environmental concentration versus a predicted no effect concentration (PEC/PNEC), an approach that has been applied to microplastics exposure scenarios, **finding that 0.17% of global ocean surface waters are at risk, and increasing to 1.62% by the end of the century**. Additionally, the limitations inherent to commonly used sampling methods (i.e., focusing on larger sized-microparticles), together with technical limitations in detecting smaller, nanoscale particles, **are likely leading to an underestimation of the concentrations of both micro- and nanoplastics in the environment, indicating that exposures and therefore risks are likely larger**. Furthermore, the seafloor and sediments are thought to be the ultimate sink for plastics, through uptake in marine ecosystems and changes in particle density and sinking rates due to biofouling, so these niches and the organisms inhabiting them are predicted to suffer higher exposures. Quantifying these environmental concentrations, exposure routes and ecological fates (including additional niches) requires more data, and will be important for assessing exposure scenarios driving disturbances to biosphere integrity. Several different approaches could be applied to deal with data gaps. A toxicity-based threshold would be set at PEC/PNEC = 1, with NE-PB exceedances already evident in several regions. However, additional deliberations would be necessary for considering changes in distribution of species or sensitivities, moving beyond toxicity to biodiversity and functionality.
I just watched Dark Waters and the danger of PFOA C-8 and teflon and stuff, i’d will stay clear of any non-stick, water repellant object in the future. Crazy to think 99% of the living thing have it inside of them
People with young children…How do you feel about the world your kids will inherit? I don’t think our parents (33 male here) really considered the environment, but now most of us do.
Donate to places like TeamSeas that are proactively removing garbage and plastics from the ocean. So far, in the span of about 6-ish months, they have removed over 30 million pounds of trash from the ocean.
If anyone is still around in a few millenia they’ll find a thin layer of hydrocarbons, bones, and sand marking the beginning and end of the Plasticene.
When you end up needing to take testosterone supplements to treat your erectile dysfunction, know that endocrine disease was caused by the oil industry and chemical industry. Many plastics were never actually safe for human contact. even vinyl records, vinyl floor tiles, tupperware, and teflon cookware contain phthalates. Dont microwave food in tupperware or styrofoam, by the way.
Speaking of.. my neighbors have poured gallons of scented/perfumed chemical liquids off their balcony to combat “smokers, covid and make the world smell better” to a point where people and animals are getting Ill
The police, city, and even condo management won’t even do anything and would rather people quit smoking and vaping inside and outside their units, as to not disturb the psychopaths.
What’s sad is that nobody will listen to the scientific warning. Everyone is fixated on wants, at all costs. Governments are too busy infighting and taking kickbacks from the corporations. Most first world countries just want their stuff, so they shift there production to third world countries that are so corrupt with almost zero regulations that pollute the earth like it’s no big deal. Look at North America, we shifted most of our manufacturing to China so we could say, see pollution numbers are down, look what we did. When in fact they transferred their pollution to China, India, Indonesia, etc. Very sad to read this.
“…the total mass of plastics now exceeds the total mass of all living mammals.” Well now that’s a thoroughly depressing statistic.
Words words words, but no action! The leaders of this world are pathetic
it reminds me of something I read from K. Vonnegut:
“Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence, they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne.”
except we’re killing ourselves and everything else on a planetary scale and there won’t be champagne at the end, just heaps of rubbish in the desert
[removed]
[removed]
It was always going to happen eventually. No one had a problem with this pollution that is definitive, until we got to the point, we knew that will come. I mean… there is something really wrong with our civilization, that makes us hit every dark prediction one after another.
And obviously nothing is going to be done because governments and large companies can’t be bothered to put the money into solving the issue
The [full study](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158) itself.
> **We submit that the safe operating space of the planetary boundary of novel entities is exceeded since annual production and releases are increasing at a pace that outstrips the global capacity for assessment and monitoring**. The novel entities boundary in the planetary boundaries framework refers to entities that are novel in a geological sense and that could have large-scale impacts that threaten the integrity of Earth system processes. We review the scientific literature relevant to quantifying the boundary for novel entities and highlight plastic pollution as a particular aspect of high concern. An impact pathway from production of novel entities to impacts on Earth system processes is presented. We define and apply three criteria for assessment of the suitability of control variables for the boundary: feasibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness. We propose several complementary control variables to capture the complexity of this boundary, while acknowledging major data limitations.
>
> We conclude that humanity is currently operating outside the planetary boundary based on the weight-of-evidence for several of these control variables. The increasing rate of production and releases of larger volumes and higher numbers of novel entities with diverse risk potentials exceed societies’ ability to conduct safety related assessments and monitoring. We recommend taking urgent action to reduce the harm associated with exceeding the boundary by reducing the production and releases of novel entities, noting that even so, the persistence of many novel entities and/or their associated effects will continue to pose a threat.
Some interesting details.
> Production of novel entities is rapidly increasing. The chemical industry is the second largest manufacturing industry globally. **Global production increased 50-fold since 1950, and is projected to triple again by 2050 compared to 2010**. Material extraction as feed stocks for novel entities was approximately 92 billion tonnes globally in 2017, and is projected to reach 190 billion tonnes by 2060.
>
> **There are an estimated 350 000 chemicals (or mixtures of chemicals) on the global market**. Nearly 70 000 have been registered in the past decade; many chemicals (nearly 30 000) have only been registered in emerging economies, where chemical production has increased rapidly, but chemicals management and disposal capacity often are limited. The production of intended chemicals entails the unintended production of byproducts, transformation products, and impurities which may not be considered under chemicals assessments and management measures.
And yet
> Reliable information for the various relevant aspects that describe more or less the entire impact pathway along the chemical’s life cycle is not available for most chemicals. **However, the total cumulative chemical pressure on biosphere integrity is likely to be dominated by a limited number of chemicals** (reflecting the quantities produced, used and released to the environment in combination with the inherent characteristics of the chemicals like persistence, mobility and toxicity). Posthuma and colleagues **investigated the toxicity pressure from more than 12 000 chemicals in over 22 000 European water bodies and found that 15 compounds explained nearly 99.5% of the cumulative ecotoxicity pressure**. Walters et al. modeled the biomagnification potential of organic chemicals, thus contributing with another tool for screening. While such studies are based on modeling with several limitations such as the interaction of novel entities, the approach could help to prioritize substance classes, regional patterns, or effect trends.
>
> To make the monitoring of the planetary boundary operational, chemicals that dominate cumulative impacts could be used as “indicator” chemicals. These would be identified in a prescreening process, combining estimates for production volume or capacity (e.g., market statistics) with environmental persistence (e.g., using the inverse of degradation half-life estimates as proxy) and impact potency (e.g., chronic ecotoxicity test data). To consider the transformation of various chemicals into persistent transformation products, total production data could be combined with metabolism rates for chemicals that contribute to the formation of such persistent “indicator” chemicals. And finally, the ratio of the cumulative chemical impact and the available space within the boundary for a given biosphere compartment could define whether the boundary is transgressed and to what extent, while allowing the main contributing chemicals to be identified.
And this.
> Another effect-focused control variable could consider plastics’ disturbances to biosphere integrity, through physical and toxic effects of plastics and resulting changes in species distribution. **While the perception of impacts of marine debris is larger than the accumulated evidence of ecological impacts, reviews and meta-analyses of published experimental data show that microplastics do have negative effects in numerous species**. Impacts of microplastics on individual organisms and communities have been studied using numerous laboratory models, providing understanding of mechanisms of toxicity in marine organisms ranging from zooplankton to large vertebrates. Although there are still mismatches between the concentrations and types of microplastics documented in the environment and those used in laboratory effect studies, meta-analyses allow for some generalized understanding of the toxicity of microplastic particles. Newly developed mathematical models account for the large diversity in microplastic particles themselves, by applying extrapolation factors to account for underestimation in concentrations, and including species sensitivity distribution based on ecotoxicity data, allowing for more robust comparison of data sets.
>
> Traditional risk assessment of chemical substances uses the ratio between predicted environmental concentration versus a predicted no effect concentration (PEC/PNEC), an approach that has been applied to microplastics exposure scenarios, **finding that 0.17% of global ocean surface waters are at risk, and increasing to 1.62% by the end of the century**. Additionally, the limitations inherent to commonly used sampling methods (i.e., focusing on larger sized-microparticles), together with technical limitations in detecting smaller, nanoscale particles, **are likely leading to an underestimation of the concentrations of both micro- and nanoplastics in the environment, indicating that exposures and therefore risks are likely larger**. Furthermore, the seafloor and sediments are thought to be the ultimate sink for plastics, through uptake in marine ecosystems and changes in particle density and sinking rates due to biofouling, so these niches and the organisms inhabiting them are predicted to suffer higher exposures. Quantifying these environmental concentrations, exposure routes and ecological fates (including additional niches) requires more data, and will be important for assessing exposure scenarios driving disturbances to biosphere integrity. Several different approaches could be applied to deal with data gaps. A toxicity-based threshold would be set at PEC/PNEC = 1, with NE-PB exceedances already evident in several regions. However, additional deliberations would be necessary for considering changes in distribution of species or sensitivities, moving beyond toxicity to biodiversity and functionality.
I just watched Dark Waters and the danger of PFOA C-8 and teflon and stuff, i’d will stay clear of any non-stick, water repellant object in the future. Crazy to think 99% of the living thing have it inside of them
I used to eat lots of mussels. I’m 59. Lord only knows how much of me is plastic.
[removed]
Is there a reason we can’t just revert back to glass over plastic?
People with young children…How do you feel about the world your kids will inherit? I don’t think our parents (33 male here) really considered the environment, but now most of us do.
Donate to places like TeamSeas that are proactively removing garbage and plastics from the ocean. So far, in the span of about 6-ish months, they have removed over 30 million pounds of trash from the ocean.
[https://teamseas.org/](https://teamseas.org/)
[https://teamtrees.org/](https://teamtrees.org/)
​
These are both spearheaded by Youtubers: Mark Rober, and Mr. Beast. It’s drops in the bucket, sure, but it’s better than doing nothing.
If anyone is still around in a few millenia they’ll find a thin layer of hydrocarbons, bones, and sand marking the beginning and end of the Plasticene.
“The only way to keep a cool head is to adopt an apocalyptic stance today…” Zizek
When you end up needing to take testosterone supplements to treat your erectile dysfunction, know that endocrine disease was caused by the oil industry and chemical industry. Many plastics were never actually safe for human contact. even vinyl records, vinyl floor tiles, tupperware, and teflon cookware contain phthalates. Dont microwave food in tupperware or styrofoam, by the way.
The good news never stops. Can I get off this runaway train somewhere or am I stuck watching the world implode?
Treating the Earth like a chemical toilet since the industrial revolution is a bad thing? Who knew./s
Speaking of.. my neighbors have poured gallons of scented/perfumed chemical liquids off their balcony to combat “smokers, covid and make the world smell better” to a point where people and animals are getting Ill
The police, city, and even condo management won’t even do anything and would rather people quit smoking and vaping inside and outside their units, as to not disturb the psychopaths.
Yay Canada
What’s sad is that nobody will listen to the scientific warning. Everyone is fixated on wants, at all costs. Governments are too busy infighting and taking kickbacks from the corporations. Most first world countries just want their stuff, so they shift there production to third world countries that are so corrupt with almost zero regulations that pollute the earth like it’s no big deal. Look at North America, we shifted most of our manufacturing to China so we could say, see pollution numbers are down, look what we did. When in fact they transferred their pollution to China, India, Indonesia, etc. Very sad to read this.