Some countries banned plastic microbeads in 2017, so a lot of those face washes changed the formula from plastics to environmentally friendly materials. They do still make them though
So… corporations figured out how to clean the world, and then sell a cleaner Earth back to us, one can at a time? This sounds like the libertarian dream ocean.
As far as I know, silica doesn’t break down into toxic compounds with exposure to weathering, UV radiation and time like plastic does. Microplastic doesn’t just stay as it is
Not the right sub, but entirely the right person to be asking this question to.
Like with most soil things, the answer is a mix beteeen "it’s complicated’ and “we don’t know”. This may sound like a cop out, but soil science didn’t really take off until the 1940s (thanks Jenny), so it’s a very new science. On top of that you have multiple disciplines (biology, mineralogy, chemistry, physics, and pedology itself) that tie into soil. Soil itself also has substantial spatial heterogeneity.
Short answer: I don’t know.
**Long answer:**I don’t know, but I suspect it might be more labile in soil.
Here is why:
First thing to consider is the chemical and biological resistance of the plastic. Generally plastics are pretty stable to degradation, but plasticizers are more biologically active and can have all kinds of nasty effects.
Stability will ultimately be determined by feedstock (type of plastic) climatic factors, soil chemistry (primarily pH), organic matter content (high OM -> possibly broader soil Ecosystem -> more chance of some weird soil microbe being able to break things down), and particle size (smaller particles break down faster).
Given that soils have more microbial activity (which can generate weak humic acids too - see podzolification), particle size of the plastics are sand sized or less, and that soils are generally in the pH 5-7 range, it’s likely that they are more mobile and easily degraded versus inert sand. Whether this gets tied back up into soil organic matter is a whole other can of worms.
So yeah. Idk. I think so though.
If you’re comparing micro plastic to just sand in terms of stability - sand is far more stable.
Oh wow thanks for the detailed answer! I guess the most likely answer is that it probably will degrade over a long time span, and during that time negative effects could happen.
Correct. It’s a similar process to geochemical weathering of rocks, which can cause major issues in mining. In that case, the rocks often contain pyrite (sulphide minerals) which are fine if they aren’t exposed to oxygen. When you dig up the rock, though it starts a chain reaction which results in low pH leachate, which can then make metals mobile.
I believe it’s really just like silicate sand. The problem with microplastics isn’t actually the plastics itself. Plastics itself is chemically inert and therefore non-toxic. The problems are:
Physical: larger junks can cause constipation of the digestive track, which is a problem for some sea animals.
Chemical: Plastics often have additives that give them special powers, like blocking UV-light. These additives are often toxic, unfortunately. This is why producers nowadays try to minimize the use of additives in plastics. But still, they are there.
Sent this to a mate… we were at the shops and he picks up this tiny glass coke bottle for a drink and I’m all like, but this one is cheaper and you get more, what’s the deal?? To which he replied “microplastics” and I was like “bitch! I helped you smoke a quarter through a garden hose last night, stfu with you microplastics bs…” true story
They’re becoming a lot more common. A lot of police departments didn’t or don’t allow them. Attitudes are changing fairly quickly, but there are a lot of old-timer gun people (including some who write policy for police departments) who see red dot sights as a gimmick, the same way weapon mounted lasers were in the 80s and 90s, or as a crutch to compensate for poor training.
They do have a couple of legit drawbacks like the possibility of the battery dying or the slim chance some part of the electronics might eventually break under force of the action cycling. And that’s why you’ll usually see guns with red dot optics having backup iron sights that co-witness with their dot. Also, a lot of pistol optics are open emitter designs which means, for people like cops who open carry, the optic is exposed to the weather and can collect rain, snow, or debris on the glass or between the glass and the emitter.
More and more departments are beginning to allow them though. Despite their drawbacks it’s like having a cheat code for aiming. With traditional iron sights your eyes can either focus on your target or on your front sight, but not both. With red dot sights, you put the window on the target and put the dot where you want the bullet to go. You get to see your sight and your target in focus at the same time, and it’s easier to keep both eyes open while you’re shooting. So as these optics become more proven and “battle tested,” more departments are starting to feel like the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Thanks, this is actually good info. Obligatory, glad this officer didn’t actually use his fancy red dot sight or he would’ve killed the unarmed, handcuffed, victim in the back of his car.
You didn’t mention another drawback though: if you’re dumping your mag without even looking at what you’re shooting at because you have no idea what you’re shooting at, fancy sights just add extra unnecessary weight, slowing down how quickly you can wildly swing your aim around.
With traditional iron sights your eyes can either focus on your target or on your front sight, but not both.
What in the world are you talking about? You have to focus on both to line up a shot. A trained soldier can line up a shot on a moving target at 300 feet and hit center mass in under 2.5 seconds.
I’m talking about how it’s literally impossible for your eyes to focus at more than one distance at a time. This has nothing to do with speed, training, or how good you imagine the marksmanship of your average soldier to be. It’s about how your eyes work.
Correctly lining up a shot with iron sights doesn’t mean everything in your sight picture is perfectly in focus. Unless you’re shooting a handgun with a very short sight radius you usually can’t even keep both the front and rear sights in focus at the same time, forget about doing it with both your sights and the target. Your eyes can’t focus at three distances at once. Or even two. You have to pick one.
Most people when they learn to shoot learn “front sight focus.” And front sight focus is exactly what it sounds like: the front sight post is what you focus on. You line your sights up with each other (equal height/equal light), and line that up with your target, with your focus on your front sight. With this sight picture your target will be blurry and your rear sights will be blurry, but you can still see the mass of your target well enough, and your rear sights well enough to keep everything lined up.
There’s also “target focus,” which is basically the same except the target is in focus and both your sights are blurry. The people who prefer target focus tend to be more experienced shooters who have already developed good enough muscle memory, and are comfortable enough with their weapon, that they don’t need to spend much of their attention maintaining EH/EL.
You can shoot target focused, or you can shoot front sight focused, but you can’t do both. The appeal of red dot sights is that they kind of flatten all of that out. They make it easy to look at your target normally with both eyes open. You put the optic up in front of your dominant eye, and now there’s a dot in your regular field of vision showing you where the bullet will go. You don’t need to direct your focus to the dot, you don’t need to be tempted to close an eye for a clearer sight picture, you don’t need to line up a bunch of posts. The dot is just there. It really is like having a cheat code for aiming.
You sound like you know what you’re talking about, but I’ve been shooting my entire life, and I’ve never noticed that I’m focusing on the sites or the target separately, both seem to be in equal focus for me. Perhaps I’m switching back and forth rapidly, but if so, that is imperceptible.
I didn’t just imagine the accuracy and reaction times of the average soldier, that’s the requirement to qualify with a rifle. You have to hit a certain number of targets out of 40 targets, that pop up randomly over varying distances and then go back down when you either hit them, or too much time has lapsed. At 300’ the target is up for 2.5 seconds before it goes back down. The targets are up for shorter durations as they get closer to the marksman. Or at least that’s how it used to work when I was in the Army a couple decades ago.
Damn, it’s not every day you see a time traveler come back in time to see the moment his own father was brought into existance by a meme on the internet.
Footage of a police shooting that occurred during November has came out. A cop detained a suspect who they believed to have a supressed gun, they cuff and search him finding no gun and put him in back of a police car. So the deputy was walking past the car when an acorn struck the car. He shouts "shots fired" and basically unloads on the car with the unarmed suspect while screaming he is hit. The other cops on the call also start unloading on the car and thankfully the person in the car was not hurt. So from the onset its a humorous story about a cop overreacting to a stimuli and we are only laughing because noone was killed in it (well I guess some people would still be laughing if it was deadly but probably less). The cop apparently was a vet, so this seems to be a case of PTSD and its not great that an officer was able to make it that far along while such a mundane stimuli was able to set them off possibly getting someone killed. Hopefully the officer in question gets the help they need but its clear they shouldn't be in that position at all if that is how they will react.
That's horrible, how can a vet with PTSD get a job where he is allowed to carry a gun? That's the worst idea. Might as well let him patrol a loud and hectic arcade.
Thank you for the elaboartion though, banger meme nonetheless.
Really important to point out, PTSD or not, that police are trained to do this shit in a lot of cases and in the rest of them are not trained well enough to not do this shit. Police have been lobbying constantly for decades to make sure they have little oversight or training based on real world application. They’ve also made sure that they have no legal obligation to protect anyone but themselves. Cops have been trained to be dangerous to the public. It’s not an accident, it’s intentional.
slrpnk.net
Oldest