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.
For all the comments that say “the real problem is…”: this is crisis and working on all emission sources contributes to a solution not just the biggest emitters.
Everything we online has an impact in the real world and there’s some value in reminding people that. And yes, some sites could be causing a lot emissions than others.
Some are powered by solar, others by coal.
ARM chips are more energy efficient than x86 and so on.
You can invent the worlds most energy efficient CPU, put it on every server rack in the world, and all your progress will be undone by that one billionaire who decides they want international taco bell at 3 AM.
On the other hand, you can approach the dramatic cut of emissions from both angles, as in “you are not legally able to do what you want as long as you can pay for it, and you have the responsibility in minimizing emissions”.
Internet does generate a lot of emissions. Streaming quality, website size. Whatever we do to reduce the energy demand is a good idea, as long as we don’t think of it as " The Solution", but as part of a wide range of actions aimed at slashing energy consumption.
Mostly seems a bit silly but I think if people were making any sort of large decisions based on it, I would probably raise an eyebrow. But I like the idea of people considering the environmental impact of everything they do. Crypto Bros sure could’ve used that lesson.
It’s not like it’s doing any harm unless people put too much stock into it. Like the energy star rating on my HVAC unit - it’s just information to me. It’s not like I’m making major decisions based off of it or getting the feel goods. No reason this can’t be like that.
Exactly. It also gives you an annual estimate of the electric costs. I have no idea how accurate it is, but since they all use the same rating, I can at least compare on the fly if I am so inclined.
I have no idea of the context or even if there is any, but this kind of utterly directionless chirping and unwarranted shittalking is the reason I love the Internet.
There’s a restaurant in Florida called “The Ormond Garage” and they don’t serve fries with the burger. It’s another like $6 for fries that aren’t even that good. I went there once and they didn’t have to go cups for the meal that I called in… The server told me she could get me a regular cup and I could just drink it there while they were putting my $15 burger into a takeout box.
I contemplated walking out with the beer glass they handed me, but I just left.
I live near a place where the fries come with the burger, but sometimes you have to ask for them. The bean counters assume about 50% of the time that you don’t want them. Lunchbox laboratory in Seattle, in case anyone’s wondering. It sold out a long time ago and has been crap since
Tetrapod animals (those with four limbs) are all thought to be related.
This group includes two main divisions amniotes and non-amniotes. Amniotes produce young in eggs with four distinct layers (one of which is the Amnion) which makes them well-adapted for surviving on land. Frogs and Salamanders are examples of non-amniote tetrapods.
Amniotes are a large group which are divided into groups based on the number of openings in their skulls near the temples. The two surviving groups in today’s animals are synapsid (one pair of openings) which includes all mammals. And diapsids (two openings) which includes all modern reptiles and birds.
The Mesazoic Era (the age of the Dinosaurs) was 250 million years ago (Ma) to 65 Ma.
Dimetrodon was a synapsid that lived about 295 Ma. So it’s not really in the right evolutionary family to be a dinosaur, and it lived long before dinosaurs.
It superficially resembles a large lizard (but in reality it’s a closer relative to mammals than any true dinosaur).
slrpnk.net
Top