Plastics: Science is Winning

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 18 October 2019

 

where_does_it_goScience is beginning to win in the long battle over misinformed anti-plastic advocacy.  It has been a long time coming.  The most recent paper on the subject of pelagic plastic (plastic floating in the oceans) is from a scientific team at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, Mass., and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The study is “Sunlight Converts Polystyrene to Carbon Dioxide and Dissolved Organic Carbon” by Collin P. Ward, Cassia J. Armstrong, Anna N. Walsh, Julia H. Jackson and Christopher M. Reddy.   It is good basic science.

styrene_cupsWe are all familiar with polystyrene — it is prevalent in modern packaging, both as a solid,  such as yoghurt cups, or in expanded form used for disposable foam drink cups.  Much of the plastic flotsam found on the worlds beaches and floating  in rivers is this ubiquitous plastic, particularly the expanded foam.

The new abstract of the new study starts with this:

“ABSTRACT:   Numerous international governmental agencies that steer policy assume that polystyrene persists in the environment for millennia.  Here, we show that polystyrene is completely photochemically oxidized to carbon dioxide and partially photochemically oxidized to dissolved organic carbon. Lifetimes of complete and partial photochemical oxidation are estimated to occur on centennial and decadal time scales, respectively. These lifetimes are orders of magnitude faster than biological respiration of polystyrene and thus challenge the prevailing assumption that polystyrene persists in the environment for millennia.”   [ bolding mine — kh ]

It is about time that someone scientifically challenged the activist position held and promulgated by many environmental, anti-plastics and anti-corporate groups that “Plastic is Forever”.

Plastic is not forever.  Glass, both natural and man-made,  is forever, but not plastic.

What are plastics?

 Plastics are hydrocarbons.    That is, plastics are primarily made of hydrogen and carbon combined into various configurations.   And, when Nature adds oxygen and nitrogen, we get the substance of all living things (that we know of).  People, plants, animals, microbes, petroleum, natural gas, dead leaves, peat bogs — basically everything that was once alive (and some that weren’t) are made of hydrogen and carbon and oxygen and nitrogen strung together, with little bits of other elements.

Hydrocarbons, strictly, contain only hydrogen and carbon.  Many of the building blocks of plants are hydrocarbons — like cellulose.  Cellulose, the material that makes up the structural part of most plants,  was the basic ingredient that was used to make the first synthetic plastics in the mid-1800s.

The thing that makes plastics plastic [plasticity — the ability to deform without breaking] is that its basic building blocks — carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms attached — are combined into long chains  — often twirled into spirals with other elements tacked in, looking like this:

polyethylene

Here we see the common plastic, polyethylene,  made up of  a string of H-C-H bits strung together to make the typical long plastic chain.

Why review all this chemistry? 

 Plastics are, at heart, very simple natural structures — carbon atoms bonded with hydrogen atoms.  They are not Frankensteinian monstrosities made by chemical madmen through arcane alchemy.

And, as we will see, because they are quite natural, they are not indestructible but susceptible to the normal paths of entropy in the natural world.

Plastics are Food

Not food for you and I, but food for the tiniest of plants and animals.  Because plastics are hydrocarbons,  they make good food for living things, which oxidize hydrocarbons for energy and use them for the building blocks of their bodies.

With the oil in the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010, it was found that “Naturally occurring microbes at this depth are highly specialized in growing by using specific components of the oil for their food source.”   Microbes ate a great deal of the 4.1 million barrels of crude oil that poured into the Gulf of Mexico.

disappearing_bitsWith pelagic plastics (plastics floating in the open oceans) it has also been found that as the plastic items  become  degraded by the sun, they break into smaller and smaller pieces through the action of the wind and the waves. The illustration shows what they found  when sieving the ocean for floating plastic    Intuitively, the number of pieces at various sizes should continue to increase as items breaking into smaller and smaller pieces but  instead  they found numbers to begin decreasing at about 5 mm and drop off dramatically when items become smaller than 1 mm — approaching zero at less than 0.5 mm.   This is not for lack of trying, the sieves are very fine.  In the real world, when the pieces get down below the 1 millimeter size they rapidly disappear altogether.

microbesWhat happens to these little pieces?  Microbes eat them up entirely.

Of course, the plastic-eating microbes have been eating away at the surfaces of the floating plastic all along, but when the pieces get very small, the surface area to volume ratio factor allows the microbes to win out and consume the entire little piece, like a tiny ice chip that rapidly disappears in a glass of water (whereas a larger ice cube persists).

( see my fuller explanation here )

This interesting news is not unique, another paper confirms that microbes are eating the plastic film that ends up in the oceans, stating:  “…tailored marine consortia have the ability to thrive in the presence of mixtures of plastics and participate in their degradation.”

Last year, scientists in Japan discovered bacteria that was eating PET plastic — the plastic that those clear soda and water bottles are made of — and another group discovered an enzyme that breaks down PET.  Of course, “ Waxworm caterpillars have been found to break down plastic in a matter of hours, and mealworms possess gut microbes that eat through polystyrene. Beckham [Gregg Beckham, a researcher at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory] thinks, given how ubiquitous environmental pollution has become, “it is likely that microbes are evolving faster and better strategies to break down man-made plastics. It seems that nature is evolving solutions.”

It is not just bacteria and ocean-dwelling critters that are eating plastic:

 “In 2017, Khan and a team of other scientists collected a sample of a previously undiscovered strain of fungus on top of a garbage dump in Islamabad, Pakistan. When they took it back to China to study in the laboratory, the species of fungus, a previously undiscovered strain of the species Aspergillus tubingensis, was able to break down polyurethane—common in industrial settings and used in refrigerators, fake leather, and many other applications—in just weeks instead of decades. The fungus secretes enzymes that break down the plastic’s chemical bonds and uses its mycelia—filaments fungi grow that are much like a plant’s roots—to break apart the plastic further.”

Back to the latest study….

Anyone who has participated in a roadside cleanup (a popular volunteer activity in the United States) or helped to collect trash off the beaches knows that foam drink cups left in the sun for any length of time break down and literally fall apart when one tries to pick them up.

cups_to_CO2This is precisely what the new study found.  More importantly, it is not just that the structure of the foam breaks down, the substance of the foam “is completely photo-chemically oxidized to carbon dioxide and partially photo-chemically oxidized to dissolved organic carbon.”  In essence, the hydrocarbon-based plastic simply breaks back down into CO2 and organic carbon dissolved in water.  How long does it take?  This study estimates time scales of a decade to centuries.

sieved_plasticIn my personal experience, I have found foam drink cups to degrade to the point of “breaking to pieces when touched” in a single summer in the direct sun.  As for pelagic Starbucks cups, I have never found a foam drink cup floating on the open sea (whereas I have found plenty on the shores of islands without proper garbage collection and disposal).  The absence of floating foam cups indicate that they break down much faster than a decade when in the sea under the full sun under the combined forces for the wind, the waves and the Sun.  Little bit of polystyrene foam are not found in the plastic sieved from the oceans surface.

Science vs. Advocacy

As readily admitted in the abstract of the latest study, the anti-plastics activists are pushing the false belief that “Plastics Are Forever” — that they will never naturally degrade or break down in the sea or in landfills.  Science, however, is finding that plastics are degraded, decomposed, eaten and photochemically oxidized back into their essential elements – carbon and hydrogen — or used as food by various microbes and fungi.  Most of the plastic waste that enters the oceans disappears altogether.

hdpeThere plastics that are intentionally engineered to withstand exposure to sunlight  and chemicals without  degrading.  Among them are various types of  HDPE (High-density polyethylene) , which is used in the manufacture of thousands of items, including potable water pipes, surgical implants,  landfill liners, pyrotechnic mortars and fuel cans.  Another personal note:  If you are buying jerry cans for marine use, or fuel cans for outboard motors, buy only those marked HDPE with the symbol shown here.  Many consumer gas cans are meant to be stored in garages and breakdown rapidly if left exposed to sunlight.  HDPE fuel cans are intended to be exposed and last a very long time.

Bottom Lines:

—   Plastics fall under Kindergarten Rules — Clean up your own messes — Pick up after yourself.  Put your trash in the proper trash bin – recyclables go  in the Recycle Bin.

—  Trash does not belong in the natural environment — regardless of what it is made of.  Nations, states, counties and cities should take great care to see that the waste and trash of human civilization is properly and sensibly collected and disposed of.

—  Plastics are hydrocarbons — like petroleum.  Thus should be recycled into useable building material, such as plastic boards for patios and decks or used as fuel to produce electrical power in modern clean-burn power plants.

—  Thin film plastic shopping bags, like those being banned all across the world, should be replaced with re-engineered materials to be more easily degradable and deployed in common useMany types are already commercially available, albeit at some added cost.

—  Most of the plastic that has been allowed to escape into the environment will be disposed of by natural processes in reasonable amounts of time.  This fact should not be used as an excuse to fail in our responsibility to take care of our own messes.

—  Landfilled plastics will take longer to degrade — but will do so under attack by microbes and fungi.  Some plastics will have a very long lifetime in landfills — this is what landfills are for.  Other human products, such as glass jars and ceramics, will be there for future interstellar archaeologists to find.

 # # # # #

 Author’s Comment:

Our societies are under constant attack by mis- and ill-informed activists fighting shadows and imagined boogeymen instead of trying to make the world a better place for those truly in need.  Those spending their time, money and effort in the battle to ban plastic straws, for instance,  appear ridiculous to those of us who have spent years helping some of the almost one billion people living in profound poverty, many lacking  simple necessities like  sources of clean drinking water, efficient safe cooking stoves  or access to minimal basic health care.

Plastics are miraculous modern materials which have made so many things possible in our modern societies.  You will not find many (maybe not even one) anti-plastic activists without a modern cell phone  or living in a plastic-free home — it is probably close to impossible today.

Unnecessary waste, particularly of excess packaging materials, is a problem, at least in the United States, where almost everything sold is wrapped in too many layers of packaging material which needs to be disposed of.  Yes, much of that waste is plastic which should be, but is not, recycled.

I’d love to hear how your town, city or state is succeeding with the proper handling of trash of all types.

# # # # #

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
256 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phil
October 19, 2019 2:04 am

Kip – on the subject of using plastic waste to produce energy. Are there “clean-burn” plastics that do not produce toxic fumes, and if so could we use note of them? Kind of best of both worlds – we get the benefits of plastic, and have a useful way to process the waste.

TonyL
Reply to  Phil
October 19, 2019 4:14 am

Are there “clean-burn” plastics
Of course. Plastics that will burn clean consist of *only* C, H, O. These will combust cleanly with no residues at all. Examples of C, H only plastics are polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and a bunch of others. Add oxygen and you can have plastics based on ethers, esters, alcohols, diols, and a whole lot more. (PVA, poly vinyl alcohol, a plastic which dissolves in water, kewl.)

The bad ones:
Anything containing a halogen, F, Br, Cl, I. The problem is twofold. First you get the corresponding halogen byproduct. Then you can get a combustion intermediate which is resistant to further combustion, which might escape, and so makes the whole process more difficult. In addition, some of those intermediates formed can be quite nasty in their own right. PVC is a classic example of this type of plastic.
Also: Anything with Nitrogen or Sulfur. You get NOx and SOx, more trouble.

This is just a quick list, a real plastics guy could go on all day on the topic. It is a very rich subject.

Editor
Reply to  TonyL
October 19, 2019 7:08 am

Phil and TonyL ==> The simple plastics burn clean naturally — the others need plants with scrubbers like clean-burn coal plants. Plastics with halogens especially need srubbers — NOx and SOx are common to almost all types of burning, including of course gasoline and diesel fuels.

Alexander Vissers
October 19, 2019 3:15 am

It proves an old wisdom: research beats opinion every day. And facts are better than alternative facts. How about PVC and other halogen plastics, do they degrade in a marine environment? Probably sink out of reach of sunlight? Given the plastic waste “tourism” currently in place and the undesired environmental burden I would argue not to separate or recycle plastics and to burn them instead for power and heat generation in the country where generated. Instead of banning plastics the export of plastic waste should be prohibited. In The Netherlands waste cannot be dumped in landfills but needs to be burned meanwhile plastic recycling is stil promoted where everyone can see it is a costly mostly symbolic exercise where most waste ends up being burned after all. This as opposed to our glass and paper recycling and garden and food waste composting which are highly efficient and make sense.

Editor
Reply to  Alexander Vissers
October 19, 2019 7:16 am

Alexander ==> PVC is non-buoyant — it sinks in the ocean. Plastics that sink in the ocean are probably not breaking down – at least not anymore than rocks or glass bottles or steel boats. I’m not sure it makes a difference.

More countries should concentrate on burning waste.

4TimesAYear
October 19, 2019 3:21 am

Been trying to tell people FOR YEARS that plastic breaks down. Nobody would listen.

Urederra
October 19, 2019 3:24 am

Hydrocarbons, strictly, contain only hydrogen and carbon. Many of the building blocks of plants are hydrocarbons — like cellulose.

Sorry Kip, but cellulose is not an hydrocarbon, but a carbohydrate. Cellulose contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in a proportion close to 1 carbon per one oxygen and one hydrogen, or 1 carbon per 1 H2O, hence its name.

Carbohydrate monomers, like glucose, do contain 1 carbon per 1 H2O, dimers are formed when two monomers are linked together releasing one molecule of H20. If more monomers are added you will get polimers.

Editor
Reply to  Urederra
October 19, 2019 7:18 am

Urederra ==> Quite right — another reader caught that as well. Appreciate the correction.

Alexander Vissers
October 19, 2019 3:25 am

Lets hope microbes do not evolve to fast and eat our carpets whilst still on our floors and yogurt cups whilst stil in our fridges…

Editor
Reply to  Alexander Vissers
October 19, 2019 8:13 am

Alexander ==> some have actually proposed breeding purpose-specific microbes to eat plastics in landfills, while others have opposed the idea — for the reason you state.

4TimesAYear
October 19, 2019 3:35 am

I should point out that landfills have created the problem with the long deterioration time. They don’t allow organic material to be put in them any more – no heat is generated without yard waste. There is a fine for people putting yard waste in with garbage here. It’s a big mistake. The garbage needs the heat from decomposing yard waste to decompose the plastics, etc.

Urederra
October 19, 2019 3:40 am

Beckham [Gregg Beckham, a researcher at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory] thinks, given how ubiquitous environmental pollution has become, “it is likely that microbes are evolving faster and better strategies to break down man-made plastics. It seems that nature is evolving solutions.”

Sorry creationists, evolution is proven right there. 🙂

F.LEGHORN
Reply to  Urederra
October 19, 2019 4:50 am

Unless you use the word “adapt” instead of “evolve”.

Urederra
Reply to  F.LEGHORN
October 19, 2019 10:51 am

They are describing new enzymes formed by changes in the amino acid sequence of old enzymes. That is evolution, not adaptation. Changes in the genetic code of a microorganism is evolution, not adaptation.

Urederra
October 19, 2019 4:16 am

Plastics fall under Kindergarten Rules — Clean up your own messes — Pick up after yourself. Put your trash in the proper trash bin – recyclables go in the Recycle Bin.

I do that. Here we have plastics recycle bin, glass recycle bin, paper recycle bin, organic material recycle bin, batteries recycle bin, medicines recycle bin, large electronics recycle bin and so on. The nearest beach is about 80 Km away from where I live, and somehow I am being accused by the media of throwing plastics into the sea.

If there is plastic on the beach it is not my fault, it may be the waste disposal fault, or some “NGO” who litters the landscape with plastic and they film themselves picking the plastic they just dumped so they can ask for funding money. In some videos they even hold banners made of plastic. They have no shame.

Editor
Reply to  Urederra
October 19, 2019 7:22 am

Urederra ==> Where do you live? That seems like a lot of recycle bins. Are they required?

Urederra
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 19, 2019 10:41 am

In Spain, They are not personal bins but communal ones. Some of them are in the street. Organics, plastics, paper, glass, batteries (small containers inside the glass bins) and “”others” are in the street. Other bins for medicines and x ray photographs are in farmacies, bins for fluorescent tubes in some local supermarkets. There is a van at the local farmers market that collects old electronic equipment, but they refuse to collect old CD and DVD disks (remember netscape CDs?) I don’t know in which bin I have to put those disks.

Doug Huffman
October 19, 2019 4:20 am

Hmm, my town and trash of all types. My town is an 25 sq mi island of 700 residents and occasionally 3000 daily tourists. The mean age is >55 and the median income is below poverty criterion.

Household wet kitchen garbage is expected to be composted, otherwise 15¢/pound in non-recyclable trash bound for a landfill off island.

Paper is baled and sold. The dump operators are too lazy to pick up paper loose in their yard and have screwed down the rules to where I comingle at 15 ¢/pound. Practically the only paper accepted is cardboard.

Recyclable plastic and metal is comingled and transported. There is a mountain of scrap metal that is reduced once or twice per year, but is always growing. The ferry charges by the ton and the truck length.

(Un)sanitary waste is field spread until the ground freezes, and then transported off island. The ferry charges by weight and truck length. Storm runoff, graywater and blackwater are co-mingled by state law. We had a central wastewater facility that was allowed to fail regulatory discharge requirements and decommissioned. The irresponsible operator’s scion acquired license to transport (I believe that malfeasance occurred). POWTS discharge is not regulated or analyzed.

We live on fractured limestone with very thin and spotty topsoil. The blackwater drains directly to the lake. We can’t afford an anaerobic biodigester, but we can afford the Taj Ma-fire-Hall.

Editor
Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 19, 2019 8:17 am

Doug Huffman ==> Small islands have a special problem — particularly when overwhelmed by holiday visitors who bring a lot of trash with them and who generate trash (and waste water) while visiting.

Sounds like you have more problems there than solutions!

Tom Johnson
October 19, 2019 5:54 am

I was surprised to find that yogurt cups are polystyrene, the same material as expanded foam cups. I have found that medium sized (5 oz., or so) are the most commonly used ‘tool’ in my workshop. They seem to hold solvents like gasoline, lacquer thinner, xylene, oil, and more, indefinitely, making them useful for mixing cups, brush cleaning, oil drip containers, transfer cups, measuring cups, and holding any useful fluid in the shop. Then get used to hold disassembly pieces, epoxy adhesive mixings, project storage, electronic parts, things that drip, and things that don’t drip.

I have found (it only took once) that foam cups dissolve in a few seconds when used to hold gasoline. I’m surprised that yogurt cups are made of the made material. They have even worked great for weight loss. I use them as a container for my occasional indulgence in ice cream, and they limit the quantity that can be stuffed into a single container. It’s ultimate recycling!

Editor
Reply to  Tom Johnson
October 19, 2019 8:20 am

Tom ==> One thing you can’t put in polystyrene cups (cottage cheese containers, yoghurt cups) is ACETONE. See fun facts here.

George M Hebbard
Reply to  Tom Johnson
October 19, 2019 12:55 pm

My father, a ChE, was once having engine trouble, bouncing up against the Bloody Point light house on the Chesapeake Bay. He, the startup manager for a new Styrene plant in Big Springs, Texas, tried to transfer gasoline from one tank to rinse out the float bowl on his (non-running) Gray Marine motor.
I was surprised (actually shocked!) as a 7 yr old, seeing the surprise on his face when the cup melted.

mikewaite
October 19, 2019 6:05 am

This might be of interest:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-10/cuot-apw101819.php

News Release 18-Oct-2019
All plastic waste could become new, high-quality plastic through advanced steam cracking
Chalmers University of Technology
A research group at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, has developed an efficient process for breaking down any plastic waste to a molecular level. The resulting gases can then be transformed back into new plastics – of the same quality as the original. The new process could transform today’s plastic factories into recycling refineries, within the framework of their existing infrastructure.

Editor
Reply to  mikewaite
October 19, 2019 8:28 am

mikewaite ==> Currently “pie-in-the-sky” but certainly feasible — always was. Plastics are just carbon-hydrogen and a bit of oxygen and other things added in (halogens). They can all be “cracked” given sufficient energy sources and economics (so can discarded human bodies for that matter.)

Better to burn them for energy or recycyle them in other ways — including ‘cracking’ if it turns out to be economical.

john cooknell
October 19, 2019 6:55 am

What you are telling me is the “King’s new Clothes” were made of “nano plastic”.

This is nothing new the Environmental Movement Plastic scare has been round before in the 1970’s. It was all rubbish then and it is rubbish now.

The Environmental Movement won’t like science like this, even though its true, they will attack! because it upsets their beliefs.

art yatsko
October 19, 2019 7:20 am

So “vinyl ” isn’t “final”? Maybe I should have sided my house with glass.

Editor
Reply to  art yatsko
October 19, 2019 8:34 am

Art ==> The glass would last a lot longer (there are a lot of almost-all-glass houses these days).

“Vinyl siding still won’t last as long as well-maintained wood, but it requires far less upkeep. It almost always outlasts aluminum siding, which has fallen out of fashion. ” [ source ].

Modern vinyl siding is expected to last 20-40 years — depending on quality. however, get a fire in the house next door, even separated by a side yard, and your siding is likely to melt….

Enginer01
October 19, 2019 8:06 am

Waste that can be resources:
A major hit to the Cost of Living of major societies has been perpetrated by uninformed waste management.
A classic example is the cost of fertilizer for crop growth. A major component is is the waste disposal cost of Phosphogypsum (PG).
Phosphorus, the “P” in N-P-K fertilizer, is usually measured as an older compound, P2O5, derived from an earlier electric furnace production process. For ever ton of “P2O5” made in a typical fertilizer complex, 5 (five) tons of Calcium Sulfate (dihydrate or hemi-hydrate) are formed for every ton of P2O5 and stored or reused for it’s sulfur value.
The US Government, in its infinite wisdom has banned the use of slightly radioactive PG for road building, wallboard, soil amendment, etc. All over the world, identical material is used for these diverse cost-reducing end uses. Note that most world agricultural soils are sulfur-deficient.
Major US fertilizer producers force you to pay for storing PG in big piles (drive thru Central Florida and look for mountains…) at a cost that greatly eclipses the actual profit from Phosphoric Acid. Stupid!
The Florida Institute of Phosphate Research in Bartow, Florida, now the Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute proved years ago that PG added to landfills greatly aids degradation of organics placed in landfills–(I dis-remember any effect on plastics…) and has now investigated PG as a major source of Rare Earths that we currently ship to China as ore (due to the infinite wisdom of the NRC) and buy back at great cost.
Wonderful sites such as WUWT are one of few places you will read about these amazing events.

Editor
Reply to  Enginer01
October 19, 2019 8:42 am

Enginer01==> It ought to be suitable for some use — even if it is a bit radioactively hot. Obviously not that hot as they pile it up in populated areas.

How would they use it in road building?

Enginer01
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 19, 2019 11:02 am

Very good question—lowest value use.
When Florida producers went to an EPA hearing many years ago, they expected to hear reasonable restrictions on it’s (PG) use. In fact, most of the slightly lower LSA gyps from Occidental in North Florida was trucked up to sulfur-loving peanut farms in GA.
Much to their surprise they were ordered to impound it as a “hazardous waste.” It is no such thing.
see:
http://www.aapfco.org/presentations/2018/2018_AN_phosphogypsum.pdf

This has cost buyers of fertilizers billions of dollars in unnecessary cost, and placed us at a competitive disadvantage to companies overseas.
I once sat at a restaurant in Morocco, and asked, “What are those sandbars just off shore?” They told me, looking sheepish, “[phospho]gypsum”. Yes, there is some fluorides in PG slurries, but the ocean has got much, much more free calcium, to form highly insoluble calcium fluorides. Not an issue.
But even OCP (Morocco) is now seeking to profit from PC reuse.

tty
Reply to  Enginer01
October 19, 2019 1:20 pm

In Sweden it is usually used to make gypsum wallboards. Though conceivably the phosphorite used here is less radioactive.

And it is of course very weakly radioactive. After all it has been sitting around in the ground in Florida for millions of year without doing any damage. Digging it up doesn’t make it more radioactive.

Though we have a similar problem. We have huge mountains of apatite waste lying around near the iron mines in northern Sweden that could be used instead of phosphorite to make fertilizer, but the EU won’t permit it since it contains an infinitesimally small amount of arsenic.

rah
October 19, 2019 8:30 am

“Glass, both natural and man-made, is forever, but not plastic.” FALSE!
Man made glass and obsidian both erode. If they did not the highly abrasion resistant glass based high alumina ceramics my company installed in material handling systems transporting highly abrasive materials would last forever. It does not! You mean to tell me that you have never walked along a beach and found a fragment of what was obviously a man made bottle that has smooth edges from erosion?

Editor
Reply to  rah
October 19, 2019 8:49 am

rah ==> The physical grinding and polishing of sea glass if a physical process caused by knocking the bits of glass against rocks and sand and shell etc. The glass does not break down into its chemical elements — it just gets ground down. This type of abrasion in not the topic here. All of your glass ends up somewhere, albeit in really in tiny bits, but it is still glass.

Plastic that is eaten by microbes becomes, well, microbe bodies and microbe poop — no longer plastic. When fungi dissolve and ingest plastic, it becomes fungi cells etc. Polystyrene, acted on by the sun, becomes CO2 and/or dissolved organic carbon….no longer plastic.

rah
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 19, 2019 9:55 am

So all rocks and silica sand etc. “are forever”? Are sea shells forever? I think not. Though I understand where your coming from Kip and should have said so in my original post in my view no matter of any type is “forever”. I was taught that all elements have a half-life. Was I taught wrong?

tty
Reply to  rah
October 19, 2019 2:00 pm

Glass is very nearly indestructible, but over very long periods it will devitrify and/or hydrate. For example the small glass spherules created by the Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago, have very largely turned into smectitic clay minerals, but intact glass spherules can still be found in some places:

http://www.meteoritestudies.com/kt_gorg.jpg

On the other hand the glasses from the Australasian strewn field, c. 800,000 years old are usually quite well preserved.

tty
Reply to  rah
October 19, 2019 2:20 pm

“I was taught that all elements have a half-life. Was I taught wrong?”

Yes and no. Theoretically all isotopes of all elements have a half life, but for all ordinary isotopes this half life is so long that it is not measurable. The isotope with the longest measured half-life is tellurium 128 with a half life of 2 x 10^24 years, i e it will take 2 million billion billion years for half of all tellurium 128 to break down. Nearly all isotopes of ordinary elements are more stable than this.

Reply to  tty
October 20, 2019 9:11 am

tty,
Every isotope heavier than iron must have a half life, as energy is released when these isotopes fall apart. For the lighter stable isotopes the decay rate of the proton (present lower estimate of half life > 10^34 years) determines their stability.

E.S.
October 19, 2019 9:43 am

Microbes can do a lot of good but they can also do a lot of harm. A type of corrosion called microbially induced corrosion (MIC) is responsible the rusticles forming on the RMS Titanic wreck, to aircraft fuel tanks. pipelines and sewer system etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_corrosion

Editor
Reply to  E.S.
October 19, 2019 10:00 am

E.S. ==> The good and bad depend a lot on point of view. Helping to dissolve the Titanic (which does not really belong at the bottom of the sea) could be good. They are just doing what microbes do — eat stuff.

I put a special chemical additive in my boat’s diesel fuel tank to prevent microbes from growing in the diesel — they create sludgey stuff with clogs the filters.

rah
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 19, 2019 10:59 am

At our trucking company we changed the cold weather fuel treatment we were using back to the old alcohol based stuff because the one we were using caused microbes to grow that clogged the fuel injectors.

RayG
October 19, 2019 10:10 am

For those who are interested in digging more deeply into the subject of our waste stream and the recycling of our waste materials, I recommend a book titled Rubbish! The Archeology of Garbage, ISBN 0-06-16603-7. The co-authors are William Rathje and Cullen Murphy. Rathje, an archeologist, was the founder of the Tucson Garbage Project. Their book describes the methodologies that were used in applying classical archeology techniques to modern garbage dumps and what they found. There are also some interesting economical assessments of the societal costs of recycling. While I hesitate to cite the NYTimes for anything, there is a good review of the book at: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/05/books/we-are-what-we-throw-away.html

nvw
October 19, 2019 10:59 am

KH – not so sure about glass being forever.
In the geologic record volcanic glass devitrifies (ie develops an ordered crystalline structure and so, therefore, is not glass).
It is rare to find volcanic glass in pre-Tertiary aged rocks. Presumably, Bud bottles will enjoy the same fate in the future.
Now a diamond (or perhaps a zircon) – that’s forever.

Fran
October 19, 2019 11:41 am

A great deal of the excess packaging in the retail industry is to decrease shoplifting and prevent customers from damaging goods. As such, it is apparently an economical solution to serious problems. This might be one of the places for degradeable material, but you would have to consider shelf life. Water-soluble would not work, because sweaty hands would make packaging look unattractive.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
October 19, 2019 3:22 pm

I always found the statement “Plastic water bottles will remain in landfills for hundreds of years” to be particularly egregious. The vast majority of such bottles are made of polyethylene, which is largely made from natural gas product feedstocks (not petroleum) such as ethane and ethene. These substances have been in underground storage for hundreds of millions of years. Human beings extract them from the ground, turn them into something useful to us, then return that object to the ground from whence it came. And the complaint is that it will be there for hundreds of years. As if the previous hundreds of millions of years residence hadn’t happened.

The actual (unstated) complaint is that human beings made something very useful for themselves out of something that had no other use. The anti-plastic people are actually anti-human.

Ian Cooper
October 19, 2019 5:45 pm

Many of you will be familiar with the plastic sheet roofing supplied for the cheap, easily assembled, portable gazebos people use for temporary shade at summer gatherings. I have purchased a few over the years but gave up on them because they are not only too flimsy for New Zealand conditions, living in the “Roaring Forties” is a good test for most outdoor furniture and tenting materials. On top of that I left one damaged gazebo cover out in full sunlit for a year. By the end it had almost totally disintegrated into very small bits! As with a lot of things we can blame it on the sun.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Ian Cooper
October 19, 2019 7:08 pm

Most plastic have a very short life here in the Arizona sun and heat. Plastic buckets shatter from exposure to the heat last about one or two summers in my unheated shed. Same for plastic bags they turn to powder. Plastic in the sun is toast in a very short time walking in the desert lost or discarded water bottles just disintegrate in the sun the side that facing the sun just disappears. PVC does the same. I one saw a discarded PVC elbow that the top half was just gone. The steel cans around it were rusted but still there.

migueldelrio
October 19, 2019 9:51 pm

Common familiarity with Visqueen, the black plastic tarp used to reduce weeds for desert landscaping, make it difficult to make the case for plastics in general.

Perhaps it’s the aromatic plastics, such as polystyrene, that are able to attract the pests which devour them.

migueldelrio
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 20, 2019 11:34 am

Info can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visqueen, though, I’m not sure that the brand name is well known, just its application to landscaping.

migueldelrio
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 21, 2019 1:01 am

Kip, this would be good news, however, the Visqueen polyethylene sheets are already resistant to soil burial:

Conclusion and recommendations

The present work indicates that naturally growing soil microbes like bacteria and fungi show great efficacy in degrading polyethylene…”

These show that the top listed microbes listed in the paper above are ubiquitous:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1178636118810366
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergillus_fumigatus

This is an example of the application of the tarp:

migueldelrio
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 21, 2019 3:51 pm

Kip, quite to the contrary, universal experience with the efficacy of plastic tarps calls into question the study.

For example, exactly how thin are the plastic sheets used for the study? The tarps are typically 6 mil. No mention of the thickness of the sheets used is included in the study, so that the percentage consumed by weight over time is meaningless.

Furthermore, the study leads the reader to believe that the study was not optimized for the microbe environment, and therefore seeks further funding. Yet, in a typical soil environment, the ubiquitous microbes obviously prefer their conventional nutrition sources versus consuming plastic tarp.

I wish there was a panacea to rid ourselves of plastic waist, except none is available for products engineered to be essentially indestructible in the intended environment.

migueldelrio
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 21, 2019 4:09 pm

(waste)

migueldelrio
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 21, 2019 11:40 pm

Kip, in this YouTube, the homeowner complains that the tarp has worked as described for approximately 15 years. He blames Visqueen for the death of his cactus (which he failed to properly irrigate): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPk4yxcWVDc

It’s a myth that the plastic tarp reduces landscaping and watering costs.

Instead, the extensive irrigation system requires constant maintenance to keep the landscape presentable.

muhammad ashraf
October 20, 2019 4:21 am
October 20, 2019 8:53 am

“Exactly why aren’t the anti-plastics people fighting GLASS — glass jars, glass bottles, window glass, auto glass, etc — which is almost literally “Forever” — it will never be broken down in the sense used in the plastics issue.”

Plastics are absolutely horrible for storing anything sensitive to moisture; especially, those substances that must stay dry or stay wet.

I have tried to use glass to store perishables and substances with alcohols or salt.
Whiskies and vodkas sold in plastic bottles taste of plastic.
Kosher salt stored in plastic bottles pulls moisture from the air.

Dry foods stored in plastic get stale or moist foods dry out quite quickly. Want vanilla beans to stay plump and soft? Don’t store them in plastic!

“Glass is forever”?
Utter BS!

Glass represents pieces of sand, only temporarily larger.
Find a pieces of glass at the beach? Rough, eroded, rounded edges or vanishingly small as it erodes away.
Yet people are surprised to learn that much of that glass is young with ages measured in decades, not hundreds of year.

Old glass, even broken old glass objects can be worth quite a bit of money. Out in the American West, glass hunters are thrilled when they find untouched refuse heaps or latrines. Happily digging through a few decades of leftover mulch from earlier use.
The same will happen to those “middens”. I’ve wondered when someone will design and construct a trash dump mining company.
Like most mining operations, it takes demand that causes one form of trash to be valuable.

If the recyclable folks have difficulty separating glass, that is their foolish failure!
Glass and metals have been recyclable for many decades, well before plastics arrived.

Glass manufactures and even artists treasure “cullet”; i.e. broken glass.
Cullet melts easier and helps melt the basics materials used to make batches of glass.
Waste glass from the manufacturing process is reprocessed as cullet, but most glass furnace lack enough waste cullet from previous processes to fill their need for cullet.

Pretty much the same situation surrounds recycling steels and other metals.
It’s one reason copper and bronze has been the subject of theft. The current value is high enough to cause thieves to strip buildings.

I’ve worked in a steel plant and watched railroad cars of rusty metals fed to the furnaces. All without first getting processed through the iron smelting process.

Historically, we are not far removed from a populace that seriously recycled products. Then again, products were made for long life and reuse.
Back then, most people had undergone serious deprivation; Depression years; World War II coupons; Paying back loans after either of the World Wars; famine…
Modern society in some countries has staved off disasters. Temporarily.
That does not mean disastrous events are banished forever. All one needs is to look around the world to find them happening, still.

Modern society is only weeks from experiencing similar events.

The use and discard generation in a few societies really needs to relearn and pay attention to reality and life.
Sadly, elites in several countries are bent upon forcing people to believe food spontaneously appears in grocery stores and urban homes where trash just goes away, never to be seen again.

Marz Marleau
October 20, 2019 1:48 pm

Love the article. My questions, however:
What do the remains of the plastic eating mealworms consist of?
As the plastic degrades in the oceans, what are the effects on various organisms that ingest various degraded forms of these hydrocarbons?

Marz Marleau
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 20, 2019 8:35 pm

Thank you for responding, Kip. However, while I suspect that the breakdowns of the hydrocarbons are benign, I think it would be important to let microbiologists and biologists weigh in on that before assuming too much. After all, there are many simple combinations of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen that are noxious to many life forms. Regardless of these concerns, however, if there are studies which delve into the molecular processes involved, then let there be light! Regards.

Marz Marleau
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 21, 2019 4:46 pm

I suspect you are correct in your conclusions but I can’t help but cast a skeptical eye on any aspect of a study which assumes something or other thereby opening up breeches which the trolls of alarmism might use to discredit otherwise valuable research.