Just when we thought we had a grip on the major culprits of pollution, a new villain emerges from the shadows. And this time, it’s not the ominous black smoke billowing from exhaust pipes or the industrial chimneys spewing toxins into the atmosphere. No, it’s something far more inconspicuous, yet equally, if not more, detrimental: tire dust.
A recent article from The Drive sheds light on a rather overlooked aspect of vehicular pollution. While the world has been fixated on tailpipe emissions, a silent perpetrator has been wreaking havoc, largely unnoticed. The article states,
“Scientists have a good understanding of engine emissions, which typically consist of unburnt fuel, oxides of carbon and nitrogen, and particulate matter related to combustion. However, new research shared by Yale Environment 360 indicates that there may be a whole host of toxic chemicals being shed from tires and brakes that have been largely ignored until now.”
Ah, the irony! As the world clamors for electric vehicles (EVs) as the saviors of our environment, it seems we’ve missed a crucial detail. The article goes on to reveal, emphasis mine,
“It’s an emissions problem that won’t go away with the transition to EVs, either. According to data from Emissions Analytics, EVs tend to shed around 20 percent more from their tires due to their higher weight and high torque compared to traditional internal combustion engine-powered vehicles.“
So, while EVs might not have tailpipe emissions, they’re not exactly the pristine, green machines they’re touted to be. The heavier weight of EVs, thanks to their bulky batteries, means they wear out their tires faster, releasing even more of these harmful particulates into the environment. A classic case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions, all puns intended.
But let’s delve deeper into the implications of this tire dust. The article cites a report from the Pew Charitable Trust which found that a staggering
“78 percent of ocean microplastics are from synthetic tire rubber.”
These toxic particles often end up ingested by marine animals, leading to
“neurological effects, behavioral changes, and abnormal growth.”
It’s not just the oceans that are at risk. The particles are so minuscule that they can pass directly through our lungs and into our bloodstream, even crossing the blood-brain barrier.
While there’s been a relentless push for recycling and reducing plastic waste to save the oceans, the real elephant in the room has been the cars we drive daily. On one hand, we’re told to reduce, reuse, recycle, and on the other, we’re sold the dream of ‘clean’ electric vehicles, which, as it turns out, are making problem worse.
The article also touches upon the challenges of studying these particulate emissions. Unlike tailpipe emissions, which can be easily captured and studied, understanding the full impact of tire and brake dust requires a more nuanced approach. But as the saying goes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. And the initial findings are alarming enough to warrant immediate attention.
The revelations from this article serve as a stark reminder that environmental issues are complex and multifaceted. Simplistic solutions, like the blind push for EVs, often miss the mark. It’s high time we adopt a more holistic approach to environmental conservation, one that takes into account all aspects of pollution, not just the ones that make for catchy headlines.
To the proponents of electric vehicles and the so-called ‘green revolution,’ I say this: It’s always wise to look before you leap. And in this case, it seems the leap towards EVs might just land us in a pile of tire dust. We told you so.
Tire Dust Makes Up the Majority of Ocean Microplastics, Study Finds
For more issues with the rush to adopt Electric Vehicles, see our EV section on ClimateTV
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tire dust has also been implicated in the reduction in the number of salmon. Seems the poisonous tire dust in their spawning grounds weakens/kills the baby salmon …
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/03/coho-salmon-pollution-car-tires-die-off
w.
Tyres and direct wear and tear is one source, but there are other sources thanks to tyre recycling programmes, e.g. synthetic turf.
Iceland has an altogether different Salmon problem.
“Thousands of salmon escaped an Icelandic fish farm. The impact could be deadly”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/30/thousands-of-salmon-escaped-an-icelandic-fish-farm-the-impact-could-be-deadly
Tyres produce tonnes of dust while tires merely produce tons…clearly tires are best.
That is tire-ing
Bah! Salmon numbers have been reduced greatly due to two things: building dams on the rivers where they formerly went to spawn, and over-fishing (the bane of virtually all marine fisheries) Salmon numbers were great long before the dams were built, then collapsed when the dams were built. Long before any EVs ever showed up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder#
Improvement in dam passages in the left coast State of Washington (about 35 miles from me):
{delete space between the w w}
https://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=jj3OVV8jXPU
The small fish go through the helix tube backwards.
Further, there is very little plastic of any sort in this reservoir.
47.316125, -121.114065 [Lat/Long using Google Earth]
Don’t forget toxic brake pad particles – stopping a 5 tonne car doing 60mph takes a lot of mechanical erosion
Most EV’s use regenerative braking versus discs and pads.
I’m not an EV fanboy but I sure wish my car had that feature. It’s probably the best thing about EV’s.
Regenerative breaks work best at high speed, and don’t work at all at very low speeds. There’s a reason why even EVs with regenerative breaks still have mechanical breaks.
Regenerative breaks are actually generators. They turn the momentum of the car back into electrical power. As everyone knows, the faster the rotor of a generator spins, the more power it is creating. Conversely, the slower the rotor spin the less power is created. Breaking power is directly correlated to the amount of electrical power being generated.
Well…… it COULD BE true. Or not. Only an estimated 50% of “scientific” papers are reproducible, so it is a 50-50 chance. But given the subject and the source, one should cast a jaundiced eye upon it.
Dear Willis,
You may wish to question the Guardian as a source of reliable information (or use a sarc tag). Salmon runs in the PNW are at record highs, apparently in response to the cold phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, not “weak spawning grounds”.
Only 3 adult salmon return to spawn out of every 1,000 smolts that cross the bar. That means 99.7% of salmon mortality occurs in the ocean. Minor changes in ocean condition (temp, salinity, predators, prey) have huge impact on fish return counts. Smolt counts are poor predictors of return counts. “Weak spawning grounds” are not the problem. Indeed, there doesn’t seem to be any problem at all.
So where’s the problem? The whole salmon panic is a dead horse. Quit flogging it.
From the study. Emphasis mine.
===
The pervasive biological degradation of contaminated waters near urban areas (“urban stream syndrome”) (4) is exemplified by an acute mortality phenomenon that has affected Pacific Northwest coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) for decades (5–9). “Urban runoff mortality syndrome” (URMS) occurs annually among adult coho salmon returning to spawn in freshwaters where concurrent stormwater exposure causes rapid mortality. In the most urbanized watersheds with extensive impervious surfaces, 40 to 90% of returning salmon may die before spawning (9). This mortality threatens salmonid species conservation across ~40% of the Puget Sound land area despite costly societal investments in physical habitat restoration that may have inadvertently created ecological traps through episodic toxic water pollution (9).
===
Regards,
w.
forestermike Reply to Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2023 4:48 pm
So would Science magazine satisfy you?
A ubiquitous tire rubber–derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon
You also say:
Nope. You haven’t included the very large mortality of the smolts that don’t live to cross the bar …
Best regards,
w.
No, Science Mag does NOT satisfy. It’s junk science with models. Also, the Columbia-Snake Watershed has very few “urban creeks”.
But you miss the point. Salmon returns are burgeoning. Tyre dust must be beneficial, or else a nothing burger. It’s not a “catastrophic crisis” that needs solving, with or without speculative models and infliction of dysanthropic Luddite punishments and oppression. Sound familiar?
And re salmon population dynamics: if we could double the number of smolts that reach the ocean, it would not effect the return count. Wrap your theories around that mystery.
Cheers, Warmer Is Better
forestermike said:
Let me start by saying that I spent a good chunk of my life commercial fishing for salmon … as well as working as a sport salmon guide on the Kenai. So stop treating me like a fool who knows nothing about the subject.
As to your claim that “salmon returns are burgeoning”, here in California (lots of roads, lots of tire dust) there are so few salmon that THE COMMERCIAL SEASON WAS CANCELLED ENTIRELY THIS YEAR. My friends are not happy …
Here’s the story for Oregon.
This is the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington.
“Burgeoning”? Don’t make me laugh.
w.
That’s the harvest, the catch. Controlled by the Federal Fish Cops. The fish return up the ladder and over the dam is the biological population component. That’s what’s burgeoning. Exam the graph. The data is the data.
btw, have you ever seen a fed Fish Cop beat an Indian with a nightstick? I have. Don’t tell me that politics have nothing to do with the catch.
Willis wrote: “So stop treating me like a fool who knows nothing about the subject.”
But will you grant the same courtesy to those of us who know a lot more about physics than you do, Willis the fisherman? You certainly haven’t so far. What’s good for the goose, etc.
Story tip
The AMOC data has been updated last month for another 2 years of data. It shows no decline, contrary to IPCC forecasts. I have an article written about that, pls email me at:
info at leader dot se
Story top
I see that the cost to insure fully EV’s has shot up 5 to 10 times!!
https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-were-5000-or-more-electric-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs
Sorry about the guardian link but that’s where the story is.
I’m surprised that the censors at the Guardian let this through.
The Drive article links to the following article:
Road Hazard: Evidence Mounts on Toxic Pollution from Tires
The opening paragraphs as follows:
For two decades, researchers worked to solve a mystery in West Coast streams. Why, when it rained, were large numbers of spawning coho salmon dying? As part of an effort to find out, scientists placed fish in water that contained particles of new and old tires. The salmon died, and the researchers then began testing the hundreds of chemicals that had leached into the water.
A 2020 paper revealed the cause of mortality: a chemical called 6PPD that is added to tires to prevent their cracking and degradation. When 6PPD, which occurs in tire dust, is exposed to ground-level ozone, it’s transformed into multiple other chemicals, including 6PPD-quinone, or 6PPD-q. The compound is acutely toxic to four of 11 tested fish species, including coho salmon.
Mystery solved, but not the problem, for the chemical continues to be used by all major tire manufacturers and is found on roads and in waterways around the world. Though no one has studied the impact of 6PPD-q on human health, it’s also been detected in the urine of children, adults, and pregnant women in South China. The pathways and significance of that contamination are, so far, unknown.
Given the ‘green’ zealots, it will not take much for them now to come after the motor vehicles. A probable further way to limit people’s movements.
Would they go after the ‘green’ EVs? Only if it fits the intent of control of the population.
Our good friend Mayor Khan is ahead of the game. He was clearly so well aware of the issue he instituted a low emissions area across the whole of London and a 20 MPH speed limit to ensure no tyre wear takes place as all cars in London are now permanently parked up. His own fleet of Range Rovers however continue to seek out those using excessive amounts of London roads, with fines now in place for anyone parking on the roads without a permit to do so, which costs several hundred pounds £/year.
We knew he was on to something…
You can tell quite easily that the people who design road schemes have no idea. But probably ride a bicycle.
When I first went to Italy – land of my boss – back in the 70s I was mighty impressed by the way they handled traffic back then.
After midnight traffic lights would flash amber as give way points. In London you can waste much time at 3am at god knows how many sets of traffic lights
Around here the city uses demand traffic lights so at night the main roads stay green unless someone arrives at a light from a side street. The change to red is only sufficient to let one or two cars onto the main road at a time.
There have been recent articles where so called environmentalists have proclaimed that switching to EVs was nice, but no where near enough. They are calling for the complete banning of personal travel.
I not that bicycles and scooters also have tires. Once they have cars banned, I do not doubt that they will go after anything else that has tires.
Er, don’t spawning salmon die immediately after spawning?. https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/the-salmon-life-cycle.htm Exactly what kind of scientismists were these again? How many fish of the control group placed in a uncontaminated pool survived? How did the artificial contamination of the study group vary from the natural environment, or did they just bombard the fish with tires?
Quick, somebody queue up Sir Elton doing Circle of Life.
It has been known for a long time that the extra weight of an EV compared to an ICE leads to increased PM2.5 emissions from tyre wear. Governments ignore this and don’t want it to be known.
The most dangerous form of air pollution on Britain’s roads is particulate matter emissions from tyre wear. Electric cars make this problem much worse. This has been known for years but I have never heard a British politician mention it.
https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/this-is-why-electric-cars-won't-stop-air-pollution
See also my article on this topic from last year: https://cliscep.com/2022/05/21/no-smoke-without-tyres/
“The particulate from tire wear is so small it is capable of passing through the lungs going directly into the bloodstream and even crossing the blood-brain barrier”.
Well that explains why I am feeling ‘tired’ these days…..
Quick calculation 36 million vehicles on UK roads replacing their tyres every 20,000 miles equals a new set every two and a half years. so roughly 56 million new tyres every year here in the UK.
I knew that low and reducing sperm count would come down to cars rather than tight underwear….
That 20,000 sounds low — 40,000 or longer with easy driving seems to be the expectation for the tyres on a new auto. Some companies claim they have an 80,000 mile more costly offering.
I am talking UK roads and if anyone gets more than 20,000 they are doing very well. These days if your car is MOT tested you are lucky if the report does not say tyre damage which is a product of our pot holes which were once roads taking chunks out of them.
We’ll never read about this in the MSM.
They will use it to push for mass transit and high speed rail.
Not to mention all the CO2 expelled by the drivers and passengers riding in those cars.
Perhaps we should bring back real horse power — a pony or two in the backyard barn. Oops. Real horses expel CO2 as well. We’re doomed!
Back in the Day I worked in Civil for about 4 years for no logically good reason (Mechanical background).
Dust from vehicle brake pads were regularly estimated for the purpose of working out how much went into storm water.
It is not new, it is just our Elites and MSM don’t want to discuss anything that isn’t market researched as a talking point.
Correct!
When evaluating a project requiring an EIS, all impacts have to considered and evaluated. Part of the process included public input.
While reading the draft about killing this or that, I was preparing my professions worded that this is BS statement.
However, there was a finding of no significant impact.
To put in another way, tire wear will not stop coal trucks but cheap natural gas will.
Since EVs use regenerative braking, brake dust is virtually eliminated. Thus compared to environmentally disastrous internal combustion vehicles, toxic chemicals dust from tires and brakes is probably a wash, if not actually much less of a problem.
Openings for wheelwrights soon to be posted.
“A classic case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions”
The primrose path to perdition!
” It’s high time we adopt a more holistic approach to environmental conservation”
This was one of Freeman Dyson’s main criticism of the so-called “climate models”. There are not holistic at all.
As the Arisian’s of EE “Doc” Smith would put it: Perfect visualization of the future requires perfect knowledge of the present. Climate science doesn’t know enough about the present to have a chance of visualizing the future. They don’t even recognize the existence of the concept of UNKNOWN.
So how do we replace tyres with something clean?
Turns out they exist already:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/tyres/green-tyres-how-are-they-different/#:~:text=A%20green%20or%20eco%20tyre,and%20other%20eco%2Dfriendly%20materials.
https://www.tires-easy.com/blog/eco-friendly-tires/
OK, lets make them compulsory.
From that article:
NOTHING about less erosion. Although the article does also mention that they “contain in excess of 200 ingredients.”
I’m SURE that not a single one of those 200+ ingredients is toxic to wildlife…
…or comes from fossil fuels…
This post is ridiculous.
There is zero support of evidence that ocean microplastics are composed of 78% tire dust. That’s simply outlandishly ridiculous. Not a single source agrees with that. Ocean microplastics are composed nearly entirely of discarded fishing nets, trash (as in used plastics), degradation of larger plastic materials, and microbeads. “Tire dust” is negligible, and most of whatever there is is either adsorbed onto asphalt pavement surfaces where it stays, or if running off with stormwater, is captured far inland from any oceanic waters.
Also, the notion that “EVs generate 20% more tire dust than ICVs” is equally ridiculous. The weight of a vehicle depends upon many variables that have zero to do with the motive force. More expensive luxury models simply weigh more than econoboxes. The curb weight of a Mercedes S550 – which is more or less equivalent to a Tesla Model S – is over 4,819 pounds. While the curb weight of a Tesla Model S is 4,883 pounds. Or take another very popular luxury vehicle, the Cadillac Escalade, with a curb weight of 5,350 pounds.
You don’t compare the weight of the Tesla to that of a Chevy Malibu or Toyota Corolla. They are not comparable vehicles.
Then of course the actual rolling weight of any vehicle varies with loading of passengers, fuel, and cargo that can easily add 1,000 pounds or more to the curb weight.
This kind of concern trolling about tire dust is just as ridiculous as WUWT’s concern trolling over ocean sonar surveys, performed over just days in any given area of the ocean, for the purpose of citing offshore wind facilities … and oh by the way, is also used for the purpose of siting offshore oil drilling and production platforms … and which oh by the way, is used by every vessel in the world all the time, including virtually all recreational boats larger than a jon boat or a kayak.
You don’t have to be an EV hater to be a climate skeptic. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I am a full fledged climate skeptic, and have never hated any vehicle, regardless of its power source. I mean, that’s just ridiculous. If you don’t want to buy and drive an EV, don’t. Simple as that.
“If you don’t want to buy and drive an EV”…..but duh gubment insists that FF vehicles have to go….simple as that?
I would love to not buy an EV, however the government is forcing me to heavily subsidize the purchase of such vehicles. It’s not just the direct subsidy, in the US, the EV’s are granted an unscientifically high fuel economy rating, which are used to subsidize the building of cars that people want to buy. This makes EVs cheaper and real cars more expensive.
Except the merc is longer, taller, has more interior volume, greater cargo capacity, has much more substantial interior trim, and has a much more substantial body structure compared to the model S, which has to use lightweight materials, minimalist interior trim, and interesting structural compromises to reach its kerb weight. They’re only superficially comparable because the Tesla S is marketed as a “luxury sedan”, but that’s a huge segment. The Mercedes is in an altogether higher luxury bracket than the Tesla, which would be more comparable to the 2016-2018 Audi A4 in terms of looks, interior trim, capacity, and overall market segment.
The A4 weighs about 2000lb less than the model S.
But crash worthiness rates Tesla cars much stronger than other vehicles such as a merc.
A merc having a far heavier body structure does NOT mean it protects you better than a Tesla. It actually protects you less. See this article on a Tesla driver trying to kill his family by driving down a 250-foot ravine, yet they all survived because it was a Tesla. They wouldn’t be alive if it had been a merc.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tesla-driver-plunged-family-california-cliff-purpose-officials-say-rcna64170
What are you using to match comparable vehicles? A Tesla Model S and a Cadillac Escalade are hardly interchangeable.
Wave your hands a lot faster, Duane, I’m not convinced. Don’t know why you think comparing the most popular, best selling EV with rare luxury cars would make a convincing argument.
I love the idea of BEVs, but what we actually got is a costly, heavy, dangerous experiment pretending to be ready for general use.
Why is it that some people react so violently whenever some criticizes the objects of their affection?
Duane reminds me of the average liberal. Criticize affirmative action, you are a racist. Criticize programs that allegedly benefit women, you are a sexist. Don’t want porn in grade school libraries, you are a book banner.
Point out any of the flaws regarding EVs, and you are an EV hater.
Are you actually trying to deny that an EV is as much as 1000 pounds heavier than an equivalent sized car?
Your pointing out that expensive large cars are heavier than cheap small cars is a meaningless comparison, but it also appears that you are so desperate to defend the cars that you prefer, that you are willing to make a complete fool out of yourself.
Hey, I never thought enough about the weight problem. Over 40% of Americans obese means cars are carrying dozens, often hundreds of pounds of useless lard around with them, not to mention airplanes, buses, etc.
Let’s start by allowing only people of normal weight to use any transportation.
A few years ago, the main culprit was said to be plastic straws, or was it single-use grocery store bags? Maybe it was carry-out packages from fast-food places. Maybe cigarette butts and beverage bottles.
Next year’s culprit: ??
The second leading cause of lung cancer (or fill in the blank) is what ever your agenda happens to be.
Duane,
If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan … simple as that.
(A long time ago there were also social security ‘skeptics’. They saw it as the govt pyramid that is. They were told by idiots, hypocrites, and liars that ‘if they don’t like it then don’t participate’. Seems that there will always be idiots, liars, hypocrites, and schills around to support bad policy).
Just when we thought we had a grip on the major culprits of pollution, a new villain emerges from the shadows.
Well if the EV fantasy falls flat on its face as any rational analysis portends the coup de grace being lithium battery danger-
E-bikes explode in fireball after they were first extinguished at Seaford Meadows | 7 News Australia – YouTube
then naturally the usual suspects will require a fallback position wanting all ‘unnecessary’ private vehicles off the road lest it’s business as usual for fossil fuelled propulsion.
The increased weight of BEVs sheds more brake-pad material during braking too.
These toxic particles often end up ingested by marine animals, leading to
Based on what evidence? The seas are full of microparticles and chemicals from natural processes. For example: undersea volcanoes, escaping oil. Odd isn’t it only stuff Human produce is harmful and how clever the scientists to know that crab’s neurological disorders uniquely comes from Human stuff in the sea and not nature’s stuff. Like only CO2 from fossil fuels causes global warming not all the other CO2 from nature.
Story tip
https://climatechangedispatch.com/a-giant-tesla-battery-caught-fire-and-they-just-let-it-burn/
This will be happening on our roads as more battery vehicles arrive – anyone suffering collateral damage should sue – these mobile crematoriums should not be allowed on public roads or spaces
Robert Kennedy Jr. Interviews “Big Oil” ”story tip” https://youtu.be/qWomk2yt-C8?si=oMfvvflhW0MlOQsJ
Largest EV Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators
The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world. But to provide that kind of power takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/09/30/largest-ev-charging-station-in-the-world-uses-diesel-powered-generators/
Big tire knew and when did they know? Use and settle!
Oops, SUE and settle (my tablet has a mind of its own).
Wooden wheels with iron rims on cobblestone roadways.
Silicosis and iron poisoning from the dust. I’m sure walking will be found to emit toxic chemicals once it is researched properly.
Nearly absolute B.S….nearly because tire dust does make up a large portion particulate matter in urban air pollution, which then gets moved around by atmospheric circulation.
The endlessly repeated accusation of “poisonous” is not scientifically supported — it is an accusation associated with the silliness of the ever-touted PM25 mythical threat to human life — extended to be a threat to everything we know and love.
The reported study has been corrected as follows:
“…. the previous standards [as used in the original study] overestimated both the reported median lethal concentration (LC50) and the environmental concentrations of 6PPD-quinone in the study by a factor of 8.3. Using new exposures with the commercial standard and the isotopic method for quantification, LC50 values to juvenile coho salmon were subsequently revised to a lower value of 95 ng/L.”
The LC50 is not for tire dust, of course, but for 6PPD-quinone, which is an infinitesimal component of tire dust. Thus, the study only applies to “stormwater exposure annually causes unexplained acute mortality when adult salmon migrate to urban creeks to reproduce.” — think a creek passing under an Interstate highway.
Well said. (see my other post).
This seems like some of the other classic things from the environmentalist playbook. Something that may or may not be harmful is labelled as harmful almost by default.
The tragedy of analytical chemistry is that it allows things to be blamed simply because they can now be measured at ever lower concentrations.
Back in the day when North Sea seal populations were declining it was asserted to unquestioningly be due to industrial chemicals. A few decades later and it actually declared to be due to a viral disease in seals.
Think long and hard before you use any information from PEW.
I’m delighted you’ve covered this.
I’ve been mentioning abraded tyres as the great unmentioned polymer ‘pollutant’ for some time now.
Polymers or Plastics? The distinction is arbitrary, not that anybody at the BBC is even capable of asking the question.
They have been with us since the advent of the motor car, and nobody has found a problem with them.
Of course, they will now. All those micro-particles that they find in a a fish’e gut. Are they really plastics or good old-fashioned vulcanized rubber? Or are they just other relatively inert mineral particles that look nice and round under the microscope?
I doubt anybody has ever investigated, but they just got on with making unsubstantiated claims about harmful plastic particles in the very muddy and dusty environment called the real world.
(nb: there are lots of unused FACS flow-cytometry (cell-sorting) machines hanging around in university health-science departments who don’t have the money to employ staff to properly operate these expensive machines regularly. They could be put to good use in this field, sorting, counting, and characterizing environmental and geological microparticles).
The solution is so obvious. Just ban everything with wheels. I suspect that shoes will also contribute to this problem, so shoes will also have to be banned. Everyone will walk everywhere, and they will have to do so barefoot,
SNEAKERS! That’s what’s causing it — all those Nike swoosh sneakers…..