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.
I don’t believe any of this.
I’ll wager there is simply too much presumption, conjecture & theorizing in this claim.
Sound familiar?
I think word of mouth will kill BEV.
The purpose of an BEV is tell people you have a BEV. How long before the stories of buyers remorse kill the BEV?
I belong to a drinking club with a boating problems. When going from the parking lot to my sailboat there are two BEV plugged in so the club is paying.
So one of the BEV got a flat tire. The owner was told he had to get 4 new tires because of something to do with even wear.
Karma?
Does 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds with an EV increase tire pollution?
One might wonder how long it will be until the petroleum-based plastic waste from wind turbines overcomes the waste from tires.
Patrick Moore has been warning, I believe for decades, that the next big environmental con would be centered around plastic contamination.
The Yale 360 piece says, in part
This just seems like more of the endlessly tedious environmental lawfare, with questionable standing and undetermined threat or harm. Can’t find the relationship between Earthjustice and The Drive, but not too long ago The Drive was fairly mercenary in its connections with Audi and Nissan.
Sorry, this is overwrought. To be factually specific, tire treads are made of rubber and carbon black. Neither are plastic, so tire dust cannot contribute to ocean micro plastics by definition. And ocean micro plastics are, as KH has shown here many times, NOT a long term problem. They break down and are eventually consumed by ocean micro biota without harm while providing ‘fish food’.
Skeptics have many good basic simple arguments against AGW, renewables, and EVs. There is no need to over-reach, as done here. Why give warmunists an easy ‘discredit’? Inverse Mann stuff is not a good look.
There have been IMO too many such as this. Some others that recur like weeds:
All true, but Mr. Day, from The Drive, and the Yale 360 report are the sources of most of the (quite dated) misinformation. Like the somewhat legendary “telephone” game, each has missed many of the main details from the quite flawed original. What I do get from this is that Earthjustice.org is another name to look out for.
Rud Istvan October 2, 2023 3:15 pm
===
“It’s easy to take your tires for granted, but that black ring on the wheel of your car contains so much more than just plain rubber. In actual fact, it’s a complex blend of different rubbers – natural and synthetic – plus a whole host of other chemicals and construction materials. Expertly mixed and combined, our rubber compounds are sophisticated enough for a variety of driving conditions.
On average, a modern tire on a passenger car will contain up to 25 components and as many as 12 different rubber compounds. It all starts with natural rubber extracted from special trees grown in large plantations. This liquid (latex) coagulates with acid, is cleaned with water and pressed into bales.
Synthetic rubber, meanwhile, is created in a separate process using a mix of chemicals in the laboratory. During the manufacturing stage, these bales (both natural and synthetic) are cut up, weighed and mixed with other ingredients according to precise recipes.
The textile industry supplies base materials (rayon, nylon, polyester and aramid fibers) for the manufacture of cords which serve as a reinforcing material.
We can break a tire down into its components to see where each material comes in. Let’s take a look at what’s in one of Continental’s most popular summer models.
===
So no, not just “rubber and carbon black” …
Best to you and that good lady,
w.
w. ==> None of the first three, 86%, are believed to be “poisonous” (or even harmful at likely concentrations). Whether the Plasticizers and Chemicals for Vulcanization remain as distinct compounds/chemicals after the processes they are used for is not stated, and not know to me.
The claim is that the danger/threat is from one of the anti-ageing agents, specifically a downstream chemical — 6PPD-quinone. Which, of course, is not a plastic, either.
So, this section of the story:
“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.”
I have debunked much of that science, and one series of studies has had to be retracted due to fraud.
There may be SOMETHING to the urban runoff story — road salt, dog poop, trash, lawn care pesticides and herbicides, etc.
But the story, in general, is just another “we are killing everything with [gasp] chemicals!”
Kip Hansen October 3, 2023 10:35 am
Thanks, Kip. I said nothing about “78% of ocean microplastics” being tire rubber. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nichts. Rien. Not one word.
Why did I say nothing? First, because it seemed totally unlikely, given the huge amount of plastics entering the ocean, mostly from Asian rivers. Decomposition, sunlight degradation, and physical erosion turn all of that into microplastics eventually, and it seems like that’s gotta be more than tire dust.
Plus I have no idea what they include as “microplastics”. Sounds like they’re counting tire dust because it includes synthetic rubber plus other small amounts of plastics … but in any case, not my goat, not my rodeo.
So I said nothing about that 78% claim.
As a lifelong salmon fisherman and aficionado, my concern was with the unexplained dieoff of salmon, a phenomenon so well-documented that it has its own acronym. From the study.
Salmon are dying. It’s not some fantasy as you claim. Various substances have been proposed as the culprit, but there are objections or lack of evidence.
This chemical seems like a real possibility. In part, this is because other proposed chemicals (agricultural, domestic) tend to be concentrated in certain locations. But tire dust is ubiquitous, and from their measurements, not good for salmon.
Hey, I care about salmon. So sue me. They’re amazing fish. Some of the Early Asian Immigrants that lived in the northwestern US, long before the arrival of the Later Melanin-Deficient Immigrants, had a lovely ritual that some of my fellow fishermen and I used to observe some years when I was working trolling for salmon off of the US North Coast. It had to do with catching the first salmon of the year.
Particularly for the inland tribes living well upriver, the return of the salmon was essential to life … and of course, there was no way to know how many, or even if, they would return in a given year. It was always a question, would they come back? The salmon that they depended on to get them through the winter had always returned before, but would they come this year?
So the catching of the first salmon of the year was a huge deal. In many cases, it meant the tribe would survive. Some of the tribes would take a plank of wood down to the river, and they’d lay out the first salmon on it.
Then the fishermen would hoist it up, and they would carry it in triumph through the town, singing songs in praise of the mighty salmon tribe, and extolling the virtues of this particular salmon. And of course, tacking on some boasts about what great fishermen they were, after all, they were fishermen …
They would cook that first salmon, and hold the annual Our Really Cool Village’s Official First Salmon Festival in honor of the fish, and everyone would join in, the tribe was happy, the salmon were coming back, and they would eat it, carefully saving all of the bones.
When the feasting ended they would reassemble all the bones on the same wooden plank in the proper lifelike order, from jaw to tail fin, and once again singing and carrying on, they would parade the bones back to the river. There, they would speak to the bones of salmon respectfully, as befit the Ambassador from the Tribe of Salmon, and tell it how much it meant to them, and how honored they all were that it had chosen to come to their very village.
They told that salmon that theirs was the finest village of all because, as the salmon had seen with its own eyes, they had the best, most extravagant feasts in honor of the whole salmon tribe, and the nicest music and dancing, and they held the salmon in such high esteem.
And then they placed the board carrying the salmon bones in the water, and held the board with the salmon’s head pointed downstream. They told the salmon that they were sending him back to his friends downriver, the ones coming upstream.
They asked him to spread the word about the great time that he had partying in their most awesome village, and about the lovely singing and the dancing, and the honors, and the feasting. And then they released him, to go downriver and spread the good news to the rest of the tribe.
Now, did these Early Asian Immigrants really think that the fish would come to back to life and talk to its tribe? Don’t be daft, they’d seen more death than we can imagine, and like us, nobody ever came back, even if you did reassemble their bones.
But the spirit, ah, the spirit …
They did it because that is how we should respect the spirit of those beings who give up their own lives to keep us alive.
Yeah … like I said … salmon.
Best regards,
w.
w. ==> i respect your feelings — I am a great lover of the outdoors and Nature (all parts), and eat fish without regret — because I’m part of Nature too.
However “This chemical seems like a real possibility. In part, this is because other proposed chemicals (agricultural, domestic) tend to be concentrated in certain locations. But tire dust is ubiquitous, and from their measurements, not good for salmon.”
But, not even the flawed study being quoted thinks that “tire dust is ubiquitous” — the study thinks that there may be a lot of tire dust in Urban Stormwater Runoff and then swings into: “If lots of tire dust” then “maybe a lot of 6PPD-quinone — maybe enough to effect the juvenile salmon”.
There may even be enough of a connection, enough evidence, to call for additional study. But, I, for one, doubt it. Urban runoff runs off when it rains, rains bring water to the streams, when it rains the water rushes downstream, it does not pool and concentrate (at least, not usually). Streams dilute whatever comes in or the whole stream eco-system would die off from all the crud running off the streets of Portland, or Seattle, or wherever else the salmon are spawning.
So, yes, some salmon juveniles have local mass die-offs, especially near modern cities with a lot of urban runoff (but not exclusively). Salmon studies should test the water where the die-offs occur. Maybe they’ll find the culprit, and maybe, it could be 6PPD-quinone, and if that is confirmed (and it would take some exceptional evidence, in my opinion), then maybe tire manufacturers can change their formulations or processes.
But, the original study already had to be ramped back — overstated itself by over a factor of 8.
By the way, I too believe that all animate life contains Spirit — the life force unknown to Science.
Kip, I agree with most of that, thanks. However, I’d said:
You replied:
My apologies for the confusion about “ubiquitous”. Let me take another shot at explaining it. You don’t find, say, agricultural pesticide residues on every mile of paved road in the US.
But you do find tire tread dust on every mile of every paved road.
That’s all I meant by “ubiquitous”.
Best regards,
w.
w. ==> “But you do find tire tread dust on every mile of every paved road.
That’s all I meant by “ubiquitous”. Yes, ubiquitous in that sense, but not ubiquitously concentrated in regards to juvenile salmon mass die-offs. Not every mile of every paved road contributes to urban runoff and thus not to the point of the study under discussion.
That’s the madness of infinitesimal amounts of chemicals now capable of being detected being blamed for all sorts of things.
The poison is always in the dose. That’s why they test for LD50 — which this study got 8 times too high.
So, as I say, we’ll see if anyone in the biology/chemistry world takes this study seriously enough to follow up — and if anyone does, we’ll see what they find in real world settings where juvenile salmon experience mass die-offs.
The solution is to make EV’s lighter, principally, the battery. Reducing range is a goal, too.
Nothing to worry about here! When fossil fuels are eliminated, there will be no synthetic rubber to make tires, since synthetic rubber is made from petroleum by-products. All those EV will have to run on something else. Anyone for a return to wooden wheels? And, for that matter, what will the roads and highways be made from? No more asphalt and heaven knows how evil cement for concrete is. Anyone for going back to cobblestone roads? I’m almost glad to be soon leaving this insane world.
This is an argument for no cars at all, not just EVs.
No thanks
It’s nothing but hogwash! All this ballyhooing is based on a false study that concluded a passenger car or a single tire, looses ~9 grams of it’s tread rubber per mile! Absolutely false bull schist there.
Let’s look at some facts, actually measured from new vs used tires I have weighed:
Sample size – 5 different sized tires from small to mid size passenger vehicles. Same brand and model for both new and used.
Average new weight 9.35 kg. Average mileage to replacement 39,000 miles. Average weight when dismounted from the rims to replace them 8.443 kg.
Weight of the tread rubber worn off over 39,000 miles = 907 grams.
Tread rubber wear rate = 0.023 grams per mile.
So this “study” that claims 9 grams per mile, is absurd on it’s face because that would mean the entire tire would disappear after only 1,000 miles! (or 4,000 if they meant the whole car) No one with even 1/10th of a brain could conclude this figure is correct!
Further this study and much of the internet, says tread rubber comprises 35% of the tire’s mass. Again hogwash from actually changing tires and weighing them before and after they are worn. The tread rubber is only 9.7% of the tire’s mass, as detailed above.
Lastly, visceral evidence this is hogwash is to be seen on highly traveled highways. Where if all those tens to hundreds of thousands of cars per day traversing a spot, should be leaving dust evidence lining the roadways, concrete bridge supports, or retaining walls, signs, etc. You do not see any of these becoming blackened by rubber particles!!!
Given the root study this latest chicken little scare is based upon, having gotten fundamental aspects so completely out of touch with reality, I seriously doubt any other claim they make, including that the rubber particles from tread wear are ultra microscopic. Have you ever watched a car race? Open wheel cars are the best to observe what tread wear looks like, and the drivers call it “marbles” as they wear off the tread in under 100 miles or less and the rubber “marbles” litter the track at the edges of the car’s paths.
No the problem is not the rubber worn off car tires, but the manure spreader of so called learned papers on literally nonsense data or findings.
The other absurdity from these “studies” suggests that a compound used to attenuate tire rubber from cracking is water soluble! Are you joking? Tires are some of these most inert substances ever invented (they will burn, but do not dissolve in almost anything), and if any constituent were water soluble then how could you traverse even a light rain shower and puddles? (in fact tread and sidewall exterior rubber is porous, only the inner lining of butyl rubber is the membrane that holds air pressure)(so if this “bad” compound were water soluble, then it would be lost in the first few times you plow through puddles or drive in the rain for an hour or two)
The climate cultists are becoming so desperate as to make schist up to try to scare folks into buying their nonsense.
D Boss October 3, 2023 6:31 am
Actually, the paper I linked to cites not one but five studies on the question. The most detailed of them estimates the following losses in the Netherlands:
Passenger Car: 0.16 g/mile
Articulated Lorry: 0.8 g/mile
Lorry: 0.95 g/mile
That paper also details individual tire wear studies done in Sweden, Norway, the UK, Germany, Italy, Japan, the USA, Australia, Brazil, and China. Not one of these shows tire wear anywhere near the 9 grams per mile from your (uncited and unreferenced) “false study”.
And in any case, your claim that this “ballyhooing” is based on a single “false study” just reveals that you haven’t done your homework.
w.
We are so doomed.
>The particles are so minuscule that they can pass directly through our lungs and into our bloodstream, even crossing the blood-brain barrier.
Can’t comment on fish, but there is no evidence cited in these articles that tire/tyre particles can cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain. (There is no evidence that these particles, or the chemicals that leach out of them, cause any threat to human health at all in the concentrations encountered, except that particles in the 10 micrometer range can aggravate asthma and chronic bronchitis when breathed in.) Sticking to the brain, the blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a complex system of “smart” membranes, molecular pumps, and tight junctions between the cells that line the blood vessels in the brain. Most molecules that can cross the BBB (like life-essential glucose) require specific transporter proteins (“pores”) that grab the molecule on the blood side and cleverly spirit it through the barrier where it releases it into the brain side. Certain molecules like ethanol, morphine, and anesthetic drugs can dissolve their way through the fats that make up cell membranes but these are the exception. Water and oxygen are such small molecules that they pass freely. Otherwise the BBB in the healthy brain is nearly impervious.
A 100 nanometer particle cannot cross the BBB. However individual molecules leaching out of those particles could, if they were “non-polar” enough to dissolve through fat. However these molecules would dissolve their way back out by the same way they came in and would not accumulate in the body, or the brain, above the very low steady-state concentration.
People who smoke, or who lived in cities where coal was burned, are often found at autopsy to have lymph glands in their lungs full of carbon dust. These were the 2.5 micrometer particles that once breathed into the lungs tend to stay there until scavenged by certain white blood cells that migrate, loaded with carbon, to the lymph nodes. This does not cause any health problems. If 2.5 micron plastic particles are found in these same lymph glands, the onus is still on the worriers to prove that these particles are any more dangerous than the familiar carbon dust particles.
The advantage that people have over tiny fish smolts is that we don’t bathe and breathe in water heavily contaminated with these chemicals. It takes much more of anything to hurt us than a fish larva because of the dilution effect. Unless there is evidence that a certain chemical is accumulating in our bodies over our life-span to levels where it could hurt us (the way heavy metals like mercury, lead, and cadmium can) my advice is to relax, and concentrate on saving the tasty salmon.