Showing posts with label Scientific American. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scientific American. Show all posts

Monday, August 20, 2012

"Plastics News" Misplaces Comments?

On Friday I discovered a plastics-industry puff piece in Plastics News online. The author, a "sustainability coordinator" at a plastics thermoformer, wrote that the problem of ocean plastics is overplayed.
Source:  http://www.plasticsnews.com/headlines2.html?id=26207 
Heavyweights fighting against ocean garbage had weighed in at the comments: Wallace "J" Nichols of the California Academy of Science,  Stiv Wilson of 5 Gyres, Nick Mallos of the Ocean Conservancy. I added mine at the end, being passionate about this problem. And having just written the Scientific American article illustrating how what we see on the surface is the tiniest fraction of what we're doing to the ocean. A small paragraph illustrating that it's time to kill the rhetoric, wake up, look at the "pristine" beaches of the world, and open our eyes.

Imagine my surprise this morning to find that comment mysteriously gone. It had no links and its architecture was just like the other comments, so there was no obvious reason to flag it.

Still, in a way it's good. It gave me a chance to reframe my comment and post it again. For the moment, the comment is up. But in case it gets "lost" again, here it is in full:


How exciting to have found this post. I just published an article for SciAm last week describing the massive amounts of sunk plastic washing up at a tiny deserted cove in southern Maine. What floats on the surface is literally the tip of the iceberg, and what sinks does persist, and is real. Despite whitewashes.

It's not a surprise that the plastics industry continually comes back to SEA's 2010 report and completely dismisses other work like that of Miriam Goldstein just a few months ago.

It's not a surprise that the industry helps scupper ideas like bottle bills and switching to reusable bags. These represent a cost, and the industry can't have that.

It's not a surprise that the industry still uses the word "recycle" shamanistically while holding a recycling bin as a talisman. Even though recycling plastic just adds -more- plastic to the world instead of less.

And it's not a surprise that the industry puts the blame squarely on the end consumer. As Stiv above says, even in nations where the industry has rooted itself before there were any form of modern waste-management systems in place.

What is a surprise is that the industry is still taken seriously as a concerned actor. As though people still believe it is working in good faith to solve a growing, worsening pandemic of garbage, and the loss of economic, ecological, and emotional vitality that such garbage causes.

It's time to cut the copouts and the rhetoric, legislate industry responsibility since it won't act responsibly itself, and start to change the game.

Please feel free to add your own thoughts & comments. I'm sure the industry would love to have respectful & honest opinions about how to build trust and make a difference.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Canning the Round Numbers

Scientific American online just published the following article of mine, reposted here in full:



Ever notice that we’ve got a thing for round numbers? We like our data neat and tidy.

The world of ocean pollution and litter prevention is filled with nice round numbers. Like those lists of how long various consumer goods take to go away once they escape into the environment...
Source: http://cmore.soest.hawaii.edu/
cruises/super/biodegradation.htm
 
But recent finds on the beach have me asking: Are those numbers actually any good? Take aluminum.

An oft-repeated line says that aluminum takes 200 years to break down. Now I’ve found old pieces of aluminum -- like this top to a steel can from the early pulltab era, most likely used on a Coke product c. 1971-72:
Found by author March 12, 2012, Bay View beach, Saco, Maine 
This bit of aluminum, 40 years old, is on its way to disappearing. In something maybe not too far from the 200-year mark.

But you see, I’ve found other pulltab-era can tops that tell a very different story. This one, also about 40 years old, is still in remarkable shape:
Found by author April 10, 2012, Curtis Cove, Biddeford, Maine 
On the flip side, this one, probably more like 30 years old, is more than half gone:
Found by author February 29, 2012, Bay View
And this very modern can is already turning into Swiss cheese after perhaps a year of exposure:

Found by author April 25, 2012, Bay View
It turns out, the breakdown of aluminum isn’t a set event, it’s a system. One in which all the pieces have to fall into place for it to corrode back to dust.

When iron rusts, the new compound -- iron oxide, Fe2O3 -- takes up more physical space than the old. That’s why rust blisters & bubbles out. Those blisters expose more fresh iron underneath, which then rusts, and on and on until it’s all gone.

But when aluminum oxidizes, the aluminum oxide doesn’t take up any more space. It maintains its tight bond with the underlying aluminum. It’s actually a brilliantly weathertight seal. An undisturbed piece of aluminum can exist for... well, indefinitely long.

Now if you take that aluminum outside its comfort zone pH of 4.5 to 8.5, its protective oxide film will fail and true corrosion can set in. But such pH levels are rare in the ocean.

So what happened to the aluminum I’ve found? Corrosion got a boost from something more mechanical: abrasion. Get currents to drag aluminum back and forth through sand and gravel. Over & over & over. Each scrape wears a little surface aluminum oxide away, revealing fresh aluminum, which then transforms into more aluminum oxide. Tide rolls in, scrape scrape. Tide rolls out, scrape scrape. Maybe something acidic settles on it briefly, dissolve dissolve. Do it just right, and you can erode away an entire can in a matter of months -- not centuries.

Do it wrong, and you bury that aluminum under inert protective sediment.

Which brings me back to those photos. For the first year and a half at my beach, zero pulltab-era (30+ years old) can tops washed in. In the past six months six have washed in -- four within one month!

Why now?

Well, in recent months a sand bar has appeared at my beach at low tide.
March 12, 2012, Bay View
Never seen it before, but it’s there now. All that sand has come from further offshore. Where it perhaps once covered, buried, and protected those old bits of aluminum -- some for years, some for decades.

The study of how beached flotsam changes over time -- and what that can say about larger environmental change like seafloor shifts -- is interesting in its own right. But for the purpose at hand, it’s just a reminder: The world is not a static place. It’s ever-evolving. Things get moved, stuck, buried, freed, bashed. Each piece of debris has its own journey, and can tell a vastly different story.

Here’s one last photo.
Photo credit: Tim Wolter
Obviously, this isn’t aluminum. It’s a hewn log. This week a friend pulled it out of a ditch he was excavating at the Roman fort of Vindolanda, just south of Hadrian’s Wall in northern England. The ditch was in use around AD 200 and was sealed about AD 213, making this discarded chunk of wood ~1800 years old! It shouldn’t survive. But because of the soil conditions, it did.

If organics can do that, aluminum can do it that much more easily.

A blanket statement, like “Aluminum takes 200 years* to degrade,” denies the fact that the environment is a complicated thing. Worse, most often it just isn’t true (noted well on NOAA’s Marine Debris FAQ page).

One beer can lost today will be around in AD 4000. Another one will be gone by next year.

If the “facts” on aluminum are so far off, what does that say about the rest of these lists? 10 years for a polyethylene bag to completely go away? Where does that come from?

So a word of caution to environmental sites. Posting, as fact, nice round numbers that have no relation to reality (other than the metaphorical stopped clock being right twice a day) does a disservice. It misinforms -- and it risks discrediting the site when a person sees different results with their own eyes. We should avoid the pitfall of pretending there is any scientific truth behind something that’s just, well, a nice round number.

---------------

* This number gets hedged sometimes, from “80 to 200 years” in one direction, to “200 to 500 years” in the opposite. More evidence that there’s little if any science backing it up.