Northwest Kiteboarding
Forum | Classifieds | Lost & Found | CGKA | Industry | Sensors | Forecast | Spots | Seattle | Decals | RSS | Facebook

Events | Photos | Search | Register | Profile | Log in to check your messages | Log in 

OT: disposing of plastics
Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast
previous topic :: next topic  
Author Message
C Johnson

Since 17 Apr 2009
844 Posts
Seattle
Opinionated



PostThu May 07, 15 7:49 am     Reply with quote

if I eat sand, it comes out in my poop because my body can't metabolize sand. This argument that plastic doesn't break down also means it can't be metabolized. So in other words it goes in as plastic, it comes out as plastic. Unless it gets stuck somewhere inside its going to come out the other end.
_________________
www.youtube.com/c/christianjohnsons

View user's profile Send private message
kitebug

Since 27 Apr 2015
40 Posts
Hood River
 



PostThu May 07, 15 8:12 am     Reply with quote

Hey Johnson, I did not know you were a little sea plankton microorganism... that is so cool. As you know, being a little sea creature, you're different then humans, you actually use silica (and in substitute plastic bits) to build you inner and outer shells. And because you're so small the small amounts of chemicals such as plasticizer and BHT leach into your little cells and disrupt your metabolic processes.

But I don't need to tell you, you're a little sea plankton!

Or if you are a human, or water monkey as I like to call them, then I'ld really like to be there to see you eat sand! Cool! And I'll bring some plastic dust you can eat all day too! Then you can top it off with a nice cup of BPA plasticizer.

Well at least since you are a plankton, it explains your simple once celled explanation of the world.

_________________
Be the wind

View user's profile Send private message
Kmun

Since 05 Jul 2009
194 Posts

Stoked



PostThu May 07, 15 8:20 am    Disposing of plastics Reply with quote

I commend Sasquatch for the inquisitive courage to seek information.
C Johnson wrote:
the WG 40 brochure is interesting but it really seems to only point out that micro plastics exist and that they MAY cause harm.
From what I can find it looks like they don't have enough data yet to understand the effects.
:

As for seemingly “inert” materials “eroding” away into a state of zero threat to the ecosystem; The evidence is overwhelming.

What you can not see still does damage. Yes, windmills are unsightly but invisible toxins from petroleum fuels silently kill. DDT, Agent Orange & yes, inert plastic.

Some common plastics LDPE (six pack rings), HDPE & UHMWPE can have psudo “inert” chemistry. In large form UHMWPW is used for human implants. However, that same plastic in its small particulate (microscopic) form becomes hazardous to the human systems (intra cellular, extracellular & triggering a systemic immune response. This paper is an example of how small “inert” plastic particles are even worse than their large form. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2488166/

Read the study. It’s a fascinating analog to the of the earth’s ecosystem. Basically it shows that the normally “inert” plastic components of a total joint replacement (knee, hip, shoulder, and ankle) will overtime erode off microscopic particles from its mother-source. The human system does not see the large implant as a toxic problem until the particles are small. Trouble arises when those small plastic particles become perceived as a threat inside a system that once welcomed their (large form) presence. The human systemic foreign body reaction mechanism of the body rejecting the material is not toxic but in fact an equally deleterious auto immune response. In short: The microscopic biochemical compatibility is “inert” but the systemic response to that inert particle is catastrophic. Ecosystems are no different.
As for this comment deriding Government intervention.
Quote:
C Johnson wrote:
Governments love the idea of stopping global warming because they can ask people and companies for endless amounts of money to fight this battle with no promise of anything in return.

The bottom line of those chemical corporations, agribusiness is profit at all cost. They have not been and will not be the moral leader. Government; “By the People” can be a largest lever we have enforce corporate slobs to slow their roll. If they can’t responsibly handle their toxic products cradle-to-grave, “We the People” must kick them out of the sand box. One hope is to elect a Government will leverage them to compliance. Without the EPA backed by citizen activist every town would now have their very own Superfund site. We must REQUIRE responsibility front and implement a watch dogs with teeth.
C Johnson wrote:
I'm not convinced the human race has enough influence on climate to reverse or prevent what is already happening.
:
Too overwhelming? The fatalistic conclusion that our ecological path is futile is short sighted because it is based on today’s technical limitations. Do not exclude the exponential growth in the understanding of science. Whether it is swarming honey bees pollinating our food, or a small swarm of robotic drones; simple entities comprising a communities all working in the same direction can make exponential progress. We can be a swarm of stupid-simple humans heading in the right direction. Until then, aliens will continue to fly by our blue marble because “it appears there is little evidence of intelligent life. They have no hope no vision."

View user's profile Send private message
C Johnson

Since 17 Apr 2009
844 Posts
Seattle
Opinionated



PostThu May 07, 15 10:48 am     Reply with quote

kitebug wrote:
Hey Johnson, I did not know you were a little sea plankton microorganism... that is so cool. As you know, being a little sea creature, you're different then humans, you actually use silica (and in substitute plastic bits) to build you inner and outer shells. And because you're so small the small amounts of chemicals such as plasticizer and BHT leach into your little cells and disrupt your metabolic processes.

But I don't need to tell you, you're a little sea plankton!

Or if you are a human, or water monkey as I like to call them, then I'ld really like to be there to see you eat sand! Cool! And I'll bring some plastic dust you can eat all day too! Then you can top it off with a nice cup of BPA plasticizer.

Well at least since you are a plankton, it explains your simple once celled explanation of the world.


lots of conclusions, negative emotion and sarcasm in what you're saying but very little information. I probably eat sand (and microplastics) every time I kiteboard. half the time I have to dig it out of my ears when its really windy. where is the scientific evidence saying this is bad for me. I don't care about what "may be bad for me" there's lots of things that might be bad but its pointless to worry about it when there are so many things that we know are bad that we can do something about.

_________________
www.youtube.com/c/christianjohnsons

View user's profile Send private message
C Johnson

Since 17 Apr 2009
844 Posts
Seattle
Opinionated



PostThu May 07, 15 10:56 am    Re: Disposing of plastics Reply with quote

I will read the article. Thanks for sharing. I like your hopeful outlook. I wish I could feel hopeful about our "goverment by the corporations"

Kmun wrote:
I commend Sasquatch for the inquisitive courage to seek information.
C Johnson wrote:
the WG 40 brochure is interesting but it really seems to only point out that micro plastics exist and that they MAY cause harm.
From what I can find it looks like they don't have enough data yet to understand the effects.
:

As for seemingly “inert” materials “eroding” away into a state of zero threat to the ecosystem; The evidence is overwhelming.

What you can not see still does damage. Yes, windmills are unsightly but invisible toxins from petroleum fuels silently kill. DDT, Agent Orange & yes, inert plastic.

Some common plastics LDPE (six pack rings), HDPE & UHMWPE can have psudo “inert” chemistry. In large form UHMWPW is used for human implants. However, that same plastic in its small particulate (microscopic) form becomes hazardous to the human systems (intra cellular, extracellular & triggering a systemic immune response. This paper is an example of how small “inert” plastic particles are even worse than their large form. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2488166/

Read the study. It’s a fascinating analog to the of the earth’s ecosystem. Basically it shows that the normally “inert” plastic components of a total joint replacement (knee, hip, shoulder, and ankle) will overtime erode off microscopic particles from its mother-source. The human system does not see the large implant as a toxic problem until the particles are small. Trouble arises when those small plastic particles become perceived as a threat inside a system that once welcomed their (large form) presence. The human systemic foreign body reaction mechanism of the body rejecting the material is not toxic but in fact an equally deleterious auto immune response. In short: The microscopic biochemical compatibility is “inert” but the systemic response to that inert particle is catastrophic. Ecosystems are no different.
As for this comment deriding Government intervention.
Quote:
C Johnson wrote:
Governments love the idea of stopping global warming because they can ask people and companies for endless amounts of money to fight this battle with no promise of anything in return.

The bottom line of those chemical corporations, agribusiness is profit at all cost. They have not been and will not be the moral leader. Government; “By the People” can be a largest lever we have enforce corporate slobs to slow their roll. If they can’t responsibly handle their toxic products cradle-to-grave, “We the People” must kick them out of the sand box. One hope is to elect a Government will leverage them to compliance. Without the EPA backed by citizen activist every town would now have their very own Superfund site. We must REQUIRE responsibility front and implement a watch dogs with teeth.
C Johnson wrote:
I'm not convinced the human race has enough influence on climate to reverse or prevent what is already happening.
:
Too overwhelming? The fatalistic conclusion that our ecological path is futile is short sighted because it is based on today’s technical limitations. Do not exclude the exponential growth in the understanding of science. Whether it is swarming honey bees pollinating our food, or a small swarm of robotic drones; simple entities comprising a communities all working in the same direction can make exponential progress. We can be a swarm of stupid-simple humans heading in the right direction. Until then, aliens will continue to fly by our blue marble because “it appears there is little evidence of intelligent life. They have no hope no vision."

_________________
www.youtube.com/c/christianjohnsons

View user's profile Send private message
wakeup

Since 11 Sep 2005
328 Posts
always
Obsessed



PostFri May 08, 15 6:47 am     Reply with quote

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/28/dead-whales-are-showing-up-bringing-us-a-message-stomachs-full-of-plastic/

View user's profile Send private message
beech

Since 21 Aug 2010
454 Posts
Longview, WA
Obsessed



PostFri May 08, 15 10:54 am     Reply with quote

"Whether or not what you do has the effect you want, it will have three at least you never expected, and one of those usually unpleasant."
_________________
Haole

View user's profile Send private message
Ho-Toe

Since 30 Apr 2014
162 Posts
pissed-off science guy like Bill Nye
CO2 quantifier & upwelling specialist



PostFri May 08, 15 12:50 pm    surface area/volume Reply with quote

"In large form UHMWPW is used for human implants. However, that same plastic in its small particulate (microscopic) form becomes hazardous to the human systems... "

Of course. The smaller the piece of plastic, the higher its surface area:volume ratio.

Plastics are comprised of lots of nasty stuff. Molded plastics even more so. And water is the universal solvent…

View user's profile Send private message
Sasquatch

Since 09 Mar 2005
1780 Posts
P-town
STACKED



PostTue Nov 12, 19 8:53 am    Plastic microfibers in your shellfish Reply with quote

Bummer, but not surprising. . . fyi:

https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2019/11/psu-study-finds-microplastics-in-majority-of-razor-clams-and-oysters-collected-on-oregon-coast.html

I'm blaming as those microplastics within the razor clams for all my too crispy/burned fried razor clams batches that I've cooked.

Plastic is hard to cook right. Too much heat it burns; and not enough it, doesn't get melted/undercooked.

Wink

_________________
GO DUCKS!!!

View user's profile Send private message
Flo

Since 02 Feb 2016
11 Posts
White Salmon
 



PostThu Nov 14, 19 9:21 am    Use of 6 pack rings Reply with quote

I just remembered that one.

https://youtu.be/J-QeTbmchvQ

View user's profile Send private message
wylieflyote

Since 30 Jun 2006
1435 Posts
Puget Sound & Wa. Coast
XTreme Poster



PostThu Nov 14, 19 9:56 am    Re: Plastic microfibers in your shellfish Reply with quote

Sasquatch wrote:

Plastic is hard to cook right. Too much heat it burns; and not enough it, doesn't get melted/undercooked.

Wink


We live out all our winters in rural Pacific coast of Mainland Mexico. Every night I see our neighbor Carlos tending his trash fire with kids playing all around. Always lots of plastic. I've even seen him burn plastic beach chairs and broken tables. This is once the daily sea breeze has left. The entire barrio is toxic outside.

_________________
CGKA Member
-------
Kip Wylie

View user's profile Send private message
Sasquatch

Since 09 Mar 2005
1780 Posts
P-town
STACKED



PostThu Nov 14, 19 10:59 am    Re: Use of 6 pack rings Reply with quote

Flo wrote:
I just remembered that one.

https://youtu.be/J-QeTbmchvQ


I used to watch the Simpsons way back when it was created and a few years after that.

Funny Simpsons episode. The show has been on SO LONG and I've failed to keep up watching it. Glad to see they are still coming up with some funny content.

And to be honest, I'd rather save up the time that it would take to watch the Simpsons and apply that to doing stuff outside like skiing, biking, and kiting.

_________________
GO DUCKS!!!

View user's profile Send private message
SalmonSlayer

Since 27 Nov 2005
646 Posts

Addicted

CGKA Member


PostThu Nov 14, 19 12:57 pm     Reply with quote

It would be near impossible to eliminate ALL use of plastic. However, it is really easy to reduce your use by eliminating all elective use of plastic. Just dont buy anything you do not need if you think we have a plastic crisis.


SUGGESTIONS
Any beverage except tap water.
All recreational equipment
Any activity such as elective travel. Planes trains and automobiles use plastic. If less were needed, then less plastic would be produced.
Any item you dont need. You dont need a One Wheel or the latest Sprinter van.
This list could go on forever. Just stop it. You are a 1%er based on worldwide income statistics.

Just ask yourself next time you want to to do anything that is unnecessary for your basic survival, "What is more important, the environment or my desire to purchase this item or service that is completely unnecessary for my survival". Your actions will tell more about what you think of this issue than words typed on a forum.

View user's profile Send private message
Nak

Since 19 May 2005
3763 Posts
Camas
XTreme Poster

CGKA Member


PostThu Nov 14, 19 4:41 pm     Reply with quote

SalmonSlayer wrote:
It would be near impossible to eliminate ALL use of plastic. However, it is really easy to reduce your use by eliminating all elective use of plastic. Just dont buy anything you do not need if you think we have a plastic crisis.


SUGGESTIONS
Any beverage except tap water.
All recreational equipment
Any activity such as elective travel. Planes trains and automobiles use plastic. If less were needed, then less plastic would be produced.
Any item you dont need. You dont need a One Wheel or the latest Sprinter van.
This list could go on forever. Just stop it. You are a 1%er based on worldwide income statistics.

Just ask yourself next time you want to to do anything that is unnecessary for your basic survival, "What is more important, the environment or my desire to purchase this item or service that is completely unnecessary for my survival". Your actions will tell more about what you think of this issue than words typed on a forum.


Your logic is fallacious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma By your logic if we aren't willing to cut back to the bare essentials of survival we might as well dump raw sewage and industrial pollutants into the Columbia. Or, if you want to prevent forest fires, you must eschew all use of fire and combustion. You aren't the only one making this mistake of course, I can think of at least one Congresswoman who's logic is unremarkable as well.

Pollution is unfortunately a given. The trick is to pollute at a level that the Earth's natural processes can recover from. In other words, try and live in a sustainable fashion. As far as plastic, not all plastic refuse is equal. Plastic bags and six pack rings are more apt to end up in the ocean and cause more damage there than say a plastic decking plank. It's all a cost/benefit dilemma. When we have something that is causing more damage than what we as a community find worthwhile--given the benefit--we should regulate that item.

Unfortunately both extremes on this issue are tossing logic to the wind. Slayer is just one side, and certainly his--and those like him--extreme positions are likely influenced by the extreme--and often hypocritical--positions on the left. I think it's important for both sides to realize that extreme positions won't work. For Slayer, I know you really don't want the Columbia to be a toxic waste dump. For the environmentalists, you really need to walk the talk if you expect to convince those that disagree with you. For instance: if everyone really believes climate change to be critical to address, why are EV and solar roof sales so small? I mean I know they're growing, but if everyone that is professing a need to fight climate change switched to an EV, the sales would be several orders of magnitude higher. Switching to an EV is both doable and affordable for a large portion of the population now. Running the numbers, it's actually cheaper in the long run to buy a Tesla than most economy cars.

Unfortunately logic is falling by the wayside today. We have idiots who fight more efficient freeway systems given way too much consideration and attention, even though their fallacious logic would saddle us with even more carbon output. People that should know better support international agreements that will clearly increase carbon output, just because some people who either don't know how the world works--or don't care--say it will decrease carbon output.

The Right needs to get on board with helping to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Left needs to stop promoting wishful thinking solutions AND they need to actually start doing something as individuals. Both sides need to understand that we need to prepare for the effects of climate change. It's coming, no matter what we do. We can mitigate it's effects and slow it down, but it's coming. If we destroy our economy by instituting disastrous policy, we will be in no position to handle the change. If we fail to try and slow it down, climate change will destroy our economy. So stop fighting each other, stop scoring "points" by ridiculing those that disagree with you. (This goes for both sides.) You accomplish nothing when you do this. Start trying to reach a consensus for action if you really care. That means tolerating those that disagree with you and try and educate them about your position. At the same time LISTEN to those other folks, they might have something to teach you too. Again, this all goes for both sides.

View user's profile Send private message
beech

Since 21 Aug 2010
454 Posts
Longview, WA
Obsessed



PostThu Nov 14, 19 5:16 pm     Reply with quote

Apparently the Chinese are getting ready to deal quite effectively with the "undesirable behaviors" of its citizens, if NBC news and Wikipedia can be trusted. I suppose this is one way to reduce littering, plastic use and carbon emissions! Shocked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOk27I2EBac


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

_________________
Haole

View user's profile Send private message
SalmonSlayer

Since 27 Nov 2005
646 Posts

Addicted

CGKA Member


PostThu Nov 14, 19 10:44 pm     Reply with quote

Nak wrote:


Your logic is fallacious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma By your logic if we aren't willing to cut back to the bare essentials of survival we might as well dump raw sewage and industrial pollutants into the Columbia. Or, if you want to prevent forest fires, you must eschew all use of fire and combustion. You aren't the only one making this mistake of course, I can think of at least one Congresswoman who's logic is unremarkable as well.


I was making a different point or at least attempted to make a different point. I certainly dont think we should do nothing and pollute away.

We see so much concern regarding the environment in this discussion and our daily discussions elsewhere. We want to make laws banning plastic straws and other efforts that restrict the choices of others. We also make efforts that raise the cost of energy which puts those on the economic margins in greater energy poverty. What I don't see is substantive personal sacrifice in consumption of energy or goods. There is a lot of talk about what WE should to or laws that should be passed, yet there is almost zero significant examples of people making significant lifestyle changes that restrict themselves in the name of lowering their impact on the environment.

I have nothing against people that travel to LaVentana e very year and buying new gear every year or two. People have every right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but then to turn around and express concerns for the environment and how we need to take action seems to show a lack of self awareness.

I hear we are having an environmental crisis by people that dont act like it on a personal level. If I may quote someone that has about zero environmental expertise, "HOW DARE YOU" . Walk the talk.

View user's profile Send private message
user124

Since 02 Aug 2012
295 Posts
Portland
Obsessed



PostThu Nov 14, 19 11:17 pm     Reply with quote

SalmonSlayer wrote:
Nak wrote:


Your logic is fallacious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma By your logic if we aren't willing to cut back to the bare essentials of survival we might as well dump raw sewage and industrial pollutants into the Columbia. Or, if you want to prevent forest fires, you must eschew all use of fire and combustion. You aren't the only one making this mistake of course, I can think of at least one Congresswoman who's logic is unremarkable as well.


I was making a different point or at least attempted to make a different point. I certainly dont think we should do nothing and pollute away.

We see so much concern regarding the environment in this discussion and our daily discussions elsewhere. We want to make laws banning plastic straws and other efforts that restrict the choices of others. We also make efforts that raise the cost of energy which puts those on the economic margins in greater energy poverty. What I don't see is substantive personal sacrifice in consumption of energy or goods. There is a lot of talk about what WE should to or laws that should be passed, yet there is almost zero significant examples of people making significant lifestyle changes that restrict themselves in the name of lowering their impact on the environment.

I have nothing against people that travel to LaVentana e very year and buying new gear every year or two. People have every right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but then to turn around and express concerns for the environment and how we need to take action seems to show a lack of self awareness.

I hear we are having an environmental crisis by people that dont act like it on a personal level. If I may quote someone that has about zero environmental expertise, "HOW DARE YOU" . Walk the talk.


Walk the talk requires sacrifice. Most people don't want to make the sacrifice unless everyone else does the same. People ask: Why should I ride a bike everywhere or pay a premium to drive an electric car so someone else can balance out my small carbon footprint by driving a giant gas hog vehicle everywhere? Why should I skip an annual trip to La Ventana so someone else can travel the world in their private jet? And to expect people to quietly make personal sacrifice for the greater ecologic good makes about as much sense as expecting people who want better governmental services to just include a little extra in their check to the US Treasury.

I get that you are personally offended by this perceived hypocrisy. But what you are missing is that quiet personal sacrifice is not a real solution to the problem because most people won't make the personal sacrifice anyway. Addressing the environmental crisis requires some combination of policy (like paris climate accord) and technological solutions (renewable energy) along with population control (like birth control and empowering women in 3rd world counties). The only way to achieve these things is to TALK about the solutions, and collectively decide what LAWS should be passed and what international policies and initiatives should be supported. But I agree with you banning plastic straws is dumb when we have so many bigger problems.

View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum