Microplastic-eating plankton may be worsening crisis in oceans, say scientists

The creatures are converting plastics from micron sized to nano sized particles amplifying the lethality in number and effects.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/microplastic-eating-plankton-worsening-crisis-oceans-plastic-pollution

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 6:03:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Microplastic-eating plankton may be worsening crisis in oceans, say scientists
>
> The creatures are converting plastics from micron sized to nano sized particles amplifying the lethality in number and effects.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/microplastic-eating-plankton-worsening-crisis-oceans-plastic-pollution

More British science journalism. There's no explanation of why nanoplastics might be more dangerous than microplastics (which don't seem to be noticeably dangerous in the first place). Nor is there any mention of the fact that nanoplastics have a lot more surface area to get oxidised from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates (not that they'd be carbohydrates that any creature would want to eat).

It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in teh UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks - about the only English language science journalism that doesn't is published in the New Scientist (and I still subscribe to that).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 6:03:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Microplastic-eating plankton may be worsening crisis in oceans, say scientists
> >
> > The creatures are converting plastics from micron sized to nano sized particles amplifying the lethality in number and effects.
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/microplastic-eating-plankton-worsening-crisis-oceans-plastic-pollution
> More British science journalism. There's no explanation of why nanoplastics might be more dangerous than microplastics (which don't seem to be noticeably dangerous in the first place). Nor is there any mention of the fact that nanoplastics have a lot more surface area to get oxidised from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates (not that they'd be carbohydrates that any creature would want to eat).
>
> It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in teh UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks - about the only English language science journalism that doesn't is published in the New Scientist (and I still subscribe to that).

The article links to this recent paper:

Nanoplastics are potentially more dangerous than microplastics

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-022-01539-1

The ill-health effects of nano-particles have been observed and studied for 40 years.

Human and environmental impacts of nanoparticles: a scoping review of the current literature

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15958-4

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:15:11 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 6:03:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Microplastic-eating plankton may be worsening crisis in oceans, say scientists
> > >
> > > The creatures are converting plastics from micron sized to nano sized particles amplifying the lethality in number and effects.
> > >
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/microplastic-eating-plankton-worsening-crisis-oceans-plastic-pollution
> > More British science journalism. There's no explanation of why nanoplastics might be more dangerous than microplastics (which don't seem to be noticeably dangerous in the first place). Nor is there any mention of the fact that nanoplastics have a lot more surface area to get oxidised from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates (not that they'd be carbohydrates that any creature would want to eat).
> >
> > It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in teh UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks - about the only English language science journalism that doesn't is published in the New Scientist (and I still subscribe to that).
> The article links to this recent paper:
>
> Nanoplastics are potentially more dangerous than microplastics
>
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-022-01539-1
>
> The ill-health effects of nano-particles have been observed and studied for 40 years.
>
> Human and environmental impacts of nanoparticles: a scoping review of the current literature
>
> https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15958-4

They do talk about the potential dangers of nanoplastics, but merely to emphasise that more work is necessary, with the implied subtext that they'd be glad to get the money to do it. The alarmist phrasing is designed to suck in potential contributors - they aren't high-lighting any identifiable threat.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:56:40 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

> It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in teh UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks

and its politics. and its culture. Is there anythng left?

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:22:10 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:56:40 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
> > It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in the UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks
>
> and its politics. and its culture. Is there anything left?

Tabby is a remarkably ignorant right-winger. He probably believes what he reads in the Murdoch-owned media - and is silly enough to read it.
I once subscribe to the Daily Telegraph for about six months when I seriously wanted a different job. Total waste of money - the ad for the job at EMI Central Research that I got was advertised in the Observer, but I did get to notice what the Telegraph left out when they reported stories that also ran in the Guardian. They guys that owned the Telegraph at the time ended up in prison. Rupert Murdoch hasn't - yet.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:23:21 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:15:11 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 6:03:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > Microplastic-eating plankton may be worsening crisis in oceans, say scientists
> > > >
> > > > The creatures are converting plastics from micron sized to nano sized particles amplifying the lethality in number and effects.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/microplastic-eating-plankton-worsening-crisis-oceans-plastic-pollution
> > > More British science journalism. There's no explanation of why nanoplastics might be more dangerous than microplastics (which don't seem to be noticeably dangerous in the first place). Nor is there any mention of the fact that nanoplastics have a lot more surface area to get oxidised from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates (not that they'd be carbohydrates that any creature would want to eat).
> > >
> > > It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in teh UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks - about the only English language science journalism that doesn't is published in the New Scientist (and I still subscribe to that).
> > The article links to this recent paper:
> >
> > Nanoplastics are potentially more dangerous than microplastics
> >
> > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-022-01539-1
> >
> > The ill-health effects of nano-particles have been observed and studied for 40 years.
> >
> > Human and environmental impacts of nanoparticles: a scoping review of the current literature
> >
> > https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15958-4
> They do talk about the potential dangers of nanoplastics, but merely to emphasise that more work is necessary, with the implied subtext that they'd be glad to get the money to do it. The alarmist phrasing is designed to suck in potential contributors - they aren't high-lighting any identifiable threat.

There's plenty of research in progress:

Toxicological impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on humans: understanding the mechanistic aspect of the interaction

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ftox.2023.1193386/full#:~:text=Laboratory%20studies%20have%20found%20that,al.%2C%202020)%2C%20growth

The really big hazard is the particles bring other substances, organic and inorganic, with them as they perfuse through tissue, something that is facilitated 1000-fold by being a nano vs a micro. This seems to be mentioned quite a lot in most summaries. Progress will be slow because the investigation is multi-disciplinary.

Here's a recent e.g. out of Perth, doesn't seem hysterical:

Trace Metals in the Environment

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/1132162

Are microplastics spreading infectious disease?

(Author has PhD in biology, https://www.carolynbeans.com/ mainly a science journalist but still credible)

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2311253120

Not going to spend all day on it, suffice to say the plastics are emerging as a major disaster...

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:12:52 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:23:21 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:15:11 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 6:03:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > Microplastic-eating plankton may be worsening crisis in oceans, say scientists
> > > > >
> > > > > The creatures are converting plastics from micron sized to nano sized particles amplifying the lethality in number and effects.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/microplastic-eating-plankton-worsening-crisis-oceans-plastic-pollution
> > > > More British science journalism. There's no explanation of why nanoplastics might be more dangerous than microplastics (which don't seem to be noticeably dangerous in the first place). Nor is there any mention of the fact that nanoplastics have a lot more surface area to get oxidised from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates (not that they'd be carbohydrates that any creature would want to eat).
> > > >
> > > > It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in teh UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks - about the only English language science journalism that doesn't is published in the New Scientist (and I still subscribe to that).
> > > The article links to this recent paper:
> > >
> > > Nanoplastics are potentially more dangerous than microplastics
> > >
> > > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-022-01539-1
> > >
> > > The ill-health effects of nano-particles have been observed and studied for 40 years.
> > >
> > > Human and environmental impacts of nanoparticles: a scoping review of the current literature
> > >
> > > https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15958-4
> > They do talk about the potential dangers of nanoplastics, but merely to emphasise that more work is necessary, with the implied subtext that they'd be glad to get the money to do it. The alarmist phrasing is designed to suck in potential contributors - they aren't high-lighting any identifiable threat.
> There's plenty of research in progress:
>
> Toxicological impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on humans: understanding the mechanistic aspect of the interaction
>
> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ftox.2023.1193386/full#:~:text=Laboratory%20studies%20have%20found%20that,al.%2C%202020)%2C%20growth
>
> The really big hazard is the particles bring other substances, organic and inorganic, with them as they perfuse through tissue, something that is facilitated 1000-fold by being a nano vs a micro. This seems to be mentioned quite a lot in most summaries. Progress will be slow because the investigation is multi-disciplinary.
>
> Here's a recent e.g. out of Perth, doesn't seem hysterical:
>
> Trace Metals in the Environment
>
> https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/1132162
>
> Are microplastics spreading infectious disease?
>
> (Author has PhD in biology, https://www.carolynbeans.com/ mainly a science journalist but still credible)
>
> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2311253120
>
> Not going to spend all day on it, suffice to say the plastics are emerging as a major disaster...

Or an area of opportunity for the pure research sector. They'll have to fake up an actual health disaster before it gets all that profitable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 05:19:02 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:22:10 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:56:40 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >
> > > It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in the UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks
> >
> > and its politics. and its culture. Is there anything left?
>
> Tabby is a remarkably ignorant right-winger. He probably believes what he reads in the Murdoch-owned media - and is silly enough to read it.

I don't bother reading it. That you resort to making silly things up says a lot.

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:16:36 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:12:52 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:23:21 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:15:11 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 6:03:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > Microplastic-eating plankton may be worsening crisis in oceans, say scientists
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The creatures are converting plastics from micron sized to nano sized particles amplifying the lethality in number and effects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/microplastic-eating-plankton-worsening-crisis-oceans-plastic-pollution
> > > > > More British science journalism. There's no explanation of why nanoplastics might be more dangerous than microplastics (which don't seem to be noticeably dangerous in the first place). Nor is there any mention of the fact that nanoplastics have a lot more surface area to get oxidised from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates (not that they'd be carbohydrates that any creature would want to eat).
> > > > >
> > > > > It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in teh UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks - about the only English language science journalism that doesn't is published in the New Scientist (and I still subscribe to that).
> > > > The article links to this recent paper:
> > > >
> > > > Nanoplastics are potentially more dangerous than microplastics
> > > >
> > > > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-022-01539-1
> > > >
> > > > The ill-health effects of nano-particles have been observed and studied for 40 years.
> > > >
> > > > Human and environmental impacts of nanoparticles: a scoping review of the current literature
> > > >
> > > > https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-15958-4
> > > They do talk about the potential dangers of nanoplastics, but merely to emphasise that more work is necessary, with the implied subtext that they'd be glad to get the money to do it. The alarmist phrasing is designed to suck in potential contributors - they aren't high-lighting any identifiable threat.
> > There's plenty of research in progress:
> >
> > Toxicological impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on humans: understanding the mechanistic aspect of the interaction
> >
> > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ftox.2023.1193386/full#:~:text=Laboratory%20studies%20have%20found%20that,al.%2C%202020)%2C%20growth
> >
> > The really big hazard is the particles bring other substances, organic and inorganic, with them as they perfuse through tissue, something that is facilitated 1000-fold by being a nano vs a micro. This seems to be mentioned quite a lot in most summaries. Progress will be slow because the investigation is multi-disciplinary.
> >
> > Here's a recent e.g. out of Perth, doesn't seem hysterical:
> >
> > Trace Metals in the Environment
> >
> > https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/1132162
> >
> > Are microplastics spreading infectious disease?
> >
> > (Author has PhD in biology, https://www.carolynbeans.com/ mainly a science journalist but still credible)
> >
> > https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2311253120
> >
> > Not going to spend all day on it, suffice to say the plastics are emerging as a major disaster...
> Or an area of opportunity for the pure research sector. They'll have to fake up an actual health disaster before it gets all that profitable.

They already have a health disaster, it's called the human race.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:24:56 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 05:19:02 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:22:10 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:56:40 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's more mindless alarmism. I read the Guardian for years when I lived in the UK, and it is an excellent newspaper, but its science journalism sucks
> > >
> > > and its politics. and its culture. Is there anything left?
> >
> > Tabby is a remarkably ignorant right-winger. He probably believes what he reads in the Murdoch-owned media - and is silly enough to read it.
>
> I don't bother reading it. That you resort to making silly things up says a lot.

That you resort to making claims you couldn't prove even if you ever bothered to try says rather more.

You are quite silly enough to read the Murdoch press. The fact that you prefer reading even more foolish right-wing nonsense doesn't let you off the hook.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:34:29 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:16:36 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:12:52 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:23:21 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:15:11 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 6:03:08 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> > > Not going to spend all day on it, suffice to say the plastics are emerging as a major disaster...
>
> > Or an area of opportunity for the pure research sector. They'll have to fake up an actual health disaster before it gets all that profitable.
>
> They already have a health disaster, it's called the human race.

It's not the kind of disaster that they can make money out of researching. The cure is trivial, but not one that the audience would find attractive.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney