Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Recycled Plastic is a Toxic Cocktail: Over 80 Chemicals Found in a Single Pellet

Recycled Plastic is a Toxic Cocktail: Over 80 Chemicals Found in a Single Pellet

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
science
23 Posts 15 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • bleistift2@sopuli.xyzB bleistift2@sopuli.xyz

    What’s the point of specifying ‘in a single pellet’? All pellets of a batch are the same. You don’t get 160 chemicals in two pellets.

    J This user is from outside of this forum
    J This user is from outside of this forum
    jol@discuss.tchncs.de
    wrote last edited by
    #14

    Maybe there’s only 80 chemicals in a pellet, as in, 80 very long molecules.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    1
    • N nickwitha_k (he/him)

      Been a while since I was in a lab (I was mainly concerned with squishy, squidgy things like microbes, so not quite OChem either) but, this looks accurate to me with a minor bit of pedantry that I had to validate before mentioning. BPA is not actually a plasticizer but a monomer/co-monomer (it does frequently get incorrectly labeled as a plasticizer in retail products). Notably in polycarbonate, which is something like 90% BPA by mass.

      A big issue with is the incomplete reaction of monomers, leading to things like room-temp leeching of unreacted BPA in polycarbonate (so glad that I took a Nalgene with me everywhere for years when I was younger /s).

      W This user is from outside of this forum
      W This user is from outside of this forum
      wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      wrote last edited by
      #15

      Thanks! Edited to account for “and other additives”

      1 Reply Last reply
      1
      1
      • A atzanteol@sh.itjust.works

        Over 80 chemicals!

        What bullshit scaremongering is this? There’s like 80 chemicals in a banana. Some of them are even radioactive!

        W This user is from outside of this forum
        W This user is from outside of this forum
        wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        wrote last edited by wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        #16

        That’s almost fair. The difference is: a banana is a living organism, and very few synthetic materials are supposed to have 80 differently-identifiable chemicals in them. This melange of death here is shit like dioxins, plasticizers, decomposition products, dyes and other additives, as well as the reaction products of all of THAT shit mixing at high temp in the melted plastic. If you aren’t afraid, then I don’t know how to help you, child.

        Brushing this off with some trite banana comparison is just making a Robert Kehoe out of yourself.

        N A 2 Replies Last reply
        1
        9
        • L Logi

          You misspelled “a minor bit of pedantry”. Sorry. It had to be done.

          N This user is from outside of this forum
          N This user is from outside of this forum
          nickwitha_k (he/him)
          wrote last edited by
          #17

          Thanks for that. No apology necessary - that was rather hilarious.

          1 Reply Last reply
          1
          0
          • W wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works

            Sucrose and cellulose are different-length chains of sugars, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same. Also, all of the additives in the many different types of melted-together plastic would beg to differ with your assessment.

            rivalarrival@lemmy.todayR This user is from outside of this forum
            rivalarrival@lemmy.todayR This user is from outside of this forum
            rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            wrote last edited by
            #18

            There isn’t a biologically significant difference between clothing made from various grades of nylon, polyester, polypropylene, spandex, Lycra, acrylonitrile, etc. You probably wear clothing made from each of these families or similar, related materials, each comprised of dozens of “chemicals”.

            But you’ll turn up your nose at the thought of several of these materials combined into a single pellet?

            W 1 Reply Last reply
            1
            1
            • rivalarrival@lemmy.todayR rivalarrival@lemmy.today

              There isn’t a biologically significant difference between clothing made from various grades of nylon, polyester, polypropylene, spandex, Lycra, acrylonitrile, etc. You probably wear clothing made from each of these families or similar, related materials, each comprised of dozens of “chemicals”.

              But you’ll turn up your nose at the thought of several of these materials combined into a single pellet?

              W This user is from outside of this forum
              W This user is from outside of this forum
              wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
              wrote last edited by wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
              #19

              After it’s been exposed to use and light for who knows how long, and after being melted together at high temperatures, inevitably higher than the decomposition temperatures of at least a few of the dyes and additives in there, because precisely zero effort has been put in to purify it before being slagged? Yes I will turn my nose up, and you should too. No self-respecting chemist sniffs chemical cocktails of unknown provenance.

              ETA: Also, your clothing note is a completely false equivalence, because the chemical at issue here is polyethylene, which has a far greater range and prevalence of additives than those polymers you named for use in clothing.

              1 Reply Last reply
              1
              0
              • W wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works

                That’s almost fair. The difference is: a banana is a living organism, and very few synthetic materials are supposed to have 80 differently-identifiable chemicals in them. This melange of death here is shit like dioxins, plasticizers, decomposition products, dyes and other additives, as well as the reaction products of all of THAT shit mixing at high temp in the melted plastic. If you aren’t afraid, then I don’t know how to help you, child.

                Brushing this off with some trite banana comparison is just making a Robert Kehoe out of yourself.

                N This user is from outside of this forum
                N This user is from outside of this forum
                notastatist@feddit.org
                wrote last edited by notastatist@feddit.org
                #20

                I dont know why you got downvoted, you are very right!

                “We identified common plastics chemicals, including UV-stabilizers and plasticizers, as well as chemicals that are not used as plastics additives, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals and biocides. These may have contaminated the plastics during their first use phase, prior to becoming waste and being recycled.”

                W 1 Reply Last reply
                1
                4
                • W wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works

                  That’s almost fair. The difference is: a banana is a living organism, and very few synthetic materials are supposed to have 80 differently-identifiable chemicals in them. This melange of death here is shit like dioxins, plasticizers, decomposition products, dyes and other additives, as well as the reaction products of all of THAT shit mixing at high temp in the melted plastic. If you aren’t afraid, then I don’t know how to help you, child.

                  Brushing this off with some trite banana comparison is just making a Robert Kehoe out of yourself.

                  A This user is from outside of this forum
                  A This user is from outside of this forum
                  atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                  wrote last edited by
                  #21

                  a banana is a living organism

                  So what? So is poison ivy. I wouldn’t recommend eating it.

                  very few synthetic materials are supposed to have 80 differently-identifiable chemicals in them

                  I’m sorry but - what the fuck are you talking about? Who is deciding how many different chemicals should be in any given material? What sort of of ridiculousness is this?

                  This melange of death here is shit like dioxins, plasticizers, decomposition products, dyes and other additives, as well as the reaction products of all of THAT shit mixing at high temp in the melted plastic.

                  Which is my point - the NUMBER of items in a given material is just scare-mongering BS. The actual ingredients is what matters.

                  If you aren’t afraid, then I don’t know how to help you, child.

                  If you don’t understand that the count of the number of chemicals in a thing doesn’t relate to that thing’s toxicity then I can’t help you either kid.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  8
                  • bleistift2@sopuli.xyzB bleistift2@sopuli.xyz

                    What’s the point of specifying ‘in a single pellet’? All pellets of a batch are the same. You don’t get 160 chemicals in two pellets.

                    BubsB This user is from outside of this forum
                    BubsB This user is from outside of this forum
                    Bubs
                    wrote last edited by
                    #22

                    It’s to highlight how common and widespread the contamination is.

                    You could say “We found 80 chemicals across a dozen facilities”, but showing how all 80 chemicals were in a single pellet highlights how widespread the contamination is.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    2
                    • N notastatist@feddit.org

                      I dont know why you got downvoted, you are very right!

                      “We identified common plastics chemicals, including UV-stabilizers and plasticizers, as well as chemicals that are not used as plastics additives, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals and biocides. These may have contaminated the plastics during their first use phase, prior to becoming waste and being recycled.”

                      W This user is from outside of this forum
                      W This user is from outside of this forum
                      wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
                      wrote last edited by
                      #23

                      Just people deciding that divorcing a statement from its context (plastics manufacturing) is sufficient to say that no alarm need be raised. As I said: Robert Kehoe.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      0

                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                      • First post
                        Last post