[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Study Finds Recycling Plants Actually Produce Tons of Microplastics We’ve said from the beginning here at the Daily Stormer: recycling is retarded, and the only logical way to dispose of plastic is to burn it. Now, obviously, you don’t burn it in your yard like a third worlder – that produces toxic gas. However, trash disposal plants that burn the plastic while preventing the toxic fumes from escaping should exist instead of recycling plants. In fact, “waste disposal pits,” i.e., “dumps,” should also be replaced with fire and burning. You could easily just get rid of all plastic on the earth by burning it in facilities. Most of it doesn’t even get recycled anyway, and just gets dumped into the ocean or buried underground where it pollutes the groundwater with toxic chemicals. It should all be burned. The reason they don’t want to burn plastic is that while you can catch the poisonous chemicals from being released into the air, you can’t stop it from producing carbon dioxide. As we all know, the government and media claim without any evidence that carbon is a pollutant. So basically, we are being poisoned with plastic – a real pollutant – in order to prevent the release of a fake pollutant. The Guardian: Recycling has been promoted by the plastics industry as a key solution to the growing problem of plastic waste. But a study has found recycling itself could be releasing huge quantities of microplastics. An international team of scientists sampled wastewater from a state-of- the-art recycling plant at an undisclosed location in the UK. They found that the microplastics released in the water amounted to 13% of the plastic processed. Hahahahahaha! How has no one tested this before???? They’ve been talking about plastic recycling since I was a kid in the 1990s! The facility could be releasing up to 75bn plastic particles in each cubic metre of wastewater, they estimated. “I was incredibly shocked,” said Erina Brown, the lead researcher of the study, conducted at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. “It’s scary because recycling has been designed in order to reduce the problem and to protect the environment. This is a huge problem we’re creating.” The researchers tested the water before and after the plant installed a water filtration system and found the filter reduced the concentration of microplastics from 13% of the plastic processed to 6%. The estimate of 75bn particles a cubic metre is for a plant with a filter installed. A majority of the particles were smaller than 10 microns, about the diameter of a human red blood cell, with more than 80% smaller than five microns, Brown said. Microplastics, usually considered to be any particle of plastic measuring less than 5mm, have been found everywhere from freshly fallen snow in Antarctica to the depths of the ocean, and can be toxic for animals and plants. The results also revealed high levels of microplastics in the air around the recycling facility, with 61% of the particles less than 10 microns in size. Particulate matter less than 10 microns has been linked to human illness. The facility was a “best case scenario”, Brown said, given that it had made efforts to install water filtration while many other recycling plants may not. “An important consideration is what other plants globally are emitting,” she said. “This is something we really need to find out.” Again, it is not even believable that they’ve never done this study before. The only reason they wouldn’t have done the study would be that the industry itself is blocking the publication of this information. Recycling is huge business, and you’ll notice this story is only published in The Guardian – not the much worse American papers, which are pure shills. The study, published in the Journal of Hazardous Material Advances, suggests the recycling plant discharged up to 2,933 metric tonnes of microplastics a year before the filtration system was introduced, and up to 1,366 metric tonnes afterwards. “More than 90% of the particles we found were under 10 microns and 80% were under 5 microns,” said Brown. “These are digestible by so many different organisms and found to be ingested by humans.” “For me, it highlights how drastically we need to reduce our plastic consumption and production.” Yes, you can reduce the consumption and production, and that should happen. Start with the plastic bottles. You can just use glass, you retards. Plastic doesn’t even save money over refilling glass with a 20 cent deposit. But there is so much of this shit everywhere, we need a way to rid ourselves of what already exists, and the very logical and obvious way to do that is to burn it. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Someone needs to ask how the plastics get into the wastewater of the recycling facility? The recycling center I work at currently keeps 300 tons a month (plastic and cardboard) out of the dump and the environment. ;)
It's those crappy plastic bags that supposedly decompose. They are marketed as being made from cornstarch or something, but I buried some of them once, as a sort of accidental experiment. They do not break down, they clump into sticky shards of gel. Nothing grew there, ever again. I was afraid to touch them, because of the fumes. If I were a progressive making up this bullshit I would have won some sort of prize by now. :)
They cannot bale PVC pipe since when they melt the plastic it releases Chlorine gas. But those N-95 masks they wear to keep fiberglass strands out of their lungs would do nothing to stop Chlorine gas. And what about those who work closest to the fiberglass area? They do not wear those masks. What about their lungs? We occasionally get strands of fiberglass on our clothing also. If that happens, what makes them think the fiberglass will not get in our lungs too? :-/
Government forced private sector to install asbestos. Government bans asbestos, forces private sector spend billions to hire mayor's brother-in-law to remove asbestos...
The Twin Towers were loaded with Asbestos. It was not removed but abated. This means it was just covered up. When those towers went down on 9-11-2001 all of that crap went up into the atmosphere. How many first responders came down with lung cancer? ;)
Of course I am just slinging accusations with no evidence. Isn't that what gets Democrats elected? Why shouldn't I give it a try, lol
There are no replies to Comment # 8. End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||