Oh, no.
"That's okay."
Then why didn't those plastic scientists just say so?
They don't know each other?
If they don't know each other, why do they say?
This is any kind of conspiracy to manipulate people, let the KGB and the CIA figure out who's behind this and for what exactly.
Did I tell the KGB and the CIA?
reprint
automatic translation
"That's okay": A Russian scientist is beating myths about microplastic
Alarming media reports of microplastic harm to human body and environment are greatly exaggerated, said RT Alexey Chochlov
Plastic microparticles are now 1 of the most widely discussed environmental themes. Media frequently emphasize the harmful effects of polymer nanoparticles on surviving organisms. However, as head of the Faculty of Physics of Polymers and Crystals at Moscow State University and a associate of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey Chochlov said RT that there is no technological basis for these claims. Khohlov claims that microplastic molecules are no more dangerous to humans than tiny particles of wood or concrete that happen in the environment in much larger quantities.
RT: Many investigation and media reports on microplastics have been published in fresh years. What precisely are they made of?
Chochlov: Plastic microchips are defined as fragments of polymeric materials little than 5 mm. These particles can break into even smaller pieces of micron size, as well as polymer nanoparticles.
We live in an age dominated by fresh materials. 100 years ago, the polymer manufacture practically did not exist. The widespread usage of plastics began in the 1950s, and now around 400 million tons of different plastics are produced worldwide annually.
The main types of polymers are polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride. These materials are utilized to produce films, packaging and so on. Basically, we are surrounded by polymeric materials; Life these days would be unthinkable without them.
RT: Is it actual that microplastic is everywhere, even in our food and water?
Chochlov: The molecular structure of polymers consists of long chains of monomer units. Interestingly, we ourselves are made of polymers, due to the fact that specified molecules are proteins, DNA chains and RNA. As far as their presence in the environment is concerned, particles from all natural materials and man-made material enter the environment.
Nanoparticles of dust, sand and natural polymers, specified as cellulose, can get into cells. Wood itself is fundamentally a composite material made of cellulose and lignin. Around 2.5 billion tonnes of wood are produced worldwide each year, while plastics represent only 400 million tonnes. It's a very tiny amount compared to natural polymers.
RT: How does microplastic affect surviving cells? Can molecules penetrate and interfere with cells?
Chochlov: Each material will fall into smaller particles as a consequence of environmental exposure. All nanoparticles can enter the human bloodstream, not just microplastics. For example, walls gradually break down into dust and sand, which besides penetrate the human body. There is no evidence that microplastic molecules are peculiarly harmful.
Humanity has co-existed with average dust for millions of years, and it doesn't harm us. erstwhile any molecule enters the human body, it is covered with biological fluids that contain fragments of bacteria, proteins, etc. Around the particle is formed a "biocoron", or shell composed of these fragments, so that it cannot affect the human body. This process occurs for all particles, regardless of their composition – including microplastic. For the body there is no difference between microplastic and dust.
Plastics now account for only 15% of the full solid waste. This is comparatively low and the concentration of microplastic in the environment remains minimal. laboratory tests with harmful effects are frequently performed utilizing very advanced concentrations of microplastics that do not reflect actual scenarios.
RT: If the environmental impact is not significant, why do you think the media and public opinion are so afraid about this issue?
Chochlov: due to the fact that the media needs sensational stories. The thought that wood particles can get into human cells is not shocking, due to the fact that wood is known to us and no 1 believes it can pose any threat. However, synthetic polymers are feared due to the fact that they are unknown and artificial. However, there is no evidence suggesting that they work differently than another particles.
For example, there is much talk about eliminating plastic bottles due to the fact that microplastics can get into water. However, further studies have shown that most microplastics in the water come primarily from polyamides, which are synthetic fibres utilized in textiles. erstwhile these fabrics are laundered, fine particles enter the sewage and yet into our waterways.
RT: Can we replace plastic containers with alternatives that do not break down into microplastics or those that make up particles safe for nature and humans?
Chochlov: There are always alternatives, but they are usually much more expensive. And in many industries specified as healthcare, the alternate is not the same. For example, we can control from disposable syringes and gloves to reusable options, but what are the consequences?
In regions where access to clean water is unstable and sanitary conditions are weak, disposable objects and plastic bottles service as the only way to avoid poisoning and infectious diseases.
However, it is crucial to make certain that plastic packaging is not carelessly thrown out, but are decently disposed of. With 400 million tons of plastic, 300 million go to landfills or incinerators, meaning that 100 million tons are not recycled in an environmentally friendly way. This is an crucial issue that deserves attention and action.
Moreover, the main sources of microplastic are not plastic kitchenware or packaging, but washed [synthetic] clothes, utilized automobile tires, urban dust, and even road signs and marine paints. This suggests that fighting a microplastic would require us to quit driving and utilizing washing machines. But what would that lead to? People cannot quit hygiene standards, and our current infrastructure and logistics are incapable to supply alternate solutions that would satisfy the needs of society.
"That's okay": A Russian scientist is beating myths about microplastic
Alarming media reports of microplastic harm to human body and environment are greatly exaggerated, said RT Alexey Chochlov
Plastic microparticles are now 1 of the most widely discussed environmental themes. Media frequently emphasize the harmful effects of polymer nanoparticles on surviving organisms. However, as head of the Faculty of Physics of Polymers and Crystals at Moscow State University and a associate of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey Chochlov said RT that there is no technological basis for these claims. Khohlov claims that microplastic molecules are no more dangerous to humans than tiny particles of wood or concrete that happen in the environment in much larger quantities.
RT: Many investigation and media reports on microplastics have been published in fresh years. What precisely are they made of?
Chochlov: Plastic microchips are defined as fragments of polymeric materials little than 5 mm. These particles can break into even smaller pieces of micron size, as well as polymer nanoparticles.
We live in an age dominated by fresh materials. 100 years ago, the polymer manufacture practically did not exist. The widespread usage of plastics began in the 1950s, and now around 400 million tons of different plastics are produced worldwide annually.
The main types of polymers are polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride. These materials are utilized to produce films, packaging and so on. Basically, we are surrounded by polymeric materials; Life these days would be unthinkable without them.
RT: Is it actual that microplastic is everywhere, even in our food and water?
Chochlov: The molecular structure of polymers consists of long chains of monomer units. Interestingly, we ourselves are made of polymers, due to the fact that specified molecules are proteins, DNA chains and RNA. As far as their presence in the environment is concerned, particles from all natural materials and man-made material enter the environment.
Nanoparticles of dust, sand and natural polymers, specified as cellulose, can get into cells. Wood itself is fundamentally a composite material made of cellulose and lignin. Around 2.5 billion tonnes of wood are produced worldwide each year, while plastics represent only 400 million tonnes. It's a very tiny amount compared to natural polymers.
RT: How does microplastic affect surviving cells? Can molecules penetrate and interfere with cells?
Chochlov: Each material will fall into smaller particles as a consequence of environmental exposure. All nanoparticles can enter the human bloodstream, not just microplastics. For example, walls gradually break down into dust and sand, which besides penetrate the human body. There is no evidence that microplastic molecules are peculiarly harmful.
Humanity has co-existed with average dust for millions of years, and it doesn't harm us. erstwhile any molecule enters the human body, it is covered with biological fluids that contain fragments of bacteria, proteins, etc. Around the particle is formed a "biocoron", or shell composed of these fragments, so that it cannot affect the human body. This process occurs for all particles, regardless of their composition – including microplastic. For the body there is no difference between microplastic and dust.
Plastics now account for only 15% of the full solid waste. This is comparatively low and the concentration of microplastic in the environment remains minimal. laboratory tests with harmful effects are frequently performed utilizing very advanced concentrations of microplastics that do not reflect actual scenarios.
RT: If the environmental impact is not significant, why do you think the media and public opinion are so afraid about this issue?
Chochlov: due to the fact that the media needs sensational stories. The thought that wood particles can get into human cells is not shocking, due to the fact that wood is known to us and no 1 believes it can pose any threat. However, synthetic polymers are feared due to the fact that they are unknown and artificial. However, there is no evidence suggesting that they work differently than another particles.
For example, there is much talk about eliminating plastic bottles due to the fact that microplastics can get into water. However, further studies have shown that most microplastics in the water come primarily from polyamides, which are synthetic fibres utilized in textiles. erstwhile these fabrics are laundered, fine particles enter the sewage and yet into our waterways.
RT: Can we replace plastic containers with alternatives that do not break down into microplastics or those that make up particles safe for nature and humans?
Chochlov: There are always alternatives, but they are usually much more expensive. And in many industries specified as healthcare, the alternate is not the same. For example, we can control from disposable syringes and gloves to reusable options, but what are the consequences?
In regions where access to clean water is unstable and sanitary conditions are weak, disposable objects and plastic bottles service as the only way to avoid poisoning and infectious diseases.
However, it is crucial to make certain that plastic packaging is not carelessly thrown out, but are decently disposed of. With 400 million tons of plastic, 300 million go to landfills or incinerators, meaning that 100 million tons are not recycled in an environmentally friendly way. This is an crucial issue that deserves attention and action.
Moreover, the main sources of microplastic are not plastic kitchenware or packaging, but washed [synthetic] clothes, utilized automobile tires, urban dust, and even road signs and marine paints. This suggests that fighting a microplastic would require us to quit driving and utilizing washing machines. But what would that lead to? People cannot quit hygiene standards, and our current infrastructure and logistics are incapable to supply alternate solutions that would satisfy the needs of society.
