Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

Learn the Surprising Truth about Plastics & The Environment 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
TugboatEng,

It seems that you have not watch the short Australian video in my last post, and we have seen many of them which show the plastic pollution in the cost line of China, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia. One of them showed the rivers and canals were full of plastics in Indonesia. When investigators check the source of the plastic waste they saw Australia, Canada, European Union and United Kingdom. Once there was a recent conflict for a ship of contaminated plastics between Philippines and Canada. Australian people bags in hand always collect plastics in the coast line once a year as far as I know.

(I have found the video I was looking for;




You can find many in the youtube by searching with “plastics pollutions” )

As you have touched in your post, the homelessness is another social problem that we need to solve. Every person has right to have a space to live humanly. Governments collect taxes for this reason, but many cases, they do work like a company to make money nowadays. I would not care about the reduction of value of home which belong to rich people either. Rich people may not need to taste homelessness but need to understand their condition, none would like to be in their condition which is mostly not their fault.

Regards,
 
Hello IRstuff. Good to see you again! Thank you TugboatEnd and hello saplanti,

The NGOs claim that plastics take 500 or 1000 years to degrade but they quote no evidence because there is not a single scientific paper to support that notion.
I'm not claiming that they degrade instantly but I am saying that a PE or PP film degrades at about the same speed as a leaf, so there's no logical reason to demonize plastics for being especially slow to degrade.
You're right that stabilizers are added. In fact industry spends $2BN per year on stabilizers precisely because plastics are so unstable.
A PP film with no stabilizer loses strength and becomes useless in less than one year at room temperature in the dark.
There are many papers showing PE and other polymers biodegrading.
I wrote the book and the website to show all of this along with the scientific citations to support the statements.
I takes a long time to spell it all out for each person individually on top of the 1000 hours I put into it already.
I wish that people would look at the evidence before they proceeded.

saplanti keeps stating that there is plastic pollution. I never said there wasn't and he would know that if he'd looked at the website or read the book (which is free).
I give the data for ocean plastic - there are not floating islands (even the captain who discovered the gyres says that). Most of what you believe now is pure fiction.
Plastics are under 0.5% of materials and waste. How can we solve our problems by focusing only on 0.5% of them and ignoring the rest?

All the best,

Chris

Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC
President

Plastic materials consultant to the Fortune 100 - As seen on CBS 60 Minutes, BBC & Sky News
Creating New Materials - Problem Solving - Innovation Keynotes - Expert Witness
 
A PP film with no stabilizer loses strength and becomes useless in less than one year at room temperature in the dark.
Click to expand...

Yes, that quote is in the website you referred to, but immediately following is the comment "For stabilized PP, lifetimes of over 20" Can't see the rest, but a reasonable assumption is that it's "over 20 years are possible" I seriously doubt that any plastic product sold and disposed of today is not stabilized, so a minimum of 20 years life, which is much longer than a leaf's. Actually, I'll amend that; plastic grocery bags have been engineered to breakdown in sunlight, but it still takes a long time, on the order of a year or two, which, I think is still longer than a leaf's.

image_mwovg3.png


TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Hello IRstuff - companies use the minimum amount of stabilizer possible, so, as I said a part will degrade at about the same rate as a piece of wood the same size. A PE grocery bag in under one year.
It's important to note, as explained in the book and website, that we don't want materials to degrade quickly. LCA shows that the longer something lasts, the greener it is.
Also, degradation means releasing CO2. Landfills are designed to prevent degradation in order to prevent CO2 being given off, so even food and newspapers don't degrade.
My goal as a scientist is to show what's true. Saying that plastics are bad because they don't degrade is a lie, so I point that out.

Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC
President

Plastic materials consultant to the Fortune 100 - As seen on CBS 60 Minutes, BBC & Sky News
Creating New Materials - Problem Solving - Innovation Keynotes - Expert Witness
 
But, trying to pin the needle in the other direction is, I think, likewise disingenuous; the website does exactly that, highlighting the sentence in the article that supports a reality that doesn't really exist, while ignoring the reality that everything is made with stabilizers.

And I've not yet seen any of my headlamp covers come close to disintegrating, even locally, and the newer covers appear to me to have even more stabilizers, because people hate them turning yellow or cloudy.

Frankly, I think it's a disservice to everyone to tout an opposite extremist perspective. A frank and realistic discussion would hopefully get everyone off the endpoints and possibly meet in the middle.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
On the subject of releasing halogens while burning plastics, it seems like this should be a trivial problem to resolve. Halogens form acid gasses when burned which are highly reactive. This should make removal by the use of scrubbers a breeze.
 
Hello IRstuff,
I don't think you would feel that way if you really spent time on the site or read the book. Everything is 100% true and in perspective.
I didn't say that normal plastic parts degrade instantly. What I said is that they degrade as a similar speed to other materials so demonizing them based on that makes no sense.
We spend $2BN a year on stabilizers for a reason. More durable products are better for the environment as proven by LCA.
Do you know how long paper lasts at room temperature? 2730 years.
You made the point that I should not present a view totally different to what we think now. Why?
My goal is to present proven facts. If they are very different to what we've been told, then so be it. That's not my fault, it's due to NGOs who misled us to enrich themselves as shown here: It's all explained in the book.
I hope that you do.
All the best,
Chris

Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC
President

Plastic materials consultant to the Fortune 100 - As seen on CBS 60 Minutes, BBC & Sky News
Creating New Materials - Problem Solving - Innovation Keynotes - Expert Witness
 
You're right TugboatEng. They do use scrubbers and it works really well.

Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC
President

Plastic materials consultant to the Fortune 100 - As seen on CBS 60 Minutes, BBC & Sky News
Creating New Materials - Problem Solving - Innovation Keynotes - Expert Witness
 
Demon3,

These are that you were claiming in your first post and my reaction was related to them;


“What did I find?
1/ Plastics are 0.5% of materials and waste
A: It might be true. But the remaining waste mostly recyclable, biodegradable, and do not harm environment. There are exceptions of course, nuclear waste, chemical industry leftovers, damp from ships, factories, untreated water and sewage release etc... but these are regulated and can be stopped. Plastics are not like that without regulation.

2/ Plastics massively reduce waste
A: if everything depends on human behaviour, therefore your claim is not correct. And depends on what we understand the term of waste. Plastic nanoparticles are the harmful waste.

3/ Plastics are usually the greenest option
A: The same again, it depends on what we understand from the term, green. My understanding on this discussion the green is whatever the material is does no cause problem on the living things in nature now or later.

4/ People cause litter, so blaming materials is unjust
A: This is the main thing. People litter, although we want that littering should stop and people should be responsible for it, this did not happen, will not happen. In the modern (this is questionable) society we could not stop many harmful things somehow. I wonder why?

5/ Plastics degrade rather rapidly (a plastic bag in under one year outside)
A: I guess I should leave this to the experts. However the subject does not end with plastic bags, there are many.

6/ Most microplastics research is junk and there is no credible evidence of harm
A: I left 3 youtube shortcuts above. The first explains and answers this. The other is the research paper below. In the same page with the research paper there are others completely reject you claim.

7/ Plastics are not a significant threat to turtles or whales
A: I think you need to watch the youtube videos why plastics are harmful for all the animals and human.

8/ There are no floating islands of plastic or “soup"
A: I guess you deny all the video evidences from the countries in my previous post. You have blind eye on them.

9/ NGOs have lied to us to get our donations
A: I do not know, it is possible.



This and scientific research papers in the website give evidence about plastic nanoparticles and their harmful effect.


I hope I did not misunderstand your post. Regards.
 
Plastics are proven to massively reduce waste and shown on the website and in the book. It takes 3-4lb of other material to replace 1lb of plastic.
That means that replacing plastic would not be a smart move.

Plastics are proven to usually be the greenest option meaning that peer-reviewed LCA studies prove they cause least harm.

People cause litter, so replacing a plastic bag with a more harmful (as proven by 25 LCA studies) paper or cotton bag does not solve the litter problem.

Plastics degrade rapidly. That's a fact and you can leave it to the experts - I am one of them.

Microplastic research is mainly junk because they use the wrong plastic, up to 10 million times too much of it and sometimes they soak it in poison for good measure.

There are no floating islands of plastic. That's a scientific fact. Find them on a satellite image. They are not there.
More proof Gyre Plastic: Science, Circulation and the Matter of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

We have differing views. Yours are based on internet gossip and mine are based on 2000 peer-reviewed scientific articles.
You cite zero scientific evidence and I back up every statement with proof.
It is easy to work out who is more likely to be correct.
Your certainty in your current views is not backed up by anything.
If you really cared about the environment then you would look at the scientific evidence.
I spent 1000 hours collecting it for you but you can't be bothered to look. Sad that you don't care enough to check the facts.


Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC
President

Plastic materials consultant to the Fortune 100 - As seen on CBS 60 Minutes, BBC & Sky News
Creating New Materials - Problem Solving - Innovation Keynotes - Expert Witness
 
Saplanti, you seem to be confusing litter and polution with waste. Litter and pollution are products of waste but waste is a product of production. Obviously waste can become litter or polution if handled improperly. But, I think it's important to make this distinction as I believe it is key to your disagreement with the OP.
 
Hello Demon3

I am not an ambientalist, i must said.. but I worked in the main plastic producer in Vzla for 20 years as a plant manager, Later as consulting Engineer a company ask me to recovery and dispose 30 TM of PU,PVC,PP,PE located into a warehouse for more that 20 years, nothing were degraded, only broken by mechanical reasons. No bio attack, sunlight effects on others..It for me, was a surprise.

I will let a paper about plastic degradation in the forest and sea, as good researchers need more investigation, they could not establish any proof of degradation.


Best regards

Horacio
 
Hello Horacio,

Plastics do degrade, that's why they spend $2BN a year on stabilizers. We want them made more stable because table materials are proven greener by LCA.
My point is that we've been lied to that they take 1000 years to degrade and that we should hate plastics because they never degrade. That's not true, they degrade at the same speed as leaves and wood.
Do you know how long paper lasts at room temperature? 2730 years. Should we therefore ban paper?

I just want people to look at the evidence instead of being tricked by NGOs desperate to get our donations based on fiction.
Have a look at this
All the best,

Chris

Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC
President

Plastic materials consultant to the Fortune 100 - As seen on CBS 60 Minutes, BBC & Sky News
Creating New Materials - Problem Solving - Innovation Keynotes - Expert Witness
 
I am not against the plastics as long as they are recycled, and not end up in the environment uncontrolled. This effects the life of living things, the food chain, the water and air.

Today there is an uncontrolled production of plastics, very few recycled. But the production continues using fossil sources, the amount of plastics accumulates.

I know that there are plastic products can last 100 years in operation. We all know that there are pipeline materials that are absorbent of hydrocarbons, but used for the hydrocarbon liquid and gas pipelines, and we all promoting them one way or another. When the pipeline is taken out of operation what will happen with these materials? They become part of our lifestyle. Water, drainage, sewer piping (mostly underground) are almost all from plastics, mostly PVC and PE. What will happen those after operation? Do you think they will be recycled as they are at that stage?
I would like to know all these since we are using them, the clients prefer them for their corrosion resistance and long life. In the end this a business for them.

I hope you can give me a short answer an the subjects above without directing me to your book.

Regards,
 
Hello saplanti,

Plastics actually reduce fossil fuel usage. Other materials take several times more energy to produce and that comes from fossil fuels. Only considering the fossil fuel used as a raw material leads to a false conclusion.

LCA shows that using plastics usually causes least environmental impact. Plastics are considered non-toxic. Some of the additives were found to be problematic and were banned, that's the same that happened to the lead in glass, using mercury and many other materials, not just plastics.

Plastics recycling is not as high as it should be in the US now but it's better to fix that than move to materials that take 3-4x more energy to make, create 3-4x more waste and so on. Many countries burn plastics to create electricity, just like they do for paper and other materials and that works just fine.

All of this is on the webpage or the short videos there if that's easier to digest.

All the best,

Chris

Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC
President

Plastic materials consultant to the Fortune 100 - As seen on CBS 60 Minutes, BBC & Sky News
Creating New Materials - Problem Solving - Innovation Keynotes - Expert Witness
 
Hi Demon,

You have not answered the questions in my previous post. I know which source that plastics made from;


Your only claim is that the other sources which includes recycling are more expensive than the fossil sources. Please tell me how are you going to get rid of the accumulation of the plastics that you have created. Is your solution to move another planet?
 
saplanti - I did answer. Plastics save fossil fuel, reduce waste and reduce CO2. What is your point? Our modern lifestyle creates waste and plastics massively reduce that compared to using other materials so why demonize plastics? If we want to avoid waste altogether, then we need to give up our lifestyles and move into caves but even then we will generate waste. Your arguments seem to lack logic. If you had watched the video or seen the evidence you would understand. I hope that you do.
I have spent 1000 hours and presented all the evidence for free. There's no point re-writing it here because you're too lazy to read it.
If you actually care about the environment then read it. If you don't look at the evidence then you must not care and you will cause harm through bad information. It's a shame.

Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC
President

Plastic materials consultant to the Fortune 100 - As seen on CBS 60 Minutes, BBC & Sky News
Creating New Materials - Problem Solving - Innovation Keynotes - Expert Witness
 
“Our modern lifestyle creates waste and plastics massively reduce that compared to using other materials so why demonize plastics? If we want to avoid waste altogether, then we need to give up our lifestyles and move into caves but even then we will generate waste. ” summarised your claim.

I have nothing else to say. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Xabi33
  • Locked
  • Question
Electrical resistivity of molten plastics 2
Replies
2
Views
10
Pud
Pud
LouisL
  • Locked
  • Question
Can PA66+GF30 be the thermal bottle?
Replies
3
Views
12
Pud
Pud
Charles West
  • Locked
  • Question
Stabilizing UHMWPE for the space environment
Replies
1
Views
7
Pud
Pud
eng10001
  • Locked
  • Question
Choosing the right plastic
Replies
10
Views
12
Carlos Gomes
Carlos Gomes
Demon3
  • Locked
  • Helpful tip
The Last Straw, Lies & Bad Journalism - some facts about plastics 4
Replies
12
Views
13
moltenmetal
moltenmetal
Back
Top