Microplastic beads can be found in common household products
such as facial washes and exfoliants and have been the subject of many recent scientific studies. These fine particles can be washed down
the drain, pass through waste water treatment facilites and accumulate in water supplies such as the Great
Lakes. It is hypothesized that these particles can have a negative impact on
wildlife. And so, over the past few years, organizations such as the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative have worked to regulate the use of
these particles.
A recent article
published online in Vice News addresses the growing concern over the
accumulation of plastic microbeads in the Great Lakes. This article explains
current efforts to regulate these particles by state and local governments. The
Vice article also explains how the pollution of these microbeads will harm the
Great Lakes environment and its wildlife surroundings.
In order to explain the levels of plastics
in the Great Lakes, the article cites a study by scientists at the State
University of New York – Fredonia and the 5 Gyres Institute in California. This
study documents the levels of microplastics in the surface water of the Great
Lakes. Samples were taken by trawling Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Erie. overall, 21 data points were taken.
The Vice article does a good job of citing the study to explain that
there are these substances in the lakes, and that they can come from household
products. Unfortunately though, this is the only part of the article that is
backed up by cited scientific research.
The article makes several claims about the impact of these
microbeads, and although they might make sense, and may be factually accurate,
the article does not cite any science to support these claims. One argument is
that once these microbeads enter the waterways, they begin to absorb pollutants
and carry them to the lakes. It is also asserted that, because these beads can
be the size of fish eggs, they may enter the food chain and cause harm to
wildlife through biomagnification. Neither of these claims are cited with peer reviewed scientific evidence and so I am hesitant to accept them as fact.
All in all, the Vice article does a good job of explaining
the issue of microbeads in the Great Lakes. They accurately explain the study
that was done and make factual claims about the products that contain
microplastics. Unfortunately, while seemingly attempting to increase the
importance of this issue, the authors make claims that are not explained
through peer reviewed scientific articles. Because of this, I would give this
article a 6/10.
Since these beads can have such a large size, I wonder if it is a problem for smaller fish ingesting these beads and then having them get stuck in their digestive track because they don't decompose easily.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me the wastewater video we watched on Monday. People's activities contaminate water and contaminated water will affect the ecosystem and people's health eventually.
ReplyDeleteHmm,
ReplyDeleteI guess I understand the importance of addressing the pollution effects of plastic particularly regarding beads. I'm more curious how big of a problem this really is. The figures in the research paper don't make any sense to me ha
The article goes into legislation, so I assume this piece was trying to give context to the problem and wasn't directly summarizing the scientific evidence.
Cool topic!
I read into some of the peer-reviewed articles that the Eriksen paper cites behind the hypothesis of pollutant congregation onto plastic pollutants. The methods and conclusions they provide seem legitimate as far as I can tell. It is very frustrating, though, that doubt can be put into the science when articles like the Vice one you linked has minimal scientific evidence and background provided. I understand they have to keep their article plausible for a casual reader, but the article is just filled with extremist jargon without much science provided behind all the claims they have.
ReplyDeletebehind all the claims they make.*
DeleteReally interesting article! I'm curious to see how this is going to affect regulation and policy on a national level, if at all. It was also interesting that the article brought to light the economical incentives for companies to continue their use of microbeads, despite natural alternatives that may work more effectively.
ReplyDeleteUpon a quick search, I found an article mentioning microbead filtering in aquatic environments. I'm curious if this would be a feasible option to phase out microbead pollution in major water systems.
This is a very interesting and timely topic, it seems these microbeads are a large area of concern scientifically and in the public interest. I think your post does bring up an interesting issue of scientific reporting. Namely, at what level does the writer need to cite peer reviewed literature in their articles to strike a balance between the popular audience and scientific credibility? Vice seems to use quotations from what are assumed to be credible people over actually finding research articles for each of their claims. I'm not sure if that is the best way to go about being scientifically sound, but I think it is at least somewhat better than simply having the author make completely unsubstantiated statements.
ReplyDelete