Face Masks and the Existential Threat of Dreaded Plastic! By James Reed
I love plastic, I like collecting it, and I like its feel. Plastic is one of humanity’s most fantastic creations. And I welcome the oceans becoming plastic. Marine life is not what it is advertised to be, compared to joyous plastic. I mean to say, what have the oceans ever done for me? Of course, the environmentalists disagree, but what about all of those wonderful Covid-19 masks, that they support? Why, that’s plastic, and it is generating mountains of waste!
https://www.studyfinds.org/3-million-face-masks-thrown-out/
“Two years ago, the notion that everyone would be wearing face masks in public would have sounded like something out of a science fiction movie. Fast forward to 2021 and face masks are the norm, not the exception. In fact, researchers find 129 billion face masks are being thrown out each month around the globe. That works out to three million masks in the trash every minute.
The vast majority of those discarded masks are disposable and made from plastic microfibers. With this incredible influx of plastic garbage in mind, researchers at the University of Southern Denmark are ringing the environmental alarm bell about the potential impact all those masks will have on our planet. They say it is imperative that society recognizes the potential environmental threat discarded masks represent; adding that people need to make every effort to ensure masks are thrown away properly.
“With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat and prevent it from becoming the next plastic problem,” researchers write in the scientific journal Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering.
How do masks harm the environment?
Disposable masks are not biodegradable and don’t completely break down, meaning smaller plastic particles (micro and nanoplastics) linger and eventually spread into the local ecosystem.
Collected face masks in the city of Odense, Denmark. (Credit: Elvis Genbo Xu/SDU)
The mass production of plastic face masks since the start of the pandemic is similar in scale to plastic water bottle production. However, even disposable water bottles include instructions and guidance on how to properly throw them out. Face masks offer no such guidance. This means people are far more likely to treat face masks as solid waste.
When users don’t dispose of plastic face masks properly, researchers say they make their way into nearby oceans and freshwater systems. This can result in tons of micro-sized particles (smaller than 5mm) appearing within a matter of weeks. Making matters worse, as time goes on those particles just become smaller and harder to detect and do away with.
“A newer and bigger concern is that the masks are directly made from microsized plastic fibers (thickness of ~1 to 10 micrometers). When breaking down in the environment, the mask may release more micro-sized plastics, easier and faster than bulk plastics like plastic bags,” the study authors explain.
“Such impacts can be worsened by a new-generation mask, nanomasks, which directly use nano-sized plastic fibers (with a diameter smaller than 1 micrometer) and add a new source of nanoplastic pollution.”
How can people fix the face mask dilemma?
Researchers can’t determine the extent to which face masks are polluting the environment, simply because there is no available relevant data. Based on modern science’s understanding of other plastic debris however, the team believes it’s fairly safe to say disposable masks are probably accumulating and spreading various harmful chemical and biological substances throughout the environment.
“We know that, like other plastic debris, disposable masks may also accumulate and release harmful chemical and biological substances, such as bisphenol A, heavy metals, as well as pathogenic micro-organisms. These may pose indirect adverse impacts on plants, animals and humans,” concludes environmental toxicologist Elvis Genbo Xu in a university release.
So, what can the public do about all this? Researchers have a few suggestions. First, they recommend every town, city, and local village set up mask-only trash cans. Then, officials should create standardized guidelines with strict enforcement to manage of mask waste. It would also help if as many people as possible switched from disposable masks to reusable ones. Finally, they recommend the development of a biodegradable disposal mask.”
Here is Natural News on this:
“In the United Kingdom (U.K.) alone, mask waste is now exceeding five Eiffel Towers’ worth of rubbish every single year. And yet we have not heard a peep from the climate alarmists about how all that filthy plastic pollution is destroying the planet at a catastrophic rate.
Dr. Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., says mask pollution is a serious problem that is being all but completely ignored by the establishment. Plastic grocery bags and plastic straws are the equivalent of a mass extinction event, we are told, but not the tens of billions of plastic face masks that are being discarded every single day, many in parking lots and on sidewalks where they eventually end up in lakes, oceans and rivers.
If the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) is really as real and as deadly as the medical industry claims, then all this mask litter is also creating a global biohazard situation. Chinese virus remnants could be brewing in the mesh layers of all those discarded masks, putting everyone who comes in contact with them at risk of infection.
“Masks act as air filters rather than barriers,” Dr. Joondeph explains. “A barrier would be one of those space suits with a self-contained breathing apparatus worn by researchers in the most secure biolabs like the one at Fort Detrick.”
“If such a filter was in the ventilation system of a bioweapons lab, capturing lethal viruses, would it be tossed in the trash along with coffee cups and candy wrappers? It certainly would not, instead considered hazardous biowaste, decontaminated, and disposed of safely.”
Those disposable, Chinese-made blue masks everyone wears take 450 years to biodegrade
Many people who wear a mask regularly are probably unaware of the fact that those disposable, made-in-China blue ones contain plastic materials that take 450 years to biodegrade. This means that for the next seven or eight generations, all those filthy masks will stew in the world’s water supplies and leach microplastics well into the future.
Since tens of millions of people wear these blue masks one after another, day after day – with no end in sight – there will effectively be untold billions of them littering the world’s oceans pretty much forever.
The environmental impact of this is virtually immeasurable. An analysis out of the U.K. determined that every single day in Great Britain alone, 66,000 tons of contaminated plastic waste is created from people wearing single-use masks.
Since many retail stores are still handing out single-use blue masks like candy on Halloween, people continue to take them, use them once, then throw them in the trash or on the ground on the way out to their car.
“How many will end up in oceans and landfills, contaminating water and food chains with micro-plastics?” Dr. Joondeph asks. “Will sea animals become entangled in elastic mask straps as they are with plastic six-pack rings?”
Another irony is the fact that fossil fuel-derived petroleum is required to make single-use blue masks. If the leftists pushing the man-made climate change conspiracy theory achieved their ultimate goal of completely transitioning to “renewable” energy, there would be no more raw material available to make these masks.
“The same ‘follow the science’ crowd is also quite certain that man made global warming will destroy the planet, now in nine short years according to climate scientist John Kerry,” Dr. Joondeph says. “Yet they are ignorantly or willfully paying no attention to the real environmental impact of the mountains of trash created over dubious COVID rules and mandates, such as masking up the entire population indefinitely.”
“Was it ever about the environment? Or the virus? Or simply a power grab by the left?”
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-03-11-climate-warriors-coronavirus-mask-pollution.html
And one which will hurt the Left even more, since most of them are dope heads, marijuana is producing a massive quantity of greenhouse gases.
https://www.studyfinds.org/demand-cannabis-greenhouse-gases/
“Although marijuana may be a natural product, it turns out America’s cannabis industry is becoming a lot less eco-friendly. A new report reveals that the energy it takes to grow marijuana in large quantities is sending greenhouse gas emissions through the roof, literally.
Researchers from Colorado State University say the $13 billion cannabis industry is a booming business across the United States. However, most of that commercial production takes place indoors. As a result, the gas and electricity it takes to run all these operations seriously worsens the industry’s carbon footprint.
The team adds that the problem shows no signs of slowing down as more states legalize marijuana’s use, both medically and recreationally. Study authors performed a life-cycle assessment of indoor cannabis operations across the U.S. Their report analyzed the energy and materials needed to grow marijuana commercially in each U.S. county in order to find the amount of emissions it causes.
What makes growing marijuana so harmful to the environment?
The results reveal the bulk of greenhouse gases come from the electricity and natural gas consumption involved in growing cannabis. This power helps to run high-intensity grow lights, regulate the grow house’s temperature, and supplies carbon dioxide which accelerates plant growth.
“We knew the emissions were going to be large, but because they hadn’t been fully quantified previously, we identified this as a big research opportunity space,” study leader and graduate student Hailey Summers says in a university release. “We just wanted to run with it.”
The report updates a previous study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers which looked at small-scale grow operations in California. Those results, however, predate the growing number of states to follow Colorado in legalizing the drug in 2012. Currently, 36 states allow the use of medical marijuana and 15 allow recreational use.
Emissions vary, but are still bad all over
The CSU findings reveal that cannabis growing emissions vary greatly depending on the area. Much of this has to do with the local climate and electrical grid emissions.
The life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from indoor cannabis cultivation modeled across the U.S. (Credit: Hailey Summers/Colorado State University)
Their map, however, captures the potential toll of growing marijuana in large commercial warehouses — measuring the damage in emissions per kilogram of cannabis flower. Those estimates also show that growing the plant by artificial means is astronomically more harmful to the environment than growing it outdoors or in a greenhouse.
Researchers find indoor cannabis cultivation creates life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions between 2,283 and 5,184 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every kilogram of marijuana. For comparison, the electricity it takes to grow the drug outdoors or in a greenhouse produces a mere 22.7 to 326.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
Although those figures, from the New Frontier Data 2018 Cannabis Energy Report, don’t factor in anything but electricity, they show the vast difference in growing the plant outdoors.
The study notes heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems create the largest energy demand, regardless of the local climate. For places like Florida, this means more dehumidifying systems. In Colorado however, the energy costs go into heating needs.
The team is now looking to extend their models to compare the tolls coming from indoor and outdoor growing operations. They hope such a review can help the nation’s growing cannabis industry deal with the environmental impacts of growing marijuana on a commercial level.
“We would like to try and improve environmental impacts before they have become built into the way of doing business,” researcher Evan Sproul concludes.”
That must really hurt the Left!
Comments