2 points

I have long known that plastic “recycling” in less-developed countries meant bury or burn. Now it is becoming apparent that the same applies to developed countries too. Six percent actually recycled is worse than a joke, due recyclers’ contribution to micro plastic pollution. Waste-to-energy is the only way we’ll ever get a handle on the problem. Hopefully the dioxin-like byproducts will kill fewer of us than micro plastics themselves.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

We’re posting quillette now?

Jesus Christ how low we have sunk.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

I’m not familiar with quilette, but there was a great Washington Post op-ed that broke down exactly why trying to recycle plastic is a bad idea. Here’s a link to it, no paywall: https://wapo.st/3VRnTNl

1.) Plastic breaks down into micro- and nanoplastic particles and get inhaled or consumed by everybody, and we’re just starting to understand how these bits affect our health (like increased systemic inflammation). Recycling facilities breaking down used plastic release untold amounts of plastic bits into their surrounding environments.

2.) “Recycling” old plastic into usable material requires the addition of a LOT of brand new, never-recycled plastic. It’s not a process where you put in used plastics and get some amount of usable plastic out, recycled plastic is like 30% old plastic and 70% new plastic to hold it all together. This is a process we’ve been trying to optimize for 50 years, and the improvements are negligible.

3.) The recycled plastic we get out of it isn’t safe to use for food and drink. (Have you seen those 20 oz. Coke bottles that say “I’m 100% recycled!”? Don’t drink those.) Nobody’s laying down the law and saying they can’t do that, and it’ll be a long time before anyone overcomes the social inertia and corporate lobbyists to stop that from happening.

Plastics are for landfills. I feel like such a piece of shit every time I throw another piece of plastic in the trash, but it’s the option that’s safest for everybody. (I feel like the French climatologist in Project Hail Mary every time.) Recycling isn’t a goal that will help; we need to adapt and reduce how much plastic we use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

To dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism, a testament to their steadfast commitment to ideological purity over factual veracity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism

But there are sources that we’d doubt more, right?

In this case, I think the info is decent, since other sources say similar stuff and it makes sense withp previous info/experience.

Not related to science news, but I’m careful of sources with a right-wing bias in the context of general news. I’ve had experiences where they had exaggerated or twisted news. Not that left-wing sources are totally free of it, but it the scale n frequency in exaggeration seems different. And it often gets criticises by left-wing people too.

So, I am more careful of those rightwing sources. Am I a liberal because of that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The reality is that every source will have some sort of a view point which constitutes a bias. I think people should be careful with all sources, and it’s actually good to look at viewpoints from across the spectrum. You don’t have to agree with them or trust them, but it’s often useful to understand their perspective even if for the purpose of framing a counterpoint. If you know a source like quillette has a particular bias, then you just keep it in mind when you read it.

The sources I dismiss are the ones that can’t provide primary sources for the claims they make or are known to be factually wrong. These are the kinds of sources that constitute a waste of time and should be avoided.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Hold your horses pardner.

First of all, I didn’t comment on the merits of recycling plastic. I know it’s stupid. Everyone knows it’s stupid.

Second, the assertion that “To dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism” requires some seriously odd definition of “liberalism” to be true.

Third, quillette can go get very fucked all the way.

Fourth, “the epitome of liberalism, a testament to their steadfast commitment to ideological purity” is legit the funniest shit I’ve heard all week. You are accusing liberals of striving for ideological purity? Liberals?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Yes, libs value ideological purity above all else, and anybody outside the lib bubble can see that. It’s the most insular ideology by far.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science

!science@lemmy.ml

Create post

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


Community stats

  • 411

    Monthly active users

  • 344

    Posts

  • 680

    Comments

Community moderators