Author: Kylienne Clark

Plastic, Plastic, Everywhere

by at

plastic_pollution

The Good

Plastic is an incredibly useful material and it has revolutionized our lives.  Plastic is cheap to manufacture and easy to manipulate for countless uses. It can be thin and pliable, or hard and sturdy.  The use of this versatile and handy petroleum-derived material has allowed the mass production of products and has kept consumer costs down.

The Bad

However, plastic has a dark side. As a result of its versatility, plastic has replaced many traditional materials (i.e. wood, metals, glass, stone, paper). Has plastic expanded from revolutionizing our lives, to taking over our lives? More importantly, what are the environmental and health impacts of having this synthetic material literally at our fingertips every single day?

Plastic contains numerous compounds that have been accused of being endocrine disruptors and carcinogens. One of these compounds, bisphenol A or BPA, has been subject to scrutiny because of its likeness to the hormone estrogen. As a result, BPA in plastics has received negative pressure from consumers and has been outright banned in many countries including France.

Besides harmful chemicals, physical pieces of plastic also pose harm to organisms because plastic does not biodegrade, but instead photodegrades. When plastic is exposed to solar radiation, it breaks down into smaller pieces. Pieces of plastic become smaller and smaller until they become microscopic. This means, that although we many not be able to see it, every ounce of plastic ever created is still in existence today!

Solutions

There are many documentaries that focus on plastic and its overwhelming role as a litter nuisance and as troublesome pollution: Plastic Paradise: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, Addicted to Plastic, Plastic Planet, Plastic Shores, Bag It: Is your life too plastic? An overarching theme to these documentaries is the way plastic pollution is impacting our oceans and marine life. And people seem to be listening.

Clean up projects, like The Ocean Clean Up Project, have huge potential to remove plastic pollution from our oceans. However, these projects only target plastic pollution on the surface. According to the U.S. EPA, only 46% of plastics float. Therefore, these clean up efforts cannot reach more than half of the plastic discarded in our oceans.

 

Just because it is put into the recycling bin, does not mean it is recycled. Rumpke must manually remove all the equipment damaging plastic bags that are delivered to their facility everyday.

Just because it is put into the recycling bin, does not mean it can be recycled by your local facility. Rumpke must manually remove all the equipment damaging plastic bags that are delivered to their facility everyday. In Central Ohio, plastic bags should be taken to your local grocery store drop off.

So, while removing plastic from our environment is important, this only treats the symptoms of a larger problem: our large consumption of single use plastic products. It is important to recycle plastic when possible. However, plastic is a complex material, so to is the complexity of recycling it. Many factors influence the ability to recycle plastic. For instance the type, grade, and purity, as well as what method was used to manufacture the original plastic, can determine whether a municipality can recycle the product.  (Find out what you can recycle in Columbus, Ohio and where to recycle other materials.)

Better yet, we should break the plastic addiction. Reduce plastic pollution by choosing products that do not contain plastic. Choose a reusable glass water bottle over a plastic one. Avoid using single use items made from plastic (i.e. plastic plates and cutlery). Another easy action is to bring your reusable bag to the store instead of accepting a plastic bag for every purchase.  Learn more about ways to reduce your plastic consumption and read about the Zero Waste Initiative.

 

“It’s the little things that citizens do. That’s what will make the difference.”
– Wangari Maathai, Environmental and Political Activist

 

Want to know more about plastic? Watch the mentioned documentaries or read Jerome Groopman’s in-depth article, “The Plastic Panic“.

Eat Me! A Viable Solution for Managing Invasives?

by at
Silver Carp Nerissa Michaels, 2009, Illinois River Biological Station

Silver Carp
Nerissa Michaels, 2009, Illinois River Biological Station

Each semester, as part of their final project, many students investigate the impacts that invasive or nonnative species have on ecosystems. Of the hundreds of invasive species that plague our world, students tend to research three main invasives that are found in Ohio: the Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis), Asian Carp (a collection of +9 individual species within the cyprinid family), and the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Through the invasion of Ohio forests, waterways, and backyards, many of our students have personally experienced the destruction that these species are capable of.  Although their impacts can cause feelings of concern, disgust, or even intrigue, invasive species most readily burden people monetarily.  Zebra Mussels alone have caused millions of dollars in damage by obstructing pipes; significantly contributing to the $200 million cost that the Great Lakes Region spends annually to control and manage nonnative species.

The Cost of Invasive Species

Zebra Muscles The Stockbridge Bowl Association

Zebra Muscles
The Stockbridge Bowl Association

The negative impacts of invasive species is far reaching. It is estimated that alien species cost the United States more than $120 billion in damages each year.  In addition to this steep economic burden, invasives are cited by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a “leading cause of population decline and extinction in animals”. (View the Cost of Invasives Fact Sheet)

Some Solutions

While many management strategies have been suggested, none appeal to the senses quite like the suggestion of digestion.  By no means a “silver bullet”, creating a market for harvesting invasive species for human consumption has enormous potential. Not only would we be implementing a strategy to control invasive species but also one that would help us feed the exponentially growing human population. A story by NPR suggested that eating invasive fish species, like the Lionfish and Asian Carp, would be beneficial to our health and the environment. (Read the story – NPR, In a Fish-Eat-Fish World, Order Asian Carp and Lionfish To Save The Planet)

Good humor has sprung up in the wake of this movement.  Organizations like “Eat the Invaders”, pledge to “explore the most delicious methods of controlling invasive species”.  Their website divides species by land, sea, or freshwater, details the species’s ecology, how they came to invade the United States, and offers some tasty recipes. Not into fish or crab? Eat The Invaders also has plenty of vegetarian options to take care of various invasive flora.  (Learn more about Eat The Invader)

Eat The Invaders Homepage featuring a story on Lionfish, 2014

Eat The Invaders Homepage featuring a story on Lionfish, 2014

Creating a market for invasive species has had mixed results. The Lionfish, which invaded the Gulf of Mexico, and the Giant Tiger Prawn have successfully been turned into gourmet food. These markets have been successful in decreasing populations in invaded habitats.  The same cannot be said for Asian Carp. Repeated attempts to establish a domestic market for Asian Carp have never been successful.  Are American consumers simply not interested? Or do the unaesthetic Asian Carp suffer from bad PR?  (Read The Washington Post’s exploration of the topic)

Every management strategy has its challenges.  However, that does not mean that the method should not be implemented. Instead it should stand to compliment a myriad of approaches.  With a little creativity, today’s invasive species list could be tomorrow’s menu.

View the Global Invasive Species Database’s top 100 list of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species. You may find some appetizing selections.

The Continuation of Persistent Pollutants

by at
Rachel Carson, 1940 Fish & Wildlife Service employee photo, Public Domain

Rachel Carson, 1940
Fish & Wildlife Service employee photo, Public Domain

Rachael Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, was the catalyst that resulted in the eventual ban of DDT, which is a persistent insecticide with adverse effects on the environment.  However Rachael Carson did not solely focus on the impact of DDT on birds in this seminal work.  Much of the discussion in Silent Spring details personal stories, tales, and narratives of farmers, fishermen, and townspeople and their exposure to a number of different pesticides.  In nearly all cases, exposure to these pesticides led to their acute illness and untimely death.

Today, there are a number synthetic chemicals that have been banned due to their adverse interaction with biological organisms.  Some areas in the United States have been saturated so thoroughly with legacy pollutants that they have been designated a Superfund site.   “Superfund” is a federal program with the aim to clean up the nation’s uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in order to protect the environment and the health of it’s people.

However, United States policy still operates on an “innocent until proven guilt” system, which leaves the burden of proving the safety of chemicals primarily on the public.  As a result, we are still experiencing a flourishing chemical industry that releases a number of under-researched products; one of which may be the next DDT.

Columbus Skyline from the Scioto River Julian Rosario, 2008

Columbus Skyline from the Scioto River Julian Rosario, 2008

A quick internet search on “pesticides” reveals a number of current concerns.   Ian Simpson’s Scientific American article, Pesticides a Concern for Aquatic Life in Most U.S. Urban Streams, describes the “potentially worrisome levels of [agricultural] pesticides for aquatic life” in 90% of United States urban streams.  While the concern for aquatic species is readily apparent, Simpson also describes how people are exposed to agricultural chemicals through “drinking water and other means”.   This article is of particular relevance here at The Ohio State University, where the drinking water source for Columbus, Ohio originates from the Scioto River watershed.  This massive watershed, which also contains the Olentangey River, the Big Walnut Creek and the Alum Creek drainage basins, experiences intense agricultural activity within its boundaries.  (Learn more about Columbus, Ohio’s drinking water.)

In addition to surface water contamination, pesticides have also received criticism when used in wide spread applications.  Last month, an NPR broadcast told of an all too familiar story of blanket pesticide use in Florida.   In this story, the target organism of the chemical pesticide were mosquitoes, the same target as DDT.  Blanket applications of pesticides have long been known to negatively impact populations of non-target species and, in Florida, are thought to have been the cause for two butterfly species being placed on the engendered species list.  The “innocent until proven guilty” mentality allows critics to hold tight to the argument of “lack of causal evidence” and claim that blanket pesticide use is necessary to protect citizens from mosquito-borne disease.  

Listen to the NPR story “Pesticides Used On Florida’s Mosquitoes May Harm Butterflies”.

This situation should remind us of social traps like the sliding reinforcer which states that blanket applications select for individuals who are immune to the chemical.  The blanket application results in an obsolete chemical where the pest population is unaffected by the product.  Rachael Carson knew this social trap well.  In Silent Spring, she quotes the advice given by the director of Holland’s Plant Protection Service: “Practical advice should be ‘Spray as little as you possibly can’ rather than ‘Spray to the limit of your capacity’ … Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.”

Although the use of every chemical has its pros and cons, use always carries a level of risk.  It is up to the people to decide how much risk we are willing to take.