Hurricane Larry Dropped Over 100,000 Microplastics Per Square Meter Per Day, Study Finds 74
When hurricane Larry made landfall in the Atlantic in 2021, it was depositing over 100,000 microplastics per square meter of land per day. The findings have been published in the journal Communications Earth and Environment. Wired reports: As hurricane Larry curved north in the Atlantic in 2021, sparing the eastern seaboard of the United States, a special instrument was waiting for it on the coast of Newfoundland. Because hurricanes feed on warm ocean water, scientists wondered whether such a storm could pick up microplastics from the sea surface and deposit them when it made landfall. Larry was literally a perfect storm: Because it hadn't touched land before reaching the island, anything it dropped would have been scavenged from the water or air, as opposed to, say, a highly populated city, where you'd expect to find lots of microplastics. [...]
The instrument in a clearing on Newfoundland was quite simple: a glass cylinder, holding a little bit of ultrapure water, securely attached to the ground with wooden stakes. Every six hours before, during, and after the hurricane, the researchers would come and empty out the water, which would have collected any particles falling -- both with and without rain -- on Newfoundland. "It's just a place that experiences a lot of extreme weather events," says Earth scientist Anna Ryan of Dalhousie University, lead author of the paper. "Also, it's fairly remote, and it's got a pretty low population density. So you don't have a bunch of nearby sources of microplastics."
The team found that even before and after Larry, tens of thousands of microplastics fell per square meter of land per day. But when the hurricane hit, that figure spiked up to 113,000. "We found a lot of microplastics deposited during the peak of the hurricane," says Ryan, "but also, overall deposition was relatively high compared to previous studies." These studies were done during normal conditions, but in more remote locations, she says. The researchers also used a technique known as back trajectory modeling -- basically simulating where the air that arrived at the instrument had been previously. That confirmed that Larry had picked up the microplastics at sea, lofted them into the air, and dumped them on Newfoundland. [...] The Newfoundland study notes that Larry happened to pass over the garbage patch of the North Atlantic Gyre, where currents accumulate floating plastic.
The instrument in a clearing on Newfoundland was quite simple: a glass cylinder, holding a little bit of ultrapure water, securely attached to the ground with wooden stakes. Every six hours before, during, and after the hurricane, the researchers would come and empty out the water, which would have collected any particles falling -- both with and without rain -- on Newfoundland. "It's just a place that experiences a lot of extreme weather events," says Earth scientist Anna Ryan of Dalhousie University, lead author of the paper. "Also, it's fairly remote, and it's got a pretty low population density. So you don't have a bunch of nearby sources of microplastics."
The team found that even before and after Larry, tens of thousands of microplastics fell per square meter of land per day. But when the hurricane hit, that figure spiked up to 113,000. "We found a lot of microplastics deposited during the peak of the hurricane," says Ryan, "but also, overall deposition was relatively high compared to previous studies." These studies were done during normal conditions, but in more remote locations, she says. The researchers also used a technique known as back trajectory modeling -- basically simulating where the air that arrived at the instrument had been previously. That confirmed that Larry had picked up the microplastics at sea, lofted them into the air, and dumped them on Newfoundland. [...] The Newfoundland study notes that Larry happened to pass over the garbage patch of the North Atlantic Gyre, where currents accumulate floating plastic.
Bugs in a jam jar (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who has done a computer simulation course has done the "bugs in a jam jar" simulation, where you run a population sim with food and pollution modelled, and watch as the population exponentially climbs before collapse from either overpopulation or over pollution.
For some reason, most people seem to think that humans are immune to this fate too. I guess we will have to find out the hard way.
Re: (Score:3)
Humans are smarter than insects. We can't avoid this forever, but we can do so for long enough that it may not matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Humans are smarter than insects.
Sometimes I doubt that.
Re:Bugs in a jam jar (Score:5, Funny)
Humans are smarter than insects.
You don't deal with humans a lot, do you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Our current society is built around perpetual growth to the point that population growth close to zero is seen as a huge crisis, and our financial systems and economy is also dependent on this, with zero growth seen as a huge problem for economic prosperity.
The reality of course is that the more population there is, the fewer resources in terms of living space, arable land to grow food, energy resources (whether renewable or not) there are for everyone, and the more pollution that is generated which inevita
Re:Bugs in a jam jar (Score:4, Informative)
Our current society is built around perpetual growth to the point that population growth close to zero is seen as a huge crisis, and our financial systems and economy is also dependent on this, with zero growth seen as a huge problem for economic prosperity.
The reality of course is that the more population there is, the fewer resources in terms of living space, arable land to grow food, energy resources (whether renewable or not) there are for everyone, and the more pollution that is generated which inevitably leads to further reduction in environment. We should be focusing on how to get more quality of life per capita, through increases in efficiency and better technology, rather than trying to achieve growth through more population, longer hours and lower relative wages.
The problem with your closing argument is that the people who make society-wide decisions, the big movers and shakers, do not want to make better quality of life for everyone. They want better quality of life for themselves. To the point where they obsess over "lost profits" when they don't see increases in profits every quarter, regardless of the cost of society at large. Any attempt to change our current trajectory will have a negative impact on Wall Street, the owner class, and by extension, the owner class's slaves, the world governments. And those folks are going to do everything they can to keep their grip on the world held tight. Brainwashing and propaganda are used to convince huge swaths of folks that can barely afford to eat and keep a roof over their heads that the only way forward is more of the same, and they've spent enough time gutting education that people believe it outright.
We're headed for a much darker time before we're going to see this turn around. Until the negative impacts we're feeling on the bottom and middle rungs of society are actually touching those in power positions, with the ability to make real change, nothing will change. And it's awfully hard to see how that can happen with the way our societies are currently set up. Abstraction layers and separation between decision makers and the people whose lives are affecting by those decisions keep us traveling the wrong path, but it's a profitable path for those decision makers and their friends, so why would they ever want to change it?
Re: Bugs in a jam jar (Score:2)
"Humans are smarter than insects."
Error: claim made without proof
Re:Bugs in a jam jar (Score:4, Informative)
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” - George Carlin
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so officially...no one agrees with my premise.
So we're doomed!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, more along the lines of: an individual human is capable of reason and of making intelligent decisions. (It's not guaranteed, but certainly possible.) But trying to get a group of people to collectively make a rational, intelligent decision for their own good? Just take a look at the US Congress, or the recently-concluded COP28, and one questions whether we really are that much smarter than common animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry these people are talking about themselves because they are too stupid to realize that 4 out of the last 5 posts are the same lame joke that bugs are smarter than people.
Re: (Score:2)
Lighten up, broh.
Re: (Score:2)
“Think of how stupid the median person is,...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
John Calhoun's work suggests that overpopulation is not a thing. If the population density becomes too high, individuals stop reproducing, ultimately leading to population collapse.
I've done a computer simulation course, but it didn't involve evolution of populations, it was mostly about trains. The evolution of populations was more a subject of chaos theory.
Re: (Score:2)
John Calhoun's work suggests that overpopulation is not a thing. If the population density becomes too high, individuals stop reproducing, ultimately leading to population collapse.
Since this has never happened once in any other species, I think John Calhoun is pretty much talking out of his behind.
At least it allows us to keep going with our funny "exponential growth in a closed system" pyramid scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you prove a negative?
Re: (Score:2)
But do they?
We see that when there is a certain level of wealth and opportunity. We don't really see it otherwise. The correlation is far from perfect, but many of the biggest sources of migrants are also the place that still have birth rates in great excess of the replacement rate.
the dynamics might be more complex than than compsci-101 jam jar simulations and yeast cultures, but I am not convinced our species won't simply fill the jar as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be rather surprising if more people migrated from sparsely populated places than highly populated places, in terms of absolute numbers. Even a small fraction of a large population will outnumber a large fraction of a small population.
Most migration takes place inside countries, not between them, which is also not surprising. Moving to a different country always means taking a risk in leaving behind the familiar.
Almost all migration is from the countryside to the cities. Almost half of the planet
Re: Bugs in a jam jar (Score:2)
" If the population density becomes too high, individuals stop reproducing, ultimately leading to population collapse."
It's different from species to species and every other species has some kind of natural limiting factor. They run out of food, or their predators reproduce and begin to thin their numbers.
Humans' only common predator is other humans so the limiting factor will be food or self-limitation. And the latter comes in many forms. Or of course disease. Some human societies are intentionally self li
Re: (Score:2)
In many countries, and especially in cities, reproduction rate among humans is below replacement level. Not because food is scarce or because of disease.
The best predictor for low birth rates is the education level of women.
Other contributing factors are low child mortality, and social safety.
The reproduction rate always increases after wars, famines, pandemics, and other disasters. Those seem to be the opposite of limiting factors.
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently people haven't heard of the Mouse Utopia experiment. It was interesting stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even then - the average woman - AVERAGE - in 1800 was 7. Imagine that - women in 1800, in an age where poor sanitation, dearth of hospitals, lack of modern medicine - wound up having 7 children without the benefit of any of that stuff.
Child mortality was definitely high - 462 per thousand births - so even if 46% of those born died by their 5th birthday, familes were still pretty big - that works out to be about 4 children per family on average - many were much larger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - this is a major part of my point. 200 years ago, people had way more children than they do now, and did so healthfully. Half of all women had 7 or more children! While child mortality was a huge problem, maternal mortality was way lower than most people realize.
Re: (Score:2)
I had trouble with that simulation because I didn't realize you were supposed to take the jam out first.
I am yet to see a human die from "microplastics". (Score:2)
Hint: Most of it is literally polyester dust. You know, that stuff produced by the bees. [scientificamerican.com]
You know, for kids. [amazon.com] Only there we call it "minky fabric" [joann.com].
To stop mothers and other Karens (male, female and otherwise) from complaining about things they clearly know neither jack nor shit about.
Also, we've been making plastics for over a hundred years now. And contrary to popular bullshit - its been falling apart ever since. [science.org]
Meanwhile, since the introduction of plastics, world population quintupled to over 8 billion and
100,000 microplastics per square meter (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a lot - it's too bad nowhere in the entire article states what that means in terms of actual mass, since that would be more relatable.
Re: 100,000 microplastics per square meter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are estimates ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] ) which put the average weight of an individual particle at between 4 and 6 micrograms. So, 100k * 5 ug = 100*5mg = 0.5g/sq. meter or somesuch.
Re:100,000 microplastics per square meter (Score:5, Informative)
So, 100k * 5 ug = 100*5mg = 0.5g/sq. meter or somesuch.
The area of the ocean is 360 trillion square meters. Half a gram per square meter is 180 trillion grams = 180 billion kg = 180 million metric tonnes.
Google's AI engine says, "As of 2023, there are an estimated 75 to 199 million tons of plastic waste in the ocean."
So that's in the right ballpark.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a lot - it's too bad nowhere in the entire article states what that means in terms of actual mass, since that would be more relatable.
Now do your math. https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
While agonzising over relatable statistics such as total poundage has it's place what is far more concerning about micro and n
Re:100,000 microplastics per square meter (Score:5, Interesting)
The key problem here is that the crap is everywhere. And that you get it everywhere. Inside your stomach, and, more critically, inside your lungs.
Now, your breathing apparatus is pretty good at filtering particles, but these particles are really, really tiny. In other words, you will not catch them all. And at this point, the amount, the number, starts to matter. Because if you breathe in 10 particles it's, well, not exactly healthy, but also not really a problem. Let's say your breathing filtering sorts out 99% of them before they get into the lung, so you have a 1 in 10 chance to even have one such particle in you. And one particle isn't even a measurable problem, that's gonna be repaired by your body before you even notice it was there.
Now let's take a look at 10,000 particles. With 99% filtering, means that now 100 particles are inside you. And now we're starting to see a problem.
Is it really a problem? Frankly, I don't know. Ask a biologist. We'll probably see in a couple years, or we won't. The point is that the mass is not relevant in this context. Let's say those 100,000 particles amount to less than 10 grams of plastic. 10 grams of plastic is, well, nothing. The average plastic bottle weighs more. It's the 100,000 particles that is the problem, not the sum of their mass.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:100,000 microplastics per square meter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a lot - it's too bad nowhere in the entire article states what that means in terms of actual mass.
My thoughts exactly. A Plastic isn't a recognized SI unit any more than the Smoot, is.
(Actually, a Smoot is closer since its namesake, Oliver Smoot, was the leader of ANSI and OSI and thus the staff really ought to have made the Smoot an honorary unit when he retired. But I digress...)
As others have mentioned, a more useful report would have been "ten times the normal rate" or something like that. It'd be interesting to compare that against, say, the rates dust, plant matter, and salt are dropped by a stor
Oh the humanity (Score:5, Interesting)
Not the first time people invent something great only to figure out way too late that when solving a problem, we greated a bigger problem. Lead added to gasoline prevented engine knocking, but polluted the environment. Arsenic in wallpapers helped to make a vivid green color, but was toxic. Asbestos was great for many things, including causing lung cancer. Cadmium made nice red color to plastic dishes, but was not equally nice to your body. Fossil fuels helped humanity to gain so much, but are also helping the Earth gain excess temperatures. PFAS are wonderful for so many uses, but the opposite goes for the environment. The list is endless.
The sad thing is, for most of these, we knew way before stopping about the harms, but the good old normalcy bias in us first needs to really see the negative consequences with our own eyes before taking any action. We are now repeating this with microplastics. We should really stop using plastic where reasonably good alternatives exist, invent new alternatives, reuse and prevent plastic going to the environment.
Asbestos (Score:2)
Actually asbestos if used properly and sealed in is actually very useful. Its been a bit of a case of kneejerk baby out with bathwater in its case. Quite a number of common substances in everyday life are just as bad (eg petrol/gasoline, cement dust) but they still get used and are relatively benign unless misused in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't stay sealed in forever.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice that as the key problem in a lot of things we do. As long as everything works as designed and is well contained, there's not really a problem. The problems start when the fecal matter hits the ventilation device and things go tits up.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it's just a matter of things getting old. My old elementary school had asbestos in the ceiling of the auditorium, and possibly other parts of the building. The original building dated back to the early 1920s. Eventually the ceiling of the auditorium got so old that it just collapsed one day. They had to bring in a team to do a lot of work to reopen the school, and they never really addressed what might have been in the ceilings elsewhere.
It's a community center now. If they ever had to do a f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except walls are terrible. People hang stuff on walls - home owners drill through walls to hang pictures and other things. And that disturbs the asbestos. Sure the exposure might be minimal, but it
Re: (Score:2)
The growing problem is sorting real, pragmatic issues from the hysteria. It doesn't seem like we can look at anything objectively anymore, it all (at least in the US, and largely in the western world generally) is filtered through the lens of politics, winners and losers.
Plastics are a good example. I completely agree that it's absurd that we hand a shreddable plastic bag to every shopper every time they buy something, only to see them caught by the hundreds in the trees outside. On the other hand, plast
Re: (Score:2)
Can we have that presidential dog-and-pony show tomorrow instead of in a year, so we can get spared of the ridiculous political bullshit posts?
Re: (Score:2)
So is CO2.
Still, too much of it in the air and you're dead.
Solar thermal effect (Score:2)
What people probably don't realize is that nanoparticles are a really efficient heat absorber. For example, in this video [youtu.be], a glass of water with nanoparticles is put in a jar of icewater and direct sunlight. The water with the nanoparticles starts to boil.
You can imagine what that does to our already dangerously warming oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
Do nanoparticles make water freeze faster when there's relatively little light? Emissivity cuts both ways.
Re: (Score:3)
It was not in direct sunlight. It was under a magnifying glass, then later a parabolic reflector.
And if you listen to the video, he's talking about sufficient concentration to be black. Otherwise they aren't capturing much light.
Re: (Score:2)
is that really what is going on?
I did not watch the video but are you sure the effect isn't more like boiling chips - you know the little bits of porcelain people put in the bottom of the beaker to make it boil sooner/more gently.
They disturb the structure of the liquid, they don't really change the amount of energy absorbed.
Fleur de Sel is really dead then (Score:2)
Salt from inside a mountain en vogue again.
Do the math (Score:5, Funny)
100,000 microplastics is only 0.1 plastics, so we're fine.
Re: (Score:1)
Nanoplastic and Crytoplastic are the latest thing, you're obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know how many Olympic swimming pools that equates to, end to end!
Re: (Score:2)
Whaddya expect for a hurricane named (Score:1)
..."Larry". Name the next one Greta.
100,000 what's of microplastics? (Score:2)
But what's the harm? (Score:2)
Every time one of these studies or reports comes up about the prevalence of microplastics I ask the question "But what's the harm?" and I never get an answer.
And 100000 microdirts, too (Score:2)
And 100000 micro-biowaste, and 100000 micro-woodfibers.