
Plastic pollution: 'Hidden' chemicals build up in seabirds - pseudolus
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51285103
======
marriedWpt
The chem Engineer in me hates the general word "Chemical".

It's not descriptive, any (macro) matter is classified as chemical.

I find the words used to describe plastics is equally poor.

Is it nylon? Is it a polyurethane? Is it ABS? Is it all large chain chemicals?
Or just low density? I could go on.

~~~
romseb
The plastics are polyethylene. You can find the study here:
[https://www.cell.com/current-
biology/pdf/S0960-9822(19)31670...](https://www.cell.com/current-
biology/pdf/S0960-9822\(19\)31670-7.pdf)

"The five chemical additives were chosen from those detected in a screening
analysis of plastics found in the stomach of seabirds (n = 194) [13]: a flame
retardant, deca-BDE, which is composed of several PBDE congeners, dominated by
2,20,3,30,4,40,5,50,6,60-decabromodiphenylether (BDE209); three benzotriazole
ultraviolet (UV) stabilizers, specifically 2-(2-hydroxy-3-tert-
butyl-5-methylphenyl)-5-chlorobenzotriazole (UV-326), 2-(3,5-di-tert-
amyl-2-hydroxyphenyl) benzotriazole (UV-328), and 2-(3,5-di-tert-
butyl-2-hydroxyphenyl)-5-chlorobenzotriazole (UV-327); and one benzophenone UV
stabilizer, 2-hydroxy-4-octyloxybenzophenone (BP-12). Industrially, deca-BDE
is mixed with polyolefins at a concentration of 5% to 8% by weight [14], and
benzotriazole and benzophenone UV stabilizers are mixed at 0.05% to 2% by
weight [15]."

------
arbitrage
> The effects of toxic chemicals absorbed by the body are less clear.

~~~
bovine3dom
There are, however, lots of externalities associated with alternatives to
single-use plastic which we do know are harmful.

There is an excellent 2018 study [1] which enumerates these. A memorable
finding is that an organic cotton shopping bag must be reused 20,000 times
before it breaks even with a single-use plastic bag.

(This is not to say that a plastic bag would be likely to end up in the sea or
eaten by a bird, but it has somehow become common belief that that is the
case).

[1]:
[https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...](https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf)

~~~
titzer
Please read your actual article. The cotton bag must be reused 52 times to
break even in terms of climate change and the 20,000 number is "all
indicators", of which it states that " The highest number is due to the use of
water resource, but also to freshwater and terrestrial eutrophication." [page
18]. There's some serious flaws with not counting water as a renewable
resource. As for eutrophication, the author also doesn't consider the carrying
capacity of the environment to recycle phosphorous and other other agriculture
byproducts.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
> There's some serious flaws with not counting water as a renewable resource.

I've often found myself pointing this out to people when talking about water
being _used_ , though it does depend a lot on where the water comes from, and
/ or being diverted away from.

~~~
CalRobert
It's relevant inasmuch as the transport and purification of water can have a
substantial energy cost (and things like _groundwater_ are being depleted
faster than used - some of California is sinking, and the Ogalalla (while huge
and still mostly there) would take 6,000 years to replenish if depleted

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer)

