
Worms fail to thrive in soil containing microplastics: study - JulianMorrison
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/worms-fail-to-thrive-in-soil-containing-microplastics-study
======
scottlocklin
Cue 50 posts about how "we're all in this together" talking about
irrelevancies like recycling their supermarket plastic bags and using metal
water containers. No.

The consumer end source of the problem comes from tires and the use of
synthetic fabrics. As far as I know there is no effort at all to do anything
about tires (using regular vulcanized rubber presumably would help). Synthetic
fabrics, you actually can do something about. Stop buying them; your spandex
pants are destroying the environment.

The other sources are pellets and coatings used industrially.

[https://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IUCN-
rep...](https://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IUCN-report-
Primary-microplastics-in-the-oceans.pdf)

~~~
giancarlostoro
What about airless tires? I havent looked deeply into them but they sound like
they would not be as profitable since you will be less likely to change tires
due to a nail certainly reducing sales. But I am not sure what kind of cars
these tires compliment and what kind of driving they are not for.

[https://www.bridgestonetire.com/tread-and-trend/tire-
talk/ai...](https://www.bridgestonetire.com/tread-and-trend/tire-talk/airless-
concept-tires)

~~~
legulere
The problem of tires is wear. Everything that's not on your tire anymore is
microplastics now.

~~~
giancarlostoro
Understandable, I hadn't looked into them as much or the subject matter. I'm
curious if airless tires with similar design but different material could be
made.

------
anigbrowl
You know this isn't going to stop until bad things happen to polluters, who
are perfectly content to wreck the biosphere for everyone else as long as they
get theirs. Existing economic incentives are perverse and many people will
fight tooth and nail to maintain their ability to extract economic rents
rather than sacrifice for the public good.

~~~
spodek
We can all help stop this. Everyone can reduce their contribution. I cut out
nearly all packaged food, which reduced my garbage to where I empty it less
than once a year (I'm in month 13 of my current load). I was pleasantly
surprised that doing so cost less, reduced food preparation time, increased
diversity of food, and led to more social interaction with friends and
farmers. For the record, it took a couple years of practice to go from weekly
garbage to monthly to yearly.

That's just one example. Everyone can reduce some. The more you start, instead
of just accepting and throwing your hands up, the easier each next step.

The producers will see the trend and stop buying plastic.

Of course there are other ways to act: legislation, creating healthier
alternatives.

The point is: everyone can act starting here and now and they will find joy in
it. It may take time, but acting on one's values is rewarding.

~~~
ctrl-j
I worked in a grocery store for 5 years in the produce department and we sold
a loooot of unpackaged food to customers that came to us in a lot of
packaging. From stabilizers to keep produce from jostling and bruising - all
the way to the shrinkwrap the pallets came in with...

I dumped a lot of plastic into the trash compactor. I dumped a ton of
styrofoam into the trash compactor.

Sure, it might show a desire to the producers of food if we shop better - but
I doubt your food is as plastic-free as you imagine. And I tossed more plastic
daily than the average household did in months.

The supply chain needs to be plastic free before we stop having a problem.

~~~
Buttons840
This is a very important point.

It makes me think of a smaller scale example I witnessed as a cashier. I saw
cashiers throwing away plastic bags by the hundred regularly, because they
failed to load them onto the holding racks (you've seen them, but probably
paid little attention to them) properly and it was simply easier to toss
dozens of bags in the trash and load a full package of bags.

Meanwhile, at home my mom rebuked me for throwing one used and damaged bag in
the trash instead of recycling.

I feel like we all can help with rising sea levels by filling a jar with sea
water and keeping it in our house. That's a little less water in the seas. I'm
helping.

Instead of hoping 7 billion people change their habits, we should change the
habits of a few hundred companies. Everyone will pay the price somehow, but
companies are vehicles of large scale change, and our markets can efficiently
make the changes if we shape them correctly.

~~~
primroot
Kevin Anderson often stresses out this point.

Besides there is this point regarding recycling:

“It was propaganda that did not appear propagandistic. It also shielded
corporate polluters from blame by shifting responsibility onto individuals.”

[https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-
plasti...](https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plastic-
recycling/)

------
FrozenVoid
Microplastic is in the air you breathe, that is how it gets into the soil. Its
a global pollution problem that isn't confined to "few bad countries" or
"polluted rivers" somewhere in Asia.
[https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-14/micropl...](https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-14/microplastic-
is-significant-source-of-air-pollution)
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246858441...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468584417300119)
[https://inhabitat.com/microplastic-rain-new-study-reveals-
mi...](https://inhabitat.com/microplastic-rain-new-study-reveals-
microplastics-are-in-the-air/)
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/micro...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/microplastics-
pollution-falls-from-air-even-mountains/)
[https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/713561484/microplastic-
found-...](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/713561484/microplastic-found-even-
in-the-air-in-frances-pyrenees-mountains)
[https://livelovefruit.com/breathing-in-
microplastic/](https://livelovefruit.com/breathing-in-microplastic/)

------
DoreenMichele
_Failure to thrive_ is an ill-defined term that strikes me as a tad histrionic
in this title. The article indicates worms lost 3% of their weight in
contaminated soil versus a control group that gained 5%. It's not the dramatic
figure I was expecting from the title.

 _Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10%
of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three
weeks._

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

~~~
simion314
>Clinical assessment for FTT is recommended for babies who lose more than 10%
of their birth weight or do not return to their birth weight after three
weeks.

I am not sure if the comparison is relevant here, the numbers are not large
but they are significant, something is wrong and it needs investigation. You
losing 5% weight may be nothing but if you in the same time have constant pain
because of damage do your digestive track is not pleasant at all.

I am wondering if similar tests was done on rats?. -- I google it and it
causes cancer

------
nkurz
The paper looks to be "Effects of Microplastics in Soil Ecosystems: Above and
Below Ground" by Bas Boots, Connor William Russell, and Dannielle Senga Green.

The abstract is here:
[https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304)

And the full paper here: [https://sci-
hub.tw/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304](https://sci-hub.tw/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304)

After a quick skim, it looks like a well written paper with a small dataset.
They took 40 1.2L plastic pots and filled them with 1kg of local soil. In 10
of the pots, they then added 1 g of PLA microplastic; in another 10 they added
1 g of HDPE microplastic; in another 10 they added 10 mg of acrylic and nylon
fibers collected from a washing machine; and in the last 10 they added
nothing.

In half of the pots (5) from each of the 4 categories, they then planted
ryegrass. Then they added 2 earthworms to each of the 40 pots, waited for a
month, and then measured the results. They found (Figure 3) that the 10
earthworms in the 5 unplanted control (no plastic) gained about 5% weight,
that the 10 earthworms in the 5 planted HDPE containers lost about 5% of their
weight, and all the rest had no significant change.

Overall, it seems like a solid paper, with all the information one would need
for a replication attempt. Nicely, they report the average weights for the two
each of the individual pots, but unfortunately they don't seem to report the
intra-pot variation of the individual worms, which would be helpful to know in
assessing the likelihood of replication.

The Guardian article, though, which mentions only the two "significant"
results and ignores the 6 results that showed no particular difference, seems
more intent on generically sowing fear than on informing the public about
recent scientific results. I guess it's better to have a soft-science article
like this than another "did you see what the idiot tweeted", but sometimes I'm
not sure.

ps. Did you know that in much of the northern US, all of the native earthworms
were killed by the glaciers, and that practically all the current earthworms
in these areas are invasives? The northern hardwood forests evolved without
these earthworms, and may in fact be harmed by their presence:
[http://theconversation.com/silent-partners-are-earthworms-
cr...](http://theconversation.com/silent-partners-are-earthworms-creating-
pathways-for-invasive-plants-77848). I wonder if the same true for England
(where the study was done) since it was also mostly glaciated?

~~~
userbinator
_you know that in much of the northern US, all of the native earthworms were
killed by the glaciers, and that practically all the current earthworms in
these areas are invasives?_

That made me think of an alternative title for this article: "Microplastics
are an effective solution to invasive earthworm control."

...that is, if a 5% difference in some of the results is even considered
significant.

~~~
autokad
and fighting climate change. Earth worms release more green house gasses than
cows that politicians seem to like going on about.

~~~
JulianMorrison
They are part of the natural carbon cycle without which plants would pile up
like they did in the carboniferous.

Plants are only temporary carbon sequestration. The actual sequestration is in
the standing-wave of growing, living, dying, decomposing material.

~~~
autokad
you are wrong. in north america, forests sequester layers of methane in burred
layers of rotted material that are supposed to keep building up. however, the
arrival of the earth worm has been releasing those layers of methane into the
atmosphere and destroying forest layers.

------
new299
This appears to be the original paper:

[https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304)

There’s a slightly better summary, which at least references the paper, here:

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911193303.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911193303.htm)

~~~
bArray
Thank you, it's really bad not to link the paper in a news piece, 1) for
evidence, 2) for further reading and 3) for accreditation for the hard working
researchers/institutions.

Do you happen to have access to the paper through the pay wall? I'm interested
in the data itself, the abstract certainly doesn't match up to "worms fail to
thrive [..]", I want to see some numbers. There are enough environmental
disasters on the horizon without the need to manufacture more.

------
skybrian
Abstract is here:
[https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304#](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304#)

(I didn't see an ungated version.)

I wonder what concentration they used?

~~~
lixtra
> All mesocosms received 1060 g of the sieved soil to reach a dry bulk density
> of 1.1 g/cm^3. As such, mesocosms treated with microplastics received 1 g/kg
> dry soil of HDPE or PLA (0.1% w/w), whereas those treated with synthetic
> fibers received 10 mg/kg of dry soil (0.001% w/w).

~~~
noname120
Do you know how this compares to the real-life concentrations in soil?

~~~
zaroth
This seems like the crucial question.

It’s quite interesting to determine something like the LD50 of microplastic in
earthworms and grasses which grow in that soil. It would be great if we could
see a log-graph of plastic density versus when the effect drops off.

It’s also a good question to ask if it’s the plastic itself, or the impact of
the plastic on pH. So for example if they added lime to keep the pH the same
in both samples, does the effect in the plastic laced sample persist?

0.1% by mass seems like an incredibly high level. A cubic yard of topsoil (100
sq feet at a depth of 3 inches) weights about 1,000 pounds so 10 pounds of
diffuse plastic in that area would be extraordinary.

~~~
rflrob
0.1% of 1000 lbs is 1 pound, but that’s still the equivalent of ~10 empty 2L
bottles.

------
andybak
The plastics stuff is worrying but I am concerned it will divert attention
away from global warming. One issue is "hmmmm. this isn't good" whilst the
other is "hey people, we should probably start thinking about panic mode about
now".

Some people will argue that the solution to both is similar and linked but I'm
not so sure.

~~~
fiblye
Action was taken against asbestos and lead around the same general time.
Problems don't need to be solved sequentially.

It's probably best to work on these problems together while people are
actually worried about the future of the planet. If we manage to address one
and ignore the other, we'll have plenty of people thinking we've saved the
world and anything else is needless alarmism. I mean, we already have that
problem, and those 50% of people won't be convinced either way.

~~~
zaroth
I would add CFCs to that list. But you needed adequate _replacements_ and a
much more clear and present danger for those things to happen.

“Worms are 5% smaller in this study” is a shade better than a conspiracy
theory, not something that will motivate massive changes in global
manufacturing and packaging standards.

We do know it can be done, because we’ve worked historically to make big
changes. Unfortunately there’s been a lot of lost credibility in environmental
science over the last few decades, and at the same time society seems to be
significantly more divided over issues that at first blush might smell like a
crusade.

The rules are you need something that’s equally as good at perhaps a slightly
higher initial cost (an adequate replacement) and a clear and present danger
(e.g. there’s a massive hole in our ozone layer, we can measure it directly,
we know exactly what’s causing it, and if it keeps getting bigger we can’t
ever go outside again).

------
air7
Important to note that western countries (almost) don't contribute plastic
that ends up in the ocean (that later becomes microplastics) because of modern
waste management. [0]

Plastic in the oceans comes from poorer countries where a huge population
lives next to rivers or beaches and the waste management systems are
inadequate. In fact, "90% of plastic polluting our oceans comes from just 10
rivers" [1]

Our efforts should be directed there, financially and politically and not
locally be it via individual effort or local government pressure.

This is a unique type of issue as, generally speaking, enviorment awareness is
stronger with liberals yet "meddling" in other countries internal affairs
(waste management in this case) is not.

[0] [https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-
pollution](https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution) [1]
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-
polluti...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-
our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers)

~~~
imhoguy
"modern waste management", like sending containers full of unrecyclable
garbage to East Europe or Asia?

~~~
air7
That's FUD. The percentage of our waste we send is quite small. Also the
percentage of these countries' waste that is imported is small (far from being
the main source of trash).

And also arguably, if they buy trash to recycle and then don't it's their
responsibility to see it through and ours to make sure they do.

------
derpherpsson
My grandfather says crazy stuff like " _oh, but we will be in the grave long
before this turns into a problem_ " whenever topics like this emerge at the
dinner table.

There is a little psychopath in each one of us.

~~~
EForEndeavour
This is anecdotal, but your grandfather's attitude is entirely consistent with
the pattern of people generally giving less of a fuck as they age, starting
around their 50s or 60s.

~~~
WanderPanda
Which is a problem as people are wasting 50 years of their life giving fucks
all the time.

------
andy_ppp
I’m always skeptical, was the original study a realistic amount of micro
plastics in the next 20 years or is it a totally artificial amount for funding
and headlines?

~~~
sp332
In a BBC interview, one of the researchers said that the concentration was
quite high, like what you'd find in a contaminated landfill site. I think the
research is just starting though, and now that they have an interesting result
for high concentrations, they'll start looking at lower ones. So we don't know
yet what effect different levels have.

------
Jeff_Brown
How much of the plastic were they exposed to -- the kind of amount you'd find
on a farm, or some kind of experimental super-plastic-dirt?

