

Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum - sunilkumarc
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/push-to-ban-plastic-microbeads-from-facial-scrubs-gains-momentum-1.2670960

======
buckbova
>The highest concentration was found in Lake Ontario, with counts of up to 1.1
million plastic particles per square kilometre.

1.1 million 1mm diameter beads in 1 sq km doesn't seem like much, like 1 bead
per million sq mm. But there shouldn't really be any of these. Kind of a
ridiculous idea to begin with.

~~~
ptx
> 1 bead per million sq mm

Perhaps better expressed as "1 bead per square meter". :)

~~~
buckbova
Shows you the power of numbers. I get a different feel for each equivalent
phrasing:

\- 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre

\- 1 bead per million sq mm

\- 1 bead per square meter

And I agree, the article should have used the latter.

------
worklogin
>A number of personal care product manufacturers have promised to cut
microbeads from their products in the coming years, but dates vary. Unilever
is aiming for 2015, Colgate-Palmolive in 2014, Procter & Gamble vowed to be
free by 2017, while Johnson & Johnson and L'Oréal haven't given a date.

Do we need a law for this? So far, all action has been spurred by consumer and
environmental groups. Sure, it may not happen at the same pace as if CA bans
it and puts another law on their books, but if it happens soon, shouldn't we
avoid lawmaking?

~~~
astrodust
Something this ridiculously damaging needs to be banned outright. If I were a
corporation making products of this sort I'd rather tell my shareholders
"Sorry, environmental regulations prevent us from making that product" rather
than "We decided to abandon a profitable product line because scientists told
us to."

This is the same principle behind architecture review boards for cities. If
the architect has peers to support their efforts, they're more likely to
succeed than to be forced to cave into purely economic concerns.

There are some things corporations are very good at, but protecting the long-
term interests of people is not one of them.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The damage is speculative so far. It remains to be seen whether any
significant environmental damage has been done. The mere presence of plastic
particles is not enough. Marine life has dealt with particles in the water for
a billion years.

~~~
astrodust
Particles, yes, but plastic particles? These didn't even exist a hundred years
ago.

The damage is being documented, and it's far more obvious with larger
contaminants, the most prevalent being plastic nurdles
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurdle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurdle))
that sometimes escape into the environment.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The presence is being documented, but presence isn't damage.

I'm not an industry apologist. But we can't spend billions on everything, and
there are real issues that need addressing.

~~~
astrodust
This isn't about spending billions. It's about _not putting beads in facial
scrubs_.

Surely the industry will survive if they use something like walnuts or pumice
instead.

------
yellowapple
Are there non-plastic alternatives on the books? I'm all for protecting
nature, but these microbeads are useful as an abrasive element (meaning more
thorough cleaning). Maybe sterilized sand?

~~~
cb3
I hope this is satire. "It might royally fuck up the environment, but I've
been so manipulated by marketing, that if I don't rub microscopic plastic on
my body, I just feel so... unclean... guys, guys? Where are you going?"

The 'sterilized' sand bit at the end was a nice touch too, alluding to the
dominant scorched earth policy we have in regards to shaping the environment
in ways we (mistakenly, deludedly) _think_ will be most conducive to our well-
being.

~~~
cb3
People wonder what happened to great nations of the past. When you have
men(you'll understand my assumption,) whining about cosmetic products instead
of plotting courses to the moon, there's your answer.

Oh but the two aren't mutually exclusive you say? I beg to differ.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
It turns out lunar dust is an excellent exfoliant!

------
JoeAltmaier
I'm confused. Nobody talks about any measurable harm these beads are doing.
The ocean is full of sand already. What's the impetus?

~~~
wrongc0ntinent
"Often buoyant, the beads can soak up toxins like a sponge. And since they
resemble the size of fish eggs, environmentalists fear the micro-plastics are
making their way into the food chain via fish, birds and mammals."

Edit: unlike sand.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That sounds like speculation. Again, I wonder if any actual measurements were
done by anybody, ever.

------
donatj
It seems to me like it would be better in the long run to invest money in
developing better water treatment plants rather than getting on the ban-wagon.

It seems logical that we could skim these out as they are as the article
attests "boyant".

~~~
guelo
How would you pay for the upgrade of all water treatment plants? A special tax
on microbeads?

~~~
mturmon
We'd also need a Federal-level "Microbead Czar".

~~~
nnnnni
They'll eventually need to create a position to manage all of these "Czar"
positions.

Perhaps it would be called "Czar Czar". Gah, a bore of a job it'd be, though.

