Millions of Tonnes of Nanoplastics Are Polluting the Ocean (nature.com) 42
Researchers have discovered 27 million tonnes of nanoplastics distributed across just the top layer of the temperate to subtropical North Atlantic Ocean, according to a study published in Nature. The team sampled water at three depths across 12 locations during a November 2020 research cruise, finding average concentrations of 18 milligrams per cubic meter of three plastic types: polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene and polyvinylchloride.
These particles, smaller than one micrometer in diameter, behave differently from larger microplastics by remaining suspended throughout the water column rather than settling to the ocean floor. The nanoplastics can pass through cell walls and enter the marine food web through phytoplankton, said Tony Walker, an environmental scientist at Dalhousie University. The world's oceans contain an estimated 3 million tonnes of floating plastic pollution when excluding nanoplastics.
These particles, smaller than one micrometer in diameter, behave differently from larger microplastics by remaining suspended throughout the water column rather than settling to the ocean floor. The nanoplastics can pass through cell walls and enter the marine food web through phytoplankton, said Tony Walker, an environmental scientist at Dalhousie University. The world's oceans contain an estimated 3 million tonnes of floating plastic pollution when excluding nanoplastics.
Eventually some bacteria may evolve... (Score:2)
... to digest these substances. Unfortunately it'll probably be way past the time that the food chain and ecosystem has been poisoned by them.
Re: (Score:3)
Plastic pollution is shaping up to be a far more pervasive and serious problem than I think most people are appreciating. The effects though so far unconfirmed are probably being felt a lot more acutely than anything "climate related"
Its almost like climate and green energy are getting paid a bunch of lip service for the sake of using up all the oxygen around environmental protection, so the industry isnt forced to try and solve the real crisis they don't want to address.
Re: (Score:3)
27 million tons? Phooey.
"As of today, it’s estimated that over 9.2 billion metric tons of plastic have been manufactured – just over 1 ton for every person currently alive. The production rate is currently running at over 450 million tons a year. And when we no longer need or want something made of plastic – why, we just get rid of it. It’s so convenient. What could be simpler? The trouble is that plastic is far from being a wasting asset. On the contrary, it is all too permanent. It
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then what comes next?
Someone trying to convince us that one particle of today's microplastics will be a thousand particles of nanoplastics in a few years?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by that ?
Re: (Score:2)
... to digest these substances. Unfortunately it'll probably be way past the time that the food chain and ecosystem has been poisoned by them.
Plastic eating bacteria are already here. It's going to be a solution to this problem, but also a whole new, and much larger, problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you need something to stop the bacteria, then something to stop that....
What an Age to Live Through (Score:5, Interesting)
We're living in an age where we've advanced scientifically enough to see and study the damage we're doing, but we haven't evolved emotionally and mentally enough to escape the trap of the greed that is making us ignore the problems we're creating because the solutions may impact profits. It's a weird time to be a human. All the guilt of our entire species is coming to the fore, but we have none of the resources to deal with it in a healthy manner.
Re:What an Age to Live Through (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually I would say we have more than enough resources to deal with these issues if we wanted to but right now there is no political will to address this on the level that would be required. New laws, new regulations on industry and a fresh set of funding to address this is what would be needed.
We have the money, we have the people, we have the know-how to study and create action plans, we just don't want to do it and our voting reflects that. We found $200B for immigration enforcement, no problem there, jumped in both feet first, this is the issue the American public thinks is #1.
For example, why are there only 11 co-sponsors on this bill to reduce the amount of single-use items and all from one party?
S.3127 - Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2023 [congress.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I would say we have more than enough resources to deal with these issues if we wanted to but right now there is no political will to address this on the level that would be required. New laws, new regulations on industry and a fresh set of funding to address this is what would be needed.
We have the money, we have the people, we have the know-how to study and create action plans, we just don't want to do it and our voting reflects that. We found $200B for immigration enforcement, no problem there, jumped in both feet first, this is the issue the American public thinks is #1.
For example, why are there only 11 co-sponsors on this bill to reduce the amount of single-use items and all from one party?
S.3127 - Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2023 [congress.gov]
I can't disagree. Instead of resources, I should have said will, political or otherwise. We're too locked in on greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, hard to solve a problem when 55% of your political class has a vested interest in it not being a problem at all, like whoever said the quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Re: (Score:2)
It was Upton Sinclair, in or before 1935.
Re: (Score:2)
We have the money, we have the people, we have the know-how to study and create action plans, we just don't want to do it and our voting reflects that. We found $200B for immigration enforcement, no problem there, jumped in both feet first, this is the issue the American public thinks is #1.
To be fair, the American public has been consistently gaslit on critical issues for the last 60 years. They've also been indoctrinated into the kind of capitalism that has landed us where we are.
Sure, some of that is on the people who fell for the lies; but more of it is on the people who told the lies, over and over and over again.
Re: (Score:3)
That is fair and bridging this reality divide is probably the greatest political question of our time.
At the same time it's like the people who see masked goons raiding Home Depot parking lots and are saying "I didn't vote for that" and it's like "you absolutely did, they said they were going to do things exactly like this" and if you were concerned about plastics in the oceans well, were you concerned enough to vote against the "put more plastic in the ocean party"? The answer for most is "no" on that so i
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I think you're right.
When I was younger, I never really experienced despair over the future of humanity. Now it's a frequent visitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I would say we have more than enough resources to deal with these issues if we wanted to but right now there is no political will to address this on the level that would be required.
And the reason is blindingly obvious: governments that do not represent the people in any shape or form. Instead, they represent - and obey - the wealthy interests that own them.
Perhaps it's time for another American Revolution, or another French Revolution, or a combination of the two. Here's someone who thought so:
"...England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it’s government and the probity of it’s citizens. And accordingly it is
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I would say we have more than enough resources to deal with these issues if we wanted to but right now there is no political will to address this on the level that would be required.
That’s hard to argue with. The gap between capacity and will is one of the defining tensions of our time. What’s particularly maddening is that this isn't some moonshot—the technologies, models, and even regulatory templates exist. What’s missing is the structural alignment to prioritize them.
We have the money, we have the people, we have the know-how to study and create action plans, we just don't want to do it and our voting reflects that.
This one I hesitate on. It’s true that voting trends matter, but reducing the failure to act to just voter apathy or preference risks overlooking the asymmetry in how influence operates. G
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you entirely, these are important issues. It's why I give no creedence or respect at all to Andrew Yang and Musk talking about 3rd parties when they show no interest in tackling the systemic issues that keep 3rd parties from being viable. Our system isn't built for more than 2 parties. That's how we vote, how the states organize things. You have to do a bunch of boring state level electoral reforms to really start affecting these things.
And until they speak the words "proportional represent
Re: (Score:2)
We're living in an age where we've advanced scientifically enough to see and study the damage we're doing, but we haven't evolved emotionally and mentally enough to escape the trap of the greed that is making us ignore the problems we're creating because the solutions may impact profits. It's a weird time to be a human. All the guilt of our entire species is coming to the fore, but we have none of the resources to deal with it in a healthy manner.
You’re not wrong—it is a weird time to be human. Speaking as an American, weird seems to be our new normal. We’ve reached a point where our tools have outpaced our maturity, and we’re now seeing the damage in high resolution—scientifically, ecologically, even psychologically. But I try not to let the sheer scale of it turn into fatalism. We may not be emotionally equipped yet, but culture does evolve. Sometimes slowly, sometimes all at once. The fact that we can even name th
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Just know enough to be really dangerous to ourselves, not know enough to get that under control.
Plastic size (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The most buoyant plastics in use are polypropylene and those degrade in UV light and require a lot of maintenance and replacement or else they'll break at inopportune times and the fibers will turn into little needles that go into your hands. They're also not all that strong to begin with.
I suspect the high quality plastics you're talking about are nylon lines and nets which sink under normal conditions.
Re:Plastic size (Score:5, Informative)
You may worry about plastic cookware, but the food you're cooking is full of plastic too, and it's not really possible to filter it out.
And what gets into your food gets into you. Every part of you.
"[M]icroplastics and nanoplastics eventually get everywhere. Including inside your liver, kidneys, veins, arteries, and brain. Yes, evolution equipped us with the blood-brain barrier to protect our most sensitive and valuable tissues – but evolution is no match for Mr McGuire. Microplastics are also found in placental tissue – so unborn babies get their fair share.
"The Guardian reports that “Researchers at the Pic du Midi Observatory found airborne microplastics in samples every week between June and October 2017”. That’s a cool 2,877 metres above sea level, in the Pyrenees. Over 9,400 feet up in the sky.
"OK, so there are microplastics everywhere – including inside us. But that doesn’t mean they do us any harm, does it? Unfortunately that turns out not to be the case at all. A study from South Korea published in 2023 states unequivocally:
'In vitro experiments with human cells and in vivo data generated with mice showed that microplastics elicit adverse health effects mainly by causing inflammation, oxidative stress [increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production], lipid metabolism disturbances, gut microbiota dysbiosis, and neurotoxicity'".
https://tomwelsh441836.substac... [substack.com]
"Microplastics Found in Human Brains"
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/m... [yale.edu]
"Nearly Half of People in the U.S. Have Toxic PFAS in Their Drinking Water"
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://ourworldindata.org/dat... [ourworldindata.org]
There will be 10 billion of us soon enough. And we will still be using plastic.
Re: (Score:2)
The sound you hear is the chik-chik of God's Zippo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be.
I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be eliminated by the waters of a flood, nor shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.
He did not say he won't burn it.
Re: (Score:2)
Plastic is inert. But organisms that absorb it aren't.
It's impossible to separate any organism from its environment.
Time to ... (Score:2)
No, wait! Copper is bad too. Switch to lead.
tonnes (Score:2)
How much is that in tons?
Knowing Isn’t the Hard Part Anymore (Score:3)
The Nature paper is devastating—not in tone, but in implication. What the authors have done is akin to lifting a trapdoor we didn’t know was there: beneath the waves, beneath prior sampling thresholds, beneath our assumptions about the scale of the problem—lies a vast reservoir of nanoplastics blanketing the Atlantic, from coastal shelves to abyssal depths.
These are not stray particles. These are quantifiable layers of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), and PVC—1.5 to 32 mg/m across every depth measured, totaling tens of millions of metric tons in the mixed layer alone. This implies:
-Nanoplastics now likely exceed the total mass of all macro- and microplastic debris previously measured in the global ocean.
-Our oceanic plastic budget has been catastrophically underestimated.
-The small particle sizes bypass buoyancy constraints, drift with water columns, and may bioaccumulate at every trophic level.
So what’s the appropriate response to such a finding?
On one hand, there’s the dawning realization that we now know exactly what we’re doing to the planet. We have the tools to measure it, model it, and even predict its long-term consequences. On the other hand, there’s an equally sharp recognition that we’re doing almost nothing in proportion to that knowledge. We have the capital, the brainpower, the legislative frameworks—we simply choose not to use them.
It’s a bitter paradox: scientific maturity without political adulthood. Knowledge without agency.
This doesn’t mean everyone is paralyzed or indifferent. The fact that papers like this are being published at all is a sign of resilience. People still read, still argue, still call out our economic contradictions with legislation [congress.gov].
But I think we’re in new territory now. The core environmental narrative of the 20th century—"If only we had the data!"—has been flipped. We do have the data. What we lack is the civic substrate to metabolize it. Call it political will, or the people's mandate, or whatever socio-cultural tag you want to wrap it in, the question remains: What happens when evidence is no longer the bottleneck? That’s the real weight I felt reading this paper. It’s not just a measurement of pollution. It’s a measurement of our incapacity to deal with it at scale.
And yet: we’re still talking. Still learning. That might be a low bar—but it’s not nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
So wait which is it?
Do we have the "capital, brain power and legislative frameworks to solve" this problem, or do we have "incapacity to deal with it at scale"?
I am going to go with the latter. We absolutely can't solve the micro-plastics problem. At least now without plunging a billion people back into the grips poverty, disease and death. There simply are not chemical and materiel analogs known that can replace plastics. Not without blowing a hole thru every other environmental remediation objective we
Re: (Score:2)
I hear you—and I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement, though I might frame it differently. You're right to flag the tension—I probably should have said apparent paradox, or better yet, frustrating duality. That’s on me, and thanks for calling it out.
When I said we have the "capital, brainpower, and legislative frameworks," I wasn’t suggesting we have a turnkey solution to the nanoplastics problem sitting in a lab somewhere. I meant that we’re no longer oper
Solar blanket (Score:2)
Olympic sized swimming pools (Score:2)
So, how many Olympic size swimming pools would a million tons of plastic fill?
At an average 0.5 tons per cubic meter, that would be about 2 million cubic meters. An Olympic sized pool holds about 2,500 cubic meters of water, so that leads to about 800 Olympic sized swimming pools full of plastic.
For context, Lake Geneva in Wisconsin, holds about this much water. That lake is about 7 miles long and 3 miles wide. Now for me, THAT is a much more useful measurement, than Olympic sized swimming pools, or "a mill
or Cell volume (Score:2)
Since a main concern is about cellular and biological uptake, how about identifying the number of adult humans it would take to fill each cell with one nanoplastic particle each? Or figure out how much plastic an average cell can hold and tell us how many average adult humans we need to pack full?
Indeed (Score:2)
Drop the expensive Sea Salt and Fleur de Sel, you can see the colored pieces of plastic with the naked eye in the salt.
Nowadays salt from inside a mountain is way better.