Are we becoming plasticized at our own peril?
By Peter Schwartzman
If we were to compare our lives
to our ancestors living one hundred years ago, there are clearly many
differences. Computers, televisions, cellular phones, nuclear weapons, &
synthetic pesticides werenÕt yet around and such a list could go on and on.
However, one often overlooked difference is the almost ubiquitous use of a new
material with which to make things—plastics. A quick look at our lives today
reveals that plastics are found nearly everywhere. Consider these items, often now made of plastic: tooth
brushes, combs, siding, clothing, sunglasses, auto interiors, trash cans, computers,
picnic utensils, carpets, laundry baskets, food containers, keyboards, syringes,
yarn, office furniture, clothes (nylon, acrylic, polyester), shower curtains, tires,
snow shovels, professional Scrabble¨ tiles, etc. Plastics have become so
commonplace in our lives that it seems implausible to imagine our lives were
ever without them. Yet, historically speaking, we know that they are very
recent human creations; previously, we got along with plant fibers,
rocks/minerals, and metals. DoesnÕt such a major change in our lives beg
several questions, such as: Are plastics good for us?; What kind of world have
they created?; and, Do we really need them? (IÕll deal with the first question
here, and the subsequent ones in a future essay.)
No doubt, plastics have provided
us with many beneficial things. They have desirable properties and are
relatively easy to make. Plastics can be formed with smooth edges and rounded
corners, something difficult to do with metal or wood. They tend to be low in
mass thus they allow many items to be light, such as automobile interiors and packaging
peanuts. There are so many types of plastics that their versatility is seemingly
endless.
With
all these benefits, why on earth should we be concerned? As positive and benign
as they may seem, there are many reasons to reconsider the use of plastics in
our society. LetÕs consider just two of them here. First, they represent
chemicals that werenÕt part of the living environment for the entire history of
human evolution. And since they are so commonplace now, we should wonder if they
pose a threat to us and/or the environment? Second, given our need to reduce our
fossil fuel dependency, and the fact that most plastics are currently made from
these fossilized forms, can we expect the recycling of plastics to minimize
future extraction of fossil fuels?
Regarding the threat that
plastics pose, letÕs first recognize that it is difficult to categorically say
ÒyesÓ or ÒnoÓ to the issue because there are simply so many to keep track off.
How many of these common ones do you know anything about (listed with a common
usage and ÒrecycleÓ number): Polyethylene terephthalate (PET; soda bottles; labeled
#1); Polyethylene (milk bottles and plastic bags; #2 & #4 (low- & high-
density, respectively)); Polypropylene (bottle caps; #5); Polystyrene (egg
crates and plastic utensils; #6); and, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (water pipes, ÒlinoleumÓ flooring, and
carpet backing; #3)? (There is also a seventh category, referred to as Òother,Ó
which contains a large number of other plastic compounds.) Though we use (and,
thus, are exposed to) these every day, we do so without much thought or concern.
When one considers the following health threats due to plastics, we should
wonder if our Òignorance is blissÓ in this case.
Those
keeping up with the news should have seen several serious issues about plastics
surface recently. Baby bottles have been found to leach Bisphenol A which has
been shown to be a developmental, neural and reproductive toxin. (See, BabyÕs Toxic Bottle, a study recently
released by a coalition of U.S. public health and environmental NGOs and David
BielloÕs piece last month in Scientific
American.) Apparently, it isnÕt only baby bottles that leach however, not
that this wouldnÕt be serious enough given they are among the most vulnerable
(and helpless) to exposures of such chemicals. Many Nalgene bottles (usually
labeled #7) and other ÒclearÓ plastic containers, which are currently the rage
for ÒcheapÓ hydration (i.e., bottled water), are also releasing Biphenol A.
According to an animal study, conducted by Dr. Patricia Hunt at Case Western
Reserve University, washing these bottles can aid in the release of this
estrogen-mimicking hormone as well (Whittelsey).
And it isnÕt just the bottles.
Have you heard of phthalates? Sad to say, most of us havenÕt. They are a PVC
additive that is found in shower curtains, raincoats, and even in Ònew carÓ
smells. They are also in lots of infant toys, unfortunately many of the ones
that get repeatedly put in the mouth over the course of a babyÕs day.
Apparently, once ingested they disrupt a male newbornÕs ability to properly
form his penis. This plastic is also possibly tied to lower sperm counts among
men and increased incidence of testicular cancer (Shapiro). According to Dr.
Swan, director of the Center of Reproductive Epidemiology at the Rochester
School of Medicine and Dentistry, no babies are now born without Òmeasurable
levels of phthalatesÓ in their bodies (in Grossman). (So saying we are becoming
plasticized doesnÕt seem so unrealistic now, does it?) With evidence of this
horrifying relationship between a widely used plastic and serious human health
disorders, the European Union temporarily banned the use of phthalates in toys over
eight years ago (a ban that was made permanent in July 2005). No such luck in
the United States, where corporate rights to profits often trump citizenÕs
rights to safety.
In
April of 2004, about 75 miles southeast of Galesburg (in the small town of
Illiopolis), there was a horrific explosion and fire at a plastics
manufacturing plant. The plant, which produces an astounding 325,000,000 pounds
of PVC annually, remained on fire for more than 2 days, likely resulting in the
release of huge amounts of dioxin, one of the most toxic substances known;
dioxin is released when many plastics are burned, particularly PVC. Nearly 300
fire personnel, almost a third of the townÕs population, were brought to the
scene to put out this major conflagration. As dangerous as this event was to
the public and the environment nearby and downwind (or downstream), did we even
know it happened? (For more on this major local event, read SteingraberÕs
article ÒThe Pirates of Illiopolis.Ó)
A
quick search of the Environmental Protection AgencyÕs website will establish
that PVCs are also making for unhealthy conditions in hospitals. PVC is used to
make ÒIV bags and surgical tubing,Ó so patients can get exposed directly from
their use. Some hospitals actually burn (incinerate) their waste onsite as well.
This releases very dangerous HAPs (hazardous air pollutants) including dioxin
into the air, which patients and local residents are bound to inhale.
All
of the above items are just a short list of the suspected hazards surrounding
the use of plastics. Yet, despite all of this (and other) evidence, our society
is noticeably silent on these issues. Why?
On a different matter, will
recycling plastics reduce our use of fossil fuels? The answer is emphatically
ÒNo.Ó We often hear from environmentally-conscientious people that we should
recycle. And while this is a good principle, it doesnÕt work for plastics—in
theory it works but in practice it is nightmare. First of all, so little
plastic gets recycled, largely because it degrades in quality so much when it
is recycled. Also manufacturers can control the color of plastic products more
easily with new materials. Thus, there is little economic incentive for
companies to market items made of recycled plastic. Second, despite all the
hype, most recyclable materials have seen decreasing rates of recovery, with
PET plastic having dropped the most; only 20% was recycled in 2002, equivalent
to 3.2 billion pounds of PET being buried or burned rather than recycled
(Royte). According to the U.S. Geological Survey, less than 6% of discarded plastic
is actually recycled (a mind-shattering number when compared to 35% for metals,
23% for glass, and 42% of paper) (Blatt). Paradoxically, recycling of plastic actually
leads to greater (not less) demand
for new plastic production (Royte) because consumers become more comfortable
with purchasing plastic products when they think (wrongly) that it can be
recycled so readily. Third, recycling plastic further exacerbates inequalities
in our society. Consider where plastics are recycled. Overwhelmingly, they are
reprocessed in poor communities. This means that the costs of harmful
byproducts of reprocessing (i.e., toxic airborne and waterborne effluent) are
inequitably paid by disadvantaged groups of our society.
Holistically
speaking, plastics cannot be recycled. Unlike wood or glass which decomposes
into naturally found materials, plastics degrade into unnatural substances
(leaching during their lifetimes and often being burned along the way). That
is, plastics never really go away. Plastics degrade into Òpieces that choke
turtles É fill the stomachs of seabirds—which then starve É because they
always feel full.Ó Scariest of all, Charles Moore, a marine scientist, surveyed
five hundred square miles in the North Pacific Ocean and found six pounds of
floating plastic for every pound of naturally occurring zooplankton!
(Royte) He followed up the study 3
years later and found that the ratio was no longer 6 to 1, but 10 to 1! This is
probably the largest ÒlandfillÓ of recyclables anywhere. (Just for the record,
I do advocate that people recycle plastics. However, it should be understood
that this is only a short-term response to a much more serious problem.)
There you have it. In 2008,
plastics are extremely common and some appear to have very serious health and
environmental effects. Little is being done about it, at least in the United
States. Recycling plastics conceals the harm that they do. Reducing (or
removing) them seems like the best call. Yet, this is not all as IÕll have more
to say soon enough. In the meantime, check out some of the following list of
references. Take the time to do some of your own research. DonÕt rely on a climatologist
to tell you everything about plastics.
Works Cited
BabyÕs
Toxic Bottle. (2008) The Work Group for Safe Markets. http://www.chej.org/documents/BabysToxicBottleFinal.pdf
Biello, D. (2008)
ÒPlastic (Not) Fantastic: Food Containers Leach a Potentially Harmful
Chemical.Ó
Scientific
American, Feb. 19.
Blatt, H. (2005) AmericaÕs Environmental Report Card. MIT
Press, 277 pp.
Grossman, E. (2007)
ÒPractical Values: Hard to Break.Ó Mother
Jones, Sept/Oct,
Royte, E. (2005) Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash. Little
Brown & Company, 311 pp.
Schapiro, M. (2007)
ÒToxic Toys.Ó The Nation, Nov. 5.
Steingraber, S. (2005)
ÒThe Pirates of Illiopolis.Ó Orion Magazine, May/June.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/153/
Whittelsey, F.C. (2003)
ÒHazards of Hydration.Ó Sierra Magazine,
Nov/Dec.
Peter
Schwartzman (email: wordnerdauthor@gmail.com) is associate professor and chair
of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. Father to two amazing
girls, Peter hopes that their lives will be lived on a cleaner, more just, more
environmentally-aware planet. A nationally-ranked Scrabble¨ junkie, he is also
the founder and maintainer of websites dedicated to peace, empowerment, and
environmental well-being (www.onehuman.org
& www.blackthornhill.org) as
well as cofounder of The Center (thecenteringalesburg.org).
03.27.08