Plastic

Mehmet Yesilgöz

• Huge “islands of plastic litter” float in the oceans.

• Practically every person has plastic components in the bloodstream.

• Dangerous ailments and malformations are on the increase!

• Pollutants get to foodstuffs through plastic packaging.

The old mariner Charles Moore had in all likelihood envisaged it quite differently when in 1997 he put his “Alguita” to the rough Pacific Ocean for the Los Angeles-to-Hawaii Transpacific Yacht Race (Transpac). The passionate sailor, who since his early childhood had been at the wheel of a lot of boats, probably craved the challenges that the ill-tempered as well as fascinating element had in store for him on the 2500-miles-long course. Moments of this race, the skipper anticipates, will place his life on the very edge. But while the bow knocks demandingly at the dark gate of the crest of a wave in the steady rhythm of the sea, full sail flapping in well-rounded paunch to tame the sheer celestial force and the sea with harsh salty spray probes the most intimate questions of the adventurer, also with every mile the mind of the proud sailor is filled with answers. Each grip hits home, dormant talents are uncovered, which inspire, animate and convince him ... purity of nature uplifts the mind to lofty flight!

Somewhere between Los Angeles and Hawaii the romantic liaison between Captain Moore and the sea abruptly tipped over, because the bride, which hitherto wrapped the ship’s hull in a stunning sky-blue dress, was suddenly disfigured and in a wretched condition! Caught in the previously very pure tulle of the sea as far as the eye could see were dented plastic bottles, tattered bags, stryrofoam cups,deserted tops or shimmer-ing fragments of all kinds of plastic utensils, in short: the entire ocean in front and far under the Alguita was covered in a grey veil with the debris from all those objects that we produce for our lavish lifestyle with an enormous use of energy and raw materials, and “dispose of” again a short time later senselessly and irresponsibly. Out of sight, out of mind.

Lull. Moore found himself of all times in the midst of a known climatic “blind spot” in which he could hardly continue on his trip. The lull added several additional days to crossing this desolate territory, which on the one hand tossed a misfortune to the captain, but on the other hand was a stroke of luck in investigating the problem exposed here! The longer he waded through the junk, the more sinister the magnitude of this quiet disaster became to the chemist, and all the more insistent his questions! What problem had he got into? Where did all these waste products of civilisation come from and what consequences would this massive accumulation of plastic have for the sensitive marine ecosystem?

The Pacific Garbage Patch – toilet without outflow

What Moore and other scientists sketched later during multiple trips and expeditions to the place in the Pacific was in fact not the usual collection of trash, as one can observe in the coastal proximity of many cities. The sight in the ocean looked a lot more like a giant refuse island! Today we know that the staggering expanse of this world’s biggest dump corresponds in area to Central Europe, other sources even make the area close to twice as large as the USA! To put it another way, 550 miles off the California coast a closed trash pile drifts about, extending 10 metres deep and spreading a weight of 125 million tons over an area of about 18 million square kilometres! Even though this “island” is not accessible, and is mostly below the water surface, the island groups lying in the flow area around Hawaii stricken with enormous loads of debris dumped on their beaches show by way of example how bulging the dubious haze is in reality! In view of these drastic numbers it may sound all the more alarming that the floating castle of plastic actually makes up only about one third of the total plastic waste! Dutch scientists estimate that the remaining 70 per cent of the waste soon sink and lie distributed in differ- ent concentrations invisibly on the seabed, where the submarine dumps bury all life forms beneath.

The oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer already speculated a few years before the discovery by Moore that due to the huge circulation currents of the oceans flotsam must accumulate. The reason for the massive accumula- tion of the waste of civilisation in the middle of a desert patch lies therefore in the climatic conditions. For example, warm air masses rising near the equator drive the “North Pacific Gyre” – the great high-pressure circulation system in the central Pacific Ocean. Through the earth movement and certain current forces that set the water masses into a rotating motion, a vortex devel- ops, which gathers all the flotsam in a clockwise circulation between Japan on the one side and the USA on the other end of the Pacific at a speed of eleven centimetres per second. In the process, the floating material is forced into the low-energy central area of the vortex and condensed until a part of it sinks to the bottom where it remains forever. It is not without good reason that cynical voices speak here of a “toilet flushing with no drain”!

Beside the North Pacific eddy, there are several other “oceanic vortices” on our planet – and in virtually all maritime “collecting devices” some alarmingly high concentrations of garbage were found, especially plastic waste. According to a study by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), up to 18,000 plastic pieces are afloat on every square kilometre of the ocean. Dr. Richard Thompson of the University of Plymouth, however, raises the estimate to 300,000 pieces. It is even worse at the bottom of the sea; where in some areas up to 110 plastic parts are distributed over each ... square metre!

6 million tons of plastic go into the sea each year!

Of the 240 million tons of plastic produced each year worldwide, according to GESAMP (UN Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), more than six million tons arrive as waste in the seas and oceans of our planet – mind you: year after year! 4.5 million tons, or 80 percent of this “hazardous waste” are generated overland, for example, where domestic and industrial waste are being trans- ported from A to B and the turbulence or mechanical vibrations cause spills from truck or train at the loading area into the environment. Furthermore, landfills lose a significant portion of their waste through drifts. In some developing countries the unfenced “dumps make things even worse still by mostly being built near the coast, and as a result of “good flight condi- tions” constantly emitting large amounts of foils, bags or styrofoam debris permanently. Finally, with a few thousand tons, the illegal dumping of garbage holds a needless portion of the inglorious balance. Believe it or not, according to a calculation of the Marine Conservation Trust, as much as one third of the waste lying on British beaches emanates from picnic trash. In the end it is always the wind that reclaims all “stray” ashore, and in its childlike games tows it some day unsuspectingly into the rivers and consequently into the large marine ecosystems.

The remaining one and a half million tons accrue directly on the world oceans, that is, on cargo, container, travel, fishing or factory vessels. On board these ships, the debris is either tipped directly over the rail or it is for example disposed “elegantly” through a secret hatch at night, so that passen- gers on cruise ships do not notice anything of the exercise, which would result in rather negative publicity. According to an estimate by Oceana, an ocean conservation advocacy group, 675 tons of rubbish are tossed in this manner every hour into the sea world- wide, half of which is – you guessed it – plastic waste! In addition, more often than one might assume, container ships lose large parts of their cargo, sometimes whole containers, in storms. The “evidence chamber” in the ocean is accordingly full of Lego bricks, trainers or multicoloured bath ducklings.

The plastic waste located in the oceans is by no means just an aesthetic problem. Far more disastrous is the fact that yearly hundreds of thousands of seals, dolphins or whales get entan- gled in the treacherous meshes of fishing nets, in the handcuff-like rings of beer can six-packs, transparent nylon threads or beverage crates and suffer a miserable death.

The really disastrous implications of the garbage craze are revealed at first-hand by an extremely explosive issue: Animals ingest plastic – plastic that is full of poison! As is well known, people in turn eat animals, thus plastic and the poison it contains in the end also reaches our body!

Animals die with a full stomach!

The few “natural enemies” of plastic are primarily bacteria, the sun’s UV light, heat and mechanical forces in waves, which act like little hammer blows. These forces of decomposi- tion wear down plastic to the extent that it gradually loses large portions of the chemical additives important for its shape and elasticity and over time becomes brittle and soon after fragile. In the process, the fatigued material is degraded by the colossal “water mill of the Pacific”, depend- ing upon its stage in the decomposi- tion cycle, from initially large scraps into microscopic particles. According to the size of the “chaffed” pieces, individual animal species help themselves to the lethal fake food! Turtles regard scraps of a shopping bag as jellyfish, whales mistake plastic bags for squids or cuttlefish, seabirds regard lighters and pieces of toothbrushes as fish and satisfy their own as well as the hunger of their offspring with toxic, nutritionless scraps of various sizes. If the diges- tive organs of the creatures have not already been slashed by the partly sharp-edged objects or the stomachs hopelessly clogged up or obstructed by the non-digestible components, as a result of which the animals perish pathetically, the “involuntary plastic gluttons” will quite literally end up starving to death – but with a stomach filled with plastic! These disastrous circumstances cause, for example, 20 per cent of albatross chicks in Hawaii to die within the

first six months of their life, and every year according to Greenpeace over one million seabirds!

'Plastic dismantling' lasts 400 to 700 years!

The insidious thing about synthetic materials is that the microscopic filaments that eventually result from the breakdown do not simultaneously mean the “end” of the material and thus cessation of the “plastic danger”. On the contrary, this is just the begin- ning of the problem, because the particles can only be degraded from the current size very slowly! Depend- ing on the composition, nature takes from 400 to 700 years to completely dismantle these hazardous substances into their innocuous molecular components! In addition, the plastic particles wield their really harmful effect in precisely those very small sizes where, as a result of their altered chemical properties, they can pick up toxins now so profusely distributed in the oceans. Seen in this light, the “haze” of plastic discovered by Moore resembles a giant sponge, which especially absorbs and binds water-insoluble and highly toxic chemicals, such as the DDT or PCB floating in the ocean! The concentra- tion of long-term poisons is several million times higher in such a “plastic sponge” than in marine areas with a low quantity of plastic!

The ratio of plastic to plankton: 60:1

To make matters worse, the particle band saturated with toxins moves exactly to that fateful depth of up to 10 metres, where the zooplankton extremely important for the maritime ecosystem is also to be found. Plank- ton, the nutrient-rich ether of the oceans, which consists of myriads of microorganisms such as bacteria, crustaceans, fish or insect larvae, provides the staple food for fish, which are quite at the base of the food chain. During nighttime forays shoals of thousands of small fish such as the lantern fish confuse the plastic particles with zooplankton and “guzzle” themselves. The lantern fish, now contaminated by their food, are the favourite dish of tuna, swordfish or mahi-mahi – and man likes eating these.

In some areas, such as the “Pacific Garbage Patch”, the ratio between microscopic plastic and plankton has shot up to a staggering 60:1, with yet an upward trend due to the continu- ous issue of plastic waste! In view of this devastating ratio there can be no talk of “food confusion” – fish simply have no chance to feed as is appropri- ate to the species! To this end, one of the leading researchers in these findings, Hideshige Takada of Tokyo University, writes: “In some areas of the ocean, the likelihood is higher for a fish to feed on plastic than on real food!” As a result of “food confu- sion”, marine creatures store toxins accumulated in plastic in their body, which are in turn added and served up the food chain, until finally they arrive in their highest doses in humans.

The 'mermaids’ tears' on all the beaches

With the help of kinetic energy in the masses of waters, the plastic particles make their way as far as the beaches of many a popular holiday destination, where through intense abrasion with the sea floor they are broken down even smaller and blend with the sand. The spherical and cylindrical plastic pellets partly visible upon closer look have meanwhile found their way to all the beaches in the world and probably the only reason the public is not outraged is because they are barely visible in the sand. Experts lyrically call this phenomenon “mermaids’ tears”. In many coastal areas the amount of these “plastic tears” exceeds the grains of sand!

The packaging ends up in the food!

The inventory of an ordinary house- hold makes clear the fateful triumphal march of plastic. The proportion of food that is packaged in plastic in a “European Union fridge” is at least 60 percent, but probably even far higher. Whether butter, cheese, yogurt, drinks, honey or fruit and vegetables, food is constantly in direct contact with plastic, and this contact – that must be clear – usually leads to contamination with microscopic pieces of plastic! The problem stems from the molecular structure of the synthetic material. A chemical process, “cracking”, splits the plastic raw material petroleum, converted from coal, natural gas and mainly crude oil, into short hydrocarbon molecules such as ethylene, propy- lene and butylene. By so-called polymerisation, a chemical process that is key for making plastic, the short molecular compounds previ- ously formed in the split process are transformed into polymers, thus long, reticulated chains of molecules. These long intertwined molecular bridges give plastic its elastic and unbreakable properties, which make every product designer’s heart beat faster.

For industrial use, polymer types produced in large varieties are finally processed into diverse kinds of plastic pellets, which then are, in turn, with a myriad of additives formed into various more or less familiar types of plastic. Every year the industry turns out an estimated 6 trillion plastic pellets, which in view of the low recycling rate for the most part end up again in nature and ... bring the “mermaid” to tears. Unfor- tunately, the newly created polymer chains are not consistent, which means that the additives do not remain permanently bound in the material, but are released by environ- mental factors, by acids, alkalis, and especially by heating, back into the environment where they develop into a health hazard. Whether house- hold dust, beverage bottles, food packaging, clothing, or vapours in the car – everywhere we eat, breathe or drink particles of plastic, which, as we know today, are partly responsi- ble for many ailments!

Bisphenol A: toxin on disastrous day release

With an annual production of about 4 million tons, bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the world’s most important industrial chemicals.

The plastic polycarbonate (PC) with its essential additive bisphenol A is used where tough, heat-resistant plastic is needed, such as in baby bottles, plastic containers and microwave dishes, or epoxy resins find application in lacquers, adhesives, coatings and film packaging.

The widespread use of this chemi- cal is reflected, however, also in the worrying figures of an investigation that was conducted on more than 2,500 Americans: 92.6 per cent of the subjects tested positive for BPA in the urine! In another study, the chemical was also detected in the blood, amniotic fluid, uterine tissue and umbilical cord blood. Now it is important to know that BPA is classified as an “endocrine active compound”, which in plain language means nothing more than that it resembles the female hormone estro- gen in its effect and among other things acts on metabolism, immune system and organ development. In fact, BPA has been linked to preco- cious puberty in girls, to allergies, heart disease, type-2 diabetes, prostate and breast cancer, as well as a decrease in sperm count and malformations of sexual organs. Animal studies showed that mice treated with BPA grow extremely obese and multiply their breast glands abnormally. The experimental mice were also found to have an enlargement of the prostate gland and an alteration of the brain.

In view of an annual turnover of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars and euros and millions of employees, the political leverage and scope of influence of the plastics industry on the heated health debate surrounding BPA can be imagined. Despite the burden of proof and the urgent need for action, the plastics lobby can still afford to play the old “counter- opinions-game” without having to reckon with serious political pressure. In fact, while the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) sees no increased health risk from BPA, and therefore no need for action, nearly all publicly funded studies in Europe and overseas warn against major health problems. It is important to realise that the “safety study” within the EU was at the time sponsored by the major BPA manufacturers, such as BASF and Bayer.

Phthalates: nasty softeners

Between bisphenol A and the so- called phthalates there are many parallels, ranging from the prolifera- tion to the “side effects”. With an annual production of about 5 million tons, this chemical is also an impor- tant base material in industry and, due to its prevalence, it can likewise be retrieved in just about every human being on the planet. The phthalates bound in PVC are for example responsible for the malleability and elasticity of floor coverings, pipes and cables, carpets, baby items, toys, or imitation leather. Without these softeners, the material would be hard and brittle – in other words, the softer and more elastic a plastic object is, the more softeners or plasticisers it contains. In contrast to bisphenol A, phthalates are not firmly blended with plastic but they coat the long-chain polymers, more like a fine molecular lubricant. In consequence of this loose alliance, the plasticisers can evaporate relatively quickly, be washed or rubbed off. Foods wrapped in this kind of film have the additional problem that leaking phthalates are virtually magnetically attracted by fat, so that large amounts of plasticis- ers accumulate in the food. In animal experiments, nearly the same carcinogenic, contraceptive and degenerative effects as with bisphe- nol A have emerged with phthalates. However, the bans on toxic plasticis- ers, which are gradually becoming accepted, do not as yet include the objects with which the contact takes place by air, skin or dust. And this is precisely where many scientists see another great source of danger ...

Educate, inform, and promote alternatives!

Five simple tips to avoid plastic waste, and consequently misery:

• Use your shopping bag and forgo plastic bags!

• Drink water from glass bottles and dispense with disposable plastic bottles!

• Recycle plastic as often as possible!

• Remove your garbage properly and do not throw it away rashly!

• Alert friends and relatives to their use of plastic and encourage them to give up plastic!

Anyone willing to protect himself and his environment from the consequences of the plastic mania must begin with his “environmental consciousness” and to unfold this awareness there is no way around thorough information, around personal education. To this end, books and the exchange with other committed people may help, but also films like the recently released documentary “Plastic Planet”

(www.plastic-planet.com) by the Austrian director Werner Boote. The interesting and exciting film and its accompanying website offer an important glimpse into the current state of research and also provide useful decision guidance for everyday life.

The failed climate change summit in December 2009 in Copenhagen shows that waiting for instructions and marching orders from govern- ment leaders and in the meantime putting any personal responsibility or self-reliance on hold is simply a hangover from the past. There will be no more nostrum from the round table in the colourful universe of opinions and self-interest. Railing reproach at those in power only veils one’s own lack of interest in the subject and embarrassing inertia. Lamenting in the face of impending environmental collapse is a danger- ous waste of time. Even though it sounds hackneyed, everyone can nevertheless change something on a small scale – regionally, locally, on one’s own doorstep, in one’s own behaviour! Until this obligation towards our fellow creatures and to Mother Nature is realised, we have no choice but to literally chew on the plastics problem, which will be haunting us for centuries to come!