Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmoriarty | Hacker News Reader

"Microplastics or microbeads are mostly used in soaps, shower gels and facial scrubs to exfoliate skin..."

So, wait... If we just stopped using microplastics in soaps, shower gels and facial scrubs we'd mostly stop dumping microsplastics in to the environment?

But we don't because we'd rather have this totally optional, cosmetic benefit?

Humans are so stupid.

View on HN

The article is correct only in the sense that that is the purpose of many manufactured microplastics, and the teenager's quote hints at it: "The method used was most effective on fibres obtained from a washing machine and least effective on polypropylene plastics".

I strongly think it's the majority, though I don't have a source, that most microplastics come from wear and other sources. From consumer sources, microplastics come from synthetic fibers and wear from regular plastic products, among others.

According to this [1] source, only about 2% of microplastics are due to cosmetics. The majority are from synthetic textiles (35%) and tyres (28%).

[1] https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documen...

And they told us it's all our fault by using plastic bags...

Microplastics aren't the only plastic related problem.

I felt good about buying cotton tees which need less laundry due to hydrophobic and silver ion coatings. But they contain a bit of lycra. And they are hard to recycle. What should I buy instead?

Maybe could consider hemp clothes? Do your own research though as this could be a terrible suggestion. Hopefully others will comment on the (in)correctness of this suggestion

Microbeads are already banned in many places. The United States for example banned it back in 2017. But there are many governments that haven't caught up to it yet.

Ocean microplastics come from trash being beaten into tiny pieces by waves, wind, and radiation from sunlight, not really exfoliating beads, straws, or glitter.

Source please.

Only the pieces that are visible enough to be still recognizable make it into photos in news articles. The real data is very different, especially when you are looking for the micrometer-sized plastics that end up killing fish or getting into bottled water.

Also I noticed the term "microplastics" is used for two different things - one are fragments of plastic size 1-5cm, the other is the size of glitter particles and smaller. It is the second one that's more of a concern.

not OP but

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/pollution-ecology/the-dow...

pretty much a google search away

AFAIK Most micro plastics come from your washing machine’s water every time you wash something with plastic in it

In the US, we stopped two years ago: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/us-bans-microbeads-from-...

There are still a lot floating around though.

Even if you want the cosmetic benefit of physical exfoliation, we don't have to use plastic -- you could just as easily use sand or salt and get the same benefits.

... except the extra dose of estrogen mimicking chemicals, (that for women could be an extra bonus "feeling like a woman", etc).

Is not so simple because now we know that some animals can generate microplastics also so even if we stop dumping any microplastic right now, the stuff will keep being generated continuously for an awful lot of time.

... and what kwhitefoot said about textiles.

Absolutely. I agree with you. The only way to do thing in a good maner is to stop using plastics. We have the technology and the talent enough for find an alternative for every single use.

It's one of the many, many sources of microplastics. Others include:

Anything made of plastic, because it deteriorates over time.

Tires with synthetic threads, as another HN poster mentioned recently.

Plastic shoes (most shoes in western world)

Glitter and car paint

Reply on news.ycombinator.com