Leafy vegetables found to contain tire additives
e360.yale.edu
e360.yale.edu
https://medienportal.univie.ac.at/en/media/recent-press-rele...
It has more informative content:
>> The concentrations of the tire additives in leafy vegetables are low overall and are, for example, 238 ng/kg for benzothiazole (BTZ), or 0.4 ng/kg for 6PPD, a substance whose transformation product 6PPD quinone is known to be highly toxic for aquatic species like coho salmon. Depending on the diet, this leads to a daily intake per person of 12 to 1,296 ng for BTZ, or 0.06 to 2.6 ng for 6PPD. This is comparable in magnitude to drug residues, which also enter the food chain. According to Thilo Hofmann, the study shows clear results: "While the concentrations and daily intake are fortunately relatively low, additives from car tires are still found in food. That's not where they belong." According to Hofmann, the next steps should now be to investigate the environmental and human health aspects.
With regards to the finding, IMHO we're missing an opportunity to price persistence into chemical production/use.
There should be direct costs to a company choosing to use indefinitely-persistent chemical in their products, as opposed to something with shorter environmental degradation.
Maybe there are use cases where that's worth paying! E.g. tires. But we should financially incentivize the global outcomes we want.
That means the less populous parts of California, Arizona, and Florida.
It'd be interesting to do an upstream drainage trace though, as many rivers do flow through urban areas. Although less so in California? Given they're mostly mountains-to-sea, so would hit fields before major coastal population centers?
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa...
Better to pick a more objective measure (environmental persistence) and then calculate cost addition directly from that.
Moreover, money is an inflationary national currency, which itself is subject to heavy dilution. What good is a fixed rate going to do when it accomplishes the most damage in the decades ahead? Or how is it going to benefit animals and people of other countries that are not affiliated?
We already have a system for regulating extremely toxic agents like deadly viruses, explosives, radioactive materials, and other very hazardous materials. It works.
In truth there is no moral right that one has to emit pollution that hurts others.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics
> We already have a system for regulating...
The TSCA is Swiss cheese, considering it started by grandfathering in 62,000 chemicals, which will never be tested.
The EPA is generally able to test about 0.4% of chemicals.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act...
I have heard enough Ayn Rand style nonsense to know that it's nonsense. Her cult members will sell their wife and mother for money for a price, and they cannot be entrusted with environmental safety.
"Seventy-eight percent of ocean microplastics are synthetic tire rubber, according to one estimate."
https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical...
https://nlnews.net/car-tires-are-the-largest-source-of-micro...
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/running/do-electri...
> his 11 electric Nissan Leaf taxis typically have a brake pad lifespan of 80,000 to 100,000 miles, with discs typically being changed because of warping rather than wear.
> Those brake pad and disc lifespans are four times and two times those of the brakes on his diesel taxis, respectively, and that’s on a type of vehicle that is known to be driven with little thought given to brake wear or efficiency.
> ... brake dust ...
I would hope/assume that EVs would primarily use regenerative braking and only use friction brakes for emergency stops, thereby dramatically reducing brake pad wear
All these small permaculture farms neglect to mention that it's way more labor intensive to maintain than regular farming (the one with big tractors and pesticides). Farming is hard physical work - so if you are in poor health, then what? Just starve, I guess.
Try this next year as an experiment - grow 25% of your yearly calories worth of potatoes. Doesn't even have to include your family (if you have one). Just for 1 adult person. See how "sustainable" that is for you in terms of labor.
Also not sure what this has to do with tire microplastic pollution. The 2 are kind of orthogonal.
It is labor intensive but not that much. When I tried before the pandemic the routine was very dialed in and mostly starting the seed then harvest. Using targeted water and feeding schedules, it was mostly set it and forget it with ample excess.
Finally, the more control we have of the process and the inputs, the ability we will have to eliminate microplastics from the end product. Specifically, my butter and romaine lettuce growing hydroponically in my basement would not have shown traces of microplastics. If it did, I would’ve quickly altered the necessary piece of the puzzle.
I think about this every time I drive through the morgan hill / gilroy / watsonville area on the way to a camping trip. You have some of the most expensive crops in the nation (berries, leafy greens, cherries, etc.) growing here in california, and it's surrounded by roads that somehow seem like they are always at capacity, depositing tire dust, particulate matter from diesel engines, and who knows what else all over the soil and the plants themselves.
This stuff should be just as regulated as if we were spraying it on our crops, because we are.
Not surprised. In Honolulu I mop up what I thought was black soot from our Lanai. Then I was told it was actually mostly tire particles. So switching to electric is not enough.
The 4th-power rule is more applicable when it comes to road damage.
If you want a comparative analysis of tire wear and environmental impact, you have to consider the average mileage before a tire is worn out, the volume/mass of material that's lost, etc.
This article[0] suggests 150,000 miles for steer tires, and 300-500k for drive tires. If a tire starts out at 1/2" (16/32") and is worn down to 3/32", a delta of 13/32" or ~10mm. Radius of a typical 22.5" tire is 500mm and tread width 250mm, so you have (π500^2-π490^2)*250mm = 7.5L of rubber material deposited all over the world for each tire.
Over 1M miles, this is 12 steer tires, and 24 drive tires, so ~200L of tire rubber over a typical semi truck lifetime.
0 - https://www.fleetowner.com/operations/article/21676805/tires...
Where does the material go?
Where does what material go? A series of microscopic turtles with canister vacuums that live on the tire ensure material never leaves.
The difference is mostly from the battery. North American EVs tend to have larger batteries than their international market peers too because of product range targets and marketability; unfortunately, vehicles in the Nissan Leaf / BMW i3 / Volkswagen eGolf or ID3 size are a very small portion of North American EVs.
* The typical Tesla Model 3 weighs around 4,000 lbs (~1,800kg). Models Y, S, X (4,400 lbs, 4,700lbs, 5,200lbs / 2,000 kg, 2,100 kg, 2,400 kg) respectively.
* A 2024 Toyota Prius weighs around 3,100 lbs (~1,400kg). A 2010-era Toyota Prius weighs around 3,000 lbs (~1,400kg).
* A Tesla Cybertruck (Dual-motor, lightest config) weighs around 6,600 lbs (3,000kg).
* A General Motors Hummer H2 (2002-2009) from the early 2000s-era weighs around 6,400 lbs (3,000kg)
* The Nissan Leaf / BMW i3 / VW ID3 size EVs, with their largest battery options (30-40kWh) tend to weigh around 3,000-3,500 lbs (1,300-1,600 kg)
* The typical North American EV weighs as much, if not more than, midsize and full-size pickup trucks from 20 years ago. The Hummer H2 weight is quoted above, not because it was a typical pickup/SUV, but because it was often considered to be a gaudy example of wastefulness during its time.
Your argument would hold more weight* if it also quoted numbers from popular ICE vehicles.
There is some discussion here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-perception-of-Tesla-cars-b...
> Starting with the Tesla Model 3 weighing in at between 1777Kg and 1840Kg
> A comparable ICE car the BMW 3 series 1570Kg - 1965Kg
> And another ICE car the Mercedes C class 1665Kg - 2190Kg
> And finally another EV the Ford Mustang Mach-E 1993Kg - 2218Kg
The examples given above aren't about Teslas, but Teslas are named as examples because for many they are often considered defacto synonymous with "EVs" in North America.
Vehicles a person might cross-shop could be considered "comparable" for some, yet not everyone will agree that those vehicles are actually "comparable" (e.g. Tesla Model 3 versus BMW 3-series or similar cars in the BMW 3-series' segment.
Should "comparable" be by specification? Cabin comfort? By product segment? By functional purpose? 0-60 acceleration times? By curb weight?
For alternative definitions of "popular" let's select some of the best-selling (i.e. units sold annually) automotive vehicles in North America. Best-selling 'overall' rather than by "product segment":
* 2024 Toyota RAV4 (3,800lbs / 1,700kg). The spans multiple configurations and trims, from ICE AWD to Hybrid AWD.
* 2024 Honda CRV (3,400-3900lbs / 1550-1,800 kg). This spans multiple configurations and trims, from ICE 2WD/AWD to Hybrid.
* 2024 Ford F150 XLT (5,000lbs / 2,300kg). There are many-many variants of F150 spanning powertrains, cab+bed configurations, trims. The curb weight example listed is for a SuperCrew Cab, 4x4, V6-Ecoboost Engine 6.5-ft bed configuration.
Here's a few more non-Tesla EVs:
* Hyundai Ionic 5 (4,200-4,600lbs / 1,900-2,100kg)
* Volkswagen ID.4 (4,300-4,900lbs / 2,000-2,200kg)
* Chevy Bolt EV/EUV (~3,600lbs / ~1650kg). The Bolt turns out to be an outlier amongst most of the North American EVs, and really better matches the Leaf/i3/ID.3 group of EVs.
* Fiat 500e (2024) (~2950lbs / ~1,350kg). Another outlier, classified as a "minicompact" car.
Generally, the most-common EVs being sold in North America outweigh the most-common ICE or Hybrid EVs being sold in North America. In terms of weight, the most-common EVs, regardless of bodystyle are more comparable to the light to medium duty pickup trucks and SUVs of the last few decades.
* This is interesting too because US States like California and Washington have road wear and maintenance funding issues because their revenue collection system was generally designed through gasoline consumption sales taxes which do not apply to EVs. Additionally, in California regular pickup trucks are classified and taxed, via vehicle registration and weight penalty fees, as commercial vehicles rather than personal vehicles (For individuals, this results in registration fees that are 2x+ the non-commercial rate).
Edit: I’m too late, already noted by Sparkle-san below
Where do they belong? When we set forever chemical loose in the environment, it is expected that a quantity of them will reach the ones in the top of the food chain, which humans are. Where are forever chemicals supposed to end up when we decide it is less costly economic-wise to use them?
People on the left are more easily convinced by scientific studies and by the idea that nature has a right to exist for more than human utility such at the values of wilderness and intact ecosystems.
People on the right are more easily convinced by fear that their environment has become toxic and impure and that they want their air, water and food to be natural and unadulterated.
Tailoring which presentation one highlights isn't lying: it's simply making the most effective argument.
Can you say anything about the politically aligned response to GMOs? It seems like there are groups on both sides who feel very strongly about them.
My mild concerns relate to licensing and the economic pressure toward monoculture. It seems many are opposed to them in a sort of conspiracy theory panic.
So yeah, do you know what motivates opposition to them and how does motivations breakdown politically?
Drilling further down, the individuals at companies and in government are in a position to make a difference, but they are not paid to help the environment; they're paid (or paid off in the case of government) to boost company profits. Until individuals are unwilling to help companies save money and boost profits by fucking the environment, fucking over consumers, etc., nothing is going to change.
It's about the same situation as lobbyists working for corporations to make sure corporations' interests are heard, whatever the costs. Do these lobbyists care about the environment? Maybe. Do they care enough to turn down the kind of money they're making? Nope. Let somebody else fix the environment, make sure consumers have rights, etc.
And before someone raises the vote card, IMO voting doesn't work at all. People are just voting for the most convincing / charismatic liar. Nothing says they have to actually do what they think you want them to, and what they say is important to them. And clearly, they don't, and it isn't.