Is plastic recycling a myth?- By Geewananda Gunawardana
Plastic recycling was the topic of several recent newspaper articles; they all stressed the obvious need for action. However, they have failed to mention several hidden realities pertaining to this subject, and the goal of this write-up is to draw attention to the other side of the story. There is no argument that plastic waste litters the beaches and reduce their appeal to the tourists, but it is more widespread than that: plastic is found in inaccessible places of the globe like the Mariyana trench, the Antarctic icecap, and the highest peaks of the Himalayas. Besides the visible pollution of the environment, plastic is found in most living organisms; the human body, breast milk and the placenta included. This has enormous health and evolutionary consequences, yet less than nine percent of the plastic used is recycled globally, leaving billions of tons of plastics to rot unmitigated, snowballing a problem that has epic consequences not unlike the climate change or nuclear war.
Cellulite, the first known plastic material, was introduced in 1862; this is a polymer of a naturally occurring cellulose. The first totally synthetic plastic Bakelite was produced in 1907. The shortage of natural rubber during World War II led to the manufacture of numerous plastics in vast quantities, and this trend continues with ever increasing demands and innovations. This industry has introduced a plethora of chemical entities that have never ever existed on planet earth before. Mother Nature is resilient, and she will deal with them in her own way. However, the potential consequences of such adjustments should not be taken lightly; the most long-lasting living beings on this planet, the dinosaurs that lived for 165 million years, could not adjust to the effects of dust and smoke generated by a meteor impact. Let us not forget that despite their unparalleled sophistication, sense of superiority and invincibility, modern humans have inhabited the earth only for 160 thousand years: a mere blip in the 4.5-billion-year history of the planet that could end up just being that if they do not heed reality.
The curse of plastics goes way beyond spoiling the beauty of a serene beach or a sacred, pristine mountain top. This has to do with the way plastics degrade, or the way they resist degradation, depending on if it is looked at macroscopic or microscopic level. Cellulose being a natural substance, it decomposes naturally. There are microbes that can chew them up and return them back to carbon dioxide and water for reuse by plants. Plastics being brand new, nature had not had a chance to develop a way to do the same, there are no enzymes that can chew up plastics. Therefore, they do not rust or rot the way metals and wood would do and disappear.
When plastics degrade, that is when they physically break up, they produce minute pieces known as microparticles. These can vary in size, but they are generally considered to be particles smaller than one hundred microns. For comparison, the diameter of a human hair typically ranges from about 50 to 70 microns. Because of this microscopic size, these particles can spread throughout the environment and penetrate many barriers including living tissues. They can enter the body through ingestion, inhalation, or contaminated food, water, and beverages. In fact, plastic microparticles have been found in almost all living organisms, particularly in marine life, and all human tissues.
One may ask if they are non-reactive, or inert, what harm could they do? First, since they do not degrade, they accumulate in the tissues, this is a significant problem for long living organisms. The second is a more complex reason: all enzymes, the proteins that carry out all biochemical reactions in living organisms, do so based on their shape, like the shape of a key is specific to the lock it can unlock. An enzyme assumes a specific shape to accommodate its substrate to carry out its biochemical conversion. When the products of enzymatic transformations build up, it changes the shape of the enzyme and stops the reaction. This is an important feedback mechanism that maintains the biochemical balance, or homeostasis of the body. The trouble is that some plastic microparticles can mimic these natural substances thereby changing the activity of enzymes and disturbing the natural balance.
A wide range of diseases are now known to be caused by plastic contamination: Auto-immune conditions, Birth defects, Cancer, Cardiovascular diseases, Chronic inflammation, Diabetes, Inflammatory bowel disease, Liver and kidney problems, Low birth weight, Neuro-degenerative diseases, Rheumatoid arthritis, Stroke, and Thyroid gland disruptions are some examples. Ironically, despite the improvements in living standards, and advances in medicine, these ailments are on the rise; there are no doubts about the obvious reasons.
Recycling is a catch phrase universally used whenever these issues are raised. Unfortunately, the same properties that make plastic so useful render their recycling equally difficult, if not impossible. Once plastic is melted, it loses some of the properties designed for a particular product, making it less suitable for the manufacture of the same product. For example, polythene bags can be turned into composite lumber or playground equipment, but not bags of the same quality. This and the logistical challenges involved in collecting, sorting, and preventing contamination makes recycling less practical and more expensive than using fresh plastic raw materials. Because of this inherent limitation, less than 9% of the plastics produced globally are truly recycled. Incineration is a much more dangerous practice, as it releases more dangerous toxins to the environment in addition to more microparticles.
So, plastic recycling remains a myth, a catchphrase used by governments and industries, globally, to whitewash yet another tragic byproduct of industrialization. The worst part of this mythmaking is that it puts the burden on the consumer, when there is very little they can do. The establishment touts three “Rs”: reduce, reuse, and recycle. They all have huge limitations under real life conditions.
The burden should be on industry, instead. They have a habit of creating problems in the name of progress and palming them off to consumers, particularly those in the developing world. Plastics are not alone, there are other examples: antibiotics, internal combustion engine, pesticides – DDT in particular, and nuclear fission are some, but there are many more. In the case of plastics, it is not for the lack of alternatives; the world functioned just fine before 1907. The four hundred metric tons of plastic produced annually will sit somewhere long after humans are gone, and until the sun turns into a red giant and gobbles up the earth. Sadly, in the current context, innovation means making more money, and not the betterment of the human condition. “Continue to contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste,” Chief Seattle, the patriarch of a native American tribe, wrote to then US president in 1855, regarding the European occupiers’ lack of respect for nature. He warned that they too would pass – sooner than some other tribes. It is time humanity came to this realization.
