Microbeads a bigger issue than first thought

Interesting! I initially posted a story concerning the cosmetic microbeads about 10 days ago. It was one of those articles that caught my eye, but yet didn't. Guess I should have paid a bit more attention as the issue is "bigger" than I thought.

Scientist Marcus Eriksen stood ankle deep in the murky Los Angeles River on Friday and dipped a net into the water, looking for a problem.

Eriksen was searching for "microbeads," bits of plastic no bigger than salt grains that absorb toxins such as motor oil and insecticides as they tumble downstream and into the Pacific Ocean.

The tiny polyethylene and polypropylene beads are an emerging concern among scientists and environmentalists. The beads come mostly from personal care products such as facial exfoliants and body washes. They are not biodegradable, however, and because they are not removed easily by wastewater treatment plants, they flow out to sea and enter the food chain.

Two more articles have recently popped up concerning this issue. The first article highlights some of the legislative action being taken and considered in New York and California.

Late last month, New York Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D) got the ball rolling when she introduced A.8652, which would ban the sale of personal care products and cosmetics containing microbeads. On Tuesday, Schimel was one-upped by Assemblyman Robert Sweeney (D), who, with the backing of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) and the nonprofit 5 Gyres, introduced A.8744 — which would ban the sale, manufacture, and distribution of such products.

[,,,]
California Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D) introduced AB 1699 on Thursday. The bill would prohibit the sale of most products containing microplastic, though it would permit tiny amounts of the tiny plastics — less than one part per million.

The second article talks of concerns for the health of the Great Lakes.

Scientists have already found the particles floating in the oceans, but a non-profit California-based environmental activist group recently reported the same contamination in lakes Erie, Superior and Huron.

[,,,]
Meanwhile, however, he said the plastic particles had been added to a long list of threats to the Great Lakes fish population, as they could easily confused with natural food.

Furthermore, they may also pose a health risk to humans, the group said.

"We don't know if the problem stops with the fish or if we eat the fish, the problems are with us now," said Lorena Rios-Mendoza, a chemist with the University of Wisconsin-Superior who was on the 5 Gyres boat expedition.

There was also an issue of removing the microplastic debris already in the lakes.

"Plastic doesn't biodegrade so once it's in the water, it doesn't just disappear," Ms Rios-Mendoza said.

Mr Eriksen said particles could also absorb chemicals from the water, which acted as weight, sinking the particles to the lake beds.

The lifespan of microplastics is unknown so it can take years for it to completely leave the ocean or lake, if it ever does.