Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Medicine Science

Scientists Call For Ban On Glitter, Say It's a Global Hazard That Pollutes Oceans (cnet.com) 121

Posted by BeauHD from the cease-and-desist dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Whether you love to add a little sparkle to your skin, or you think glitter truly is the herpes of the craft world (once it's on you, it never comes off), some scientists are now claiming that glitter is a hazard to the environment. Glitter, along with microbeads, are considered to fall under the category of microplastics, which are defined as plastics which are less than five millimeters in length. Microbeads are often found in facial scrubs, toothpaste, soaps, cosmetics and more. These microbeads pass through water filtration systems after usage but don't disintegrate, and often end up being consumed by marine life, causing concern among scientists keeping a close eye on how pollution effects fish.

"I think all glitter should be banned, because it's microplastic," Dr. Trisia Farrelly of New Zealand's Massey University told the Independent. Historically, glitter was made from mica rock particles, glass and even crushed beetles. Modern-day crafting glitter is made primarily from metals, while fine-milled cosmetic glitter is made from polyester, foil and plastics.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Call For Ban On Glitter, Say It's a Global Hazard That Pollutes Oceans More

Scientists Call For Ban On Glitter, Say It's a Global Hazard That Pollutes Oceans

Comments Filter:

  • I SEE WHAT YOU'RE UP TO (Score:5, Funny)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:12PM (#55646651) Homepage Journal
    It's a goddamned sneaky backdoor pogrom against FABULOUSNESS!

    • "I think all glitter should be banned, because it's microplastic," Dr. Trisia Farrelly of New Zealand's Massey University... Modern-day crafting glitter is made primarily from metals..

      It's more like a pogrom against logical consistency. If crafting glitter is not made from plastic but metal then, unless there is an environmental problem with the metal they use, why should it be banned? If the summary is right then clearly "all glitter" should not be banned, just cosmetic glitter which is made from plastic and Gary [wikipedia.org].

      • Re:Pogrom against logical consistency (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jzanu ( 668651 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @06:27PM (#55647111)
        The problem is almost entirely the uniquely small size and sudden introduction into a foreign environment. There is a major difference between metal in the ground as ore and metal as it is used in industry, and again a difference between e.g. 1 gram/trillion liters in sea water and 1 gram/billion liters, for everything that breathes it or otherwise lives in constant contact with it. Not just animals but plants, and even both in ecosystems sustain damage. It is the change in availability that literally crowds out existing organisms, causes metabolic problems with what eats it, and especially with what breathes it. Plastic does all that plus has additional problems from chemical leaching that directly harms people, rather than just their food supply.

        • Re:Pogrom against logical consistency (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @06:52PM (#55647229) Journal
          It depends strongly on the type of metal though. Iron, even in small chunks, is not going to be an issue because it will rapidly oxidise to rust which is readily found naturally. On the other hand, a metal like lead is highly toxic and relatively stable and is really bad for the environment. So I'm not saying that metal glitter is necessarily fine for the environment all I am pointing out is that if microplastics are bad for the environment then it does not logically follow that we should ban metal glitter. This would be like arguing that plastic bags are bad for the environment so therefore we should ban paper bags.

          • Re:Pogrom against logical consistency (Score:5, Informative)

            by Jzanu ( 668651 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @07:05PM (#55647303)
            Except chemistry is very specific, and metal glitter is partly aluminum and partly PET, none of which behaves remotely like iron. Think metallised film [goodfellow.com], "PET is a hard, stiff, strong, dimensionally stable material that absorbs very little water. " This means it isn't biodegradable, and doesn't dissolve in water at appreciable rates vs the amounts being discharged. There is a wiki link too if you google that but it is less direct.
            • Yes, chemistry is very specific which is why the original argument against plastics does not hold for metal. This was my point!

              • I imagine that it is possible to make a compostable glitter using bioplastic and an ultra-thin layer of aluminum. I imagine this because there are already plastic bags made of a compostable plastic and coated with a layer of aluminum allegedly one angstrom thick, such a minute quantity that it essentially disappears into the background. But is anyone doing that?

                Aluminum is basically the only metal which is relevant to the discussion, unless maybe titanium could be used. That's refined electrolytically now,

          • Why are you defending glitter? You're literally taking time out of your life to defend something that has no need to exist. Why do we need glitter at all?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by pnutjam ( 523990 )

              Why do we need glitter at all?

              To be FABULOUS!

            • Why are you defending glitter?

              I am not defending glitter, I am defending the principle that we should use be making scientifically sound decisions when it comes to banning things and only ban things which are more harmful than beneficial. Since glitter is basically useless that's a pretty low bar but it still has to be crossed. There seems to be clear evidence support a ban on plastic glitter but not metallic. If we just allow things to be banned by association - essentially making the argument that plastic glitter is bad therefore all

        • Re:Pogrom against logical consistency (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday November 30, 2017 @12:48AM (#55648529)
          I own a boat. Every metal I put into the sea turns into its oxidized form (i.e. ore) within months, if not weeks. I have to work my butt off to prevent this (paint, coatings, sacrificial anodes, galvanic isolator). There are above-water metal parts which I thought were thoroughly painted, yet a few days after being splashed with seawater I notice extensive corrosion.

          If metallic glitter can somehow survive in the ocean for more than a few months with zero maintenance effort, then I wanna know what metal it's made out of so I can build my boat out of it. I'm completely on board with a ban on plastic glitter (I've had to vacuum way too much of that crap up out of my carpets). But I seriously doubt metallic glitter is worthy of such a ban.
      • What struck me was that she wants it banned when it appears to only be a "concern among scientists keeping a close eye on how pollution affects (sic) fish", as opposed to having been demonstrated to be harmful. So it could be a problem, but we don't know for sure yet if it is so calling for a ban is incredibly premature. Bad science!
      • The summary/article is mistaken. Modern glitter is a thin-film coating of metal (aluminum) over a plastic substrate. It's like dicing up a space-blanket (Mylar).

  • The herpes of art supplies (Score:3, Funny)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:14PM (#55646659)
    I forget which comedian said it, but I recall a bit where compared glitter to herpes. Once you've got it, you can't get rid of it.

    • Re:The herpes of art supplies (Score:5, Informative)

      by rwven ( 663186 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:21PM (#55646717)

      Silly goose, that's literally the first sentence of the news post.

    • Re:The herpes of art supplies (Score:5, Interesting)

      by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:30PM (#55646783)
      Makes for a great demonstration of pollution in the classroom. Pour four tablespoons of ultra fine glitter in the middle of the floor, it dosent matter how large the room is. Let all the students run around for 10 minutes. Now have them examine where it went - wow it's over everyone and everything almost automagically!? When they inevitably ask - 'ok now how do we clean it up and get it off our clothes?' Keep it real and say 'exactly', then walk out.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "It's harmless, so don't worry about it. Take a shower, wash your clothes if you don't really like it. It will eventually disperse enough as to be unnoticeable."

        Just like pollution, right?

        • Re:The herpes of art supplies (Score:4, Interesting)

          by sjames ( 1099 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @07:32PM (#55647449) Homepage Journal

          If experience is any guide, the kid will visit home from college and when he gets back to his dorm, a bit of that glitter on his bag will catch the light and remind him of elementary school when he first tracked it home.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cyn1c77 ( 928549 )

          "It's harmless, so don't worry about it. Take a shower, wash your clothes if you don't really like it. It will eventually disperse enough as to be unnoticeable."

          Just like pollution, right?

          Yes. And nuclear waste!

        • Re:The herpes of art supplies (Score:4, Insightful)

          by scottrocket ( 1065416 ) on Thursday November 30, 2017 @12:00AM (#55648381) Journal
          Newspaper/printer ink used to be polluting; then we switched to organic inks. "Ban all glitter" is knee-jerk magical thinking and unnecessary: Simply alter the composition of the building material. I'm not a chemist, but I'm pretty sure that there are those who can pull this off. Fault can be found with any footprint we leave. To me, "immediate calls to ban" is simply misdirection for (_reason), while real problems go unsolved-and I'm generally an optimist!

      • So, you're going to demonstrate the problem of pollution by spreading around plastic pollutants?

        Isn't that sort of like demonstrating the value of biodiversity by killing off the last pair of dodo birds in front of class? "But how will the species survive now?"

        "Exactly." /walks out

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by slew ( 2918 )

          Isn't that sort of like demonstrating the value of biodiversity by killing off the last pair of dodo birds in front of class? "But how will the species survive now?"

          "Exactly." /walks out

          Isn't that kind of overkill? You only need to kill one of them, right? I think they even knew that back in 1662 ;^)

          • I was originally going to say "killed off the last dodo in front of class", but I just knew some wise-acre would have pointed out that they'd already be going extinct at that point. Heck, even if there was a single pair, that's not exactly a viable population anymore, right?

            Yeesh.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by arth1 ( 260657 )

              Heck, even if there was a single pair, that's not exactly a viable population anymore, right?

              It could be. Both you and the last dodo are descended from the same first eukaryotic ancestor.

              And you don't even need a pair - a single fertilized female can in theory be enough. Unlikely, but not impossible.

              Genetic variation is a big plus, but not always required. The cheetah has next to no genetic variation due to an earlier bottleneck. Not to mention the bdelloid rotifers, which are diploid (two sets of chromosomes), but were the males are presumed to be extinct for quite some time now, and all offs

      • I used to use this in a general science class to teach about how germs spread. I'd "sneeze" on a desk, paper, etc. before class, and then we'd do some normal activity. 3/4 of the way through class tell everyone what I'd done.

        Inevitably kids would have glitter on their hands, face, desk, pencils, notebooks, etc. It was a very powerful, "this is why you cover your cough, and this is why you wash your hands" teaching tool.

    • I've been calling that stuff pollution for years. Mostly because I don't like cleaning it up.

  • Oy vey... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    War on Drugs, War on Terror, now War on Ke$ha?? Those "Scientists" have NOOO idea what they unleashed...

  • Where's the GRA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:16PM (#55646679)
    We need a Glitter Regulatory Administration, laying down the rules and protecting us from our own over-glitterousness.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why? Won't industry regulate itself? hahaha

      I'd love someone to point me to a single industry that actually does truly regulate itself. Not an industry that makes up rules to appear like they regulate themselves yet the rules are in the favor of the industry and not the consumer or rest of the world. Is there any single industry in the world that does truly regulate itself?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Is there any single industry in the world that does truly regulate itself?

        Crime is self-regulating. Too much crime, government takes over, too little government, crime takes over. Too much government, everything becomes a crime.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        The e-cig industry did a fair job of it. That's why the FDA had to lay down the law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cyn1c77 ( 928549 )

      We need a Glitter Regulatory Administration, laying down the rules and protecting us from our own over-glitterousness.

      No, we need to stop wasting materials on frivolous crap like glitter and gratuitous internet use like slas

    • that actually has some teeth.

  • Glitter (Score:5, Funny)

    by tquasar ( 1405457 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:17PM (#55646685)
    Think of the Shiny Happy People! What will happen to them?

  • Glitter is pure evil. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I curse the bastard that invented it. My house and car have not been glitter free since the kids have been old enough to do "art". Yes, glitter is a global hazard and should be eradicated from existence, but as anyone with kids knows that is an impossible task.

  • In other words ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:19PM (#55646693)

    ... all that glitters isn't for goldfish.

  • If the nerdy scientists can't have glitter girls (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:21PM (#55646709)

    NO ONE CAN!

  • *affects (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Yeah, I'm gonna be that guy.

  • Glitter is another way to sell more oil.

  • So, 1.332 billion km^3 of oceans...

    Which means a cubic km of glitter amounts to 0.000000075% of the oceans.

    When we get up to a cubic km of glitter manufactured, I'll start thinking about worrying about glitter pollution....

    • The trick is it tends to float.

    • https://m.alibaba.com/product/... [alibaba.com]

      These guys can supply 8000 kg a day of this type, and there's thousands of types, and there's thousands of manufacturers just like them on Alibaba.

      • These guys can supply 8000 kg a day of this type, and there's thousands of types, and there's thousands of manufacturers just like them on Alibaba.

        Assuming a density similar to water, that's 8 m^3 per day. Which would mean that glitter would pass that 1 km^3 threshold somewhere around 300000AD.

        And that's if ALL of it ended up in the oceans.

        Go with the thousands of factories number, and we bring the worst case date (ALL the glitter ends up in the oceans) down to 2300 AD or so.

  • Just make it water-solluble and edible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:47PM (#55646881) Homepage Journal

    Make the stuff (slowly) water-soluble. So that it can be washed off — in the shower or washing machine.

    To make it even less harmful — and sought after — make it edible...

  • How about macroplastic waste too? (Score:3)

    by Subm ( 79417 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @06:38PM (#55647155)

    Why only get rid of microplastics?

    How about most macroplastic waste too? We've filled our world with wasteful packaging, unnecessary plastic bags, disposable everything, and so on.

    If we keep the useful macroplastic and stop producing the rest, we'll still get rid of a lot of waste and pollution.

  • Use gold (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Gold is safe to eat, harmless to the environment, shiny, and will even clean itself up if it is available in large enough quantities.

  • I recall that in elementary school I was told that plastics break down into smaller and smaller pieces over time.

    If we ban the smallest pieces of plastic, won't the larger stuff still break down over time?

  • Next ban clothes (Score:3)

    by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Thursday November 30, 2017 @03:21AM (#55648845)
    Since a study found that about 90% of the [plastic] debris was microfibers – both in freshwater and the ocean [theguardian.com], and these were identified as coming from clothes then perhaps we should ban these too.
    • Mandatory filters for microfibres in washing machines. Scientists studying plastic pollution want them introduced; the industry obviously does not because of the cost. (Clothes also serve a fundamental need of maintaining body temperature; the same cannot be said for glitter.)
  • Those girls work hard for their money and they deserve to shine. Dr. Trisia is just jealous because she has a stripper name but doesn't have the pole-skills for a real career. That's why she's pretending fish are better than strippers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close