Civil Defense Perspectives May 2024 (vol. 39 #3)
Four years after COVID-19, the “excess” death rate seems to be higher than the pre-2019 baseline, and the rate of strokes, unusual and aggressive cancers, infertility, and heart disease also appears to be higher. Drawing conclusions is complicated by confounders, especially the aging of the population. However, people are starting to wonder.
Could it be “air pollution” from PM2.5s, even though air quality has improved greatly? Long COVID? Climate change? Gas stoves? It could be anything except the forbidden “V” word, but two features of industrial society are gaining attention.
Plastics are derived from evil “fossil carbon,” and production is increasing exponentially. Annual output has grown from less than 2 million tons in 1950 to about 400 million tons today, and is expected to double by 2040 and triple by 2060.
“Plastics endanger human health at every stage of the plastic life cycle” (N Engl J Med 3/7/24). Harms were first discovered from occupational exposure and in “fence line” communities near production plants, and the harm “falls disproportionately on low-income communities of color.”
Many chemical additives that impart important characteristics are toxic or carcinogenic and are claimed to increase the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or stroke (ibid.).
In the environment, plastic waste “breaks down into chemical-laden microplastic and nanoplastic particles” (ibid.).
Microplastics are ubiquitous. They are ingested or inhaled, possibly penetrate the skin, and accumulate in many tissues.
Commentary writer Philip Landrigan, M.D., of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, concludes that “we need to express our strong support for the [UN] Global Plastic Treaty,” which is under development, and argue for inclusion of a mandatory global cap on production. “Like solutions to climate change, resolution of the problems associated with plastics will require a wide-scale transition away from fossil carbon. The path will not be easy, but inaction is no longer an option.”
He refers to a study by Marfella et al. in the same issue of NEJM of 312 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy. The 58% who had micro or nanoplastics detected in the excised plaque had a 2.1 times higher incidence of cardiovascular events or death from any cause at 34 months.
In commenting on the Washington Post article “The Plastics We Breathe” (https://tinyurl.com/23fjfwx8), Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com reminds us that plastics are inert and innocuous, which is why they make great storage containers for food, water, and medicine (https://tinyurl.com/2b2zzfuw). Since plastic is so nonreactive, it does not break down chemically but breaks up into tiny fragments. In 70 years, there has been no credible evidence of harm to anyone from microplastics.
It’s not just microplastics. More than 3,600 of the 14,000 known chemicals in food packaging “could now be lurking in your body,” and 80 of these have “hazard properties of high concern.” The worst may be recycled paper and cardboard (https://tinyurl.com/hta96k3w). The cited evidence does not include any information on the concentrations of the chemicals or metabolites that were measured in humans. Nor does it include the frequency of detection. (https://tinyurl.com/4hjnc93d).
A Global Triumvirate
Pollution, climate change, and biodiversity are closely linked, and “actions taken to control pollution have a high potential to also mitigate the effects of those other planetary threats,” according to the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health (Lancet June 2022, https://tinyurl.com/48vr9cjh). Not just the ocean, as discussed in May 2019 (https://tinyurl.com/y9r5jema), but human health and the entire planet are purportedly at risk.
Pollution—[“ie, unwanted waste of human origin”]—is claimed to be “responsible for an estimated 9 million deaths (16% of all deaths globally) and for economic losses totalling US$ 4.6 trillion (6.2% of global economic output) in 2015.” The impact was deeply inequitable, with 92% of pollution-related deaths, and the greatest burden of economic losses, occurring in low-and middle-income countries (ibid.).
It’s a “vicious cycle”: The plastics industry contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, and warmer temperatures increase plastic degradation (Nature Communications 3/6/24).
The combined impact of “forever” chemicals is claimed to be much greater than either separately—a 59% additive and 41% synergistic effect on critical fitness traits such as survival, reproduction, and growth (https://tinyurl.com/2s3uae8e).
More than 70 million Americans, EPA claims, drink tap water contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been linked to endocrine disruption and other bad effects (tinyurl.com/463muaks). PFAS are used in grease-resistant food wrappers, non-stick cookware, and water- repellant fabrics. These chemicals are everywhere in trace amounts, writes S. Stanley Young, “Forever chemicals” is a buzzword for carbon atoms with fluorine atoms attached—they are extremely unreactive and thus persistent.
While CO2 emissions and plastics use have steadily increased since 1950, average human life expectancy continued to increase on all continents—until a slight but sharp turn downward occurred almost everywhere at the time of COVID. It has not recovered after the peak of the epidemic in 2020-2021. Since the mid-19th century, average life expectancy has doubled on every continent (https://tinyurl.com/2h3n2cr6).
The Effects of ‘Mitigation’
Current “green” policies and the demand for a “circular” economy will worsen microplastic pollution. Plastic recycling plants leak up to 2 million tons of microplastics into waterways. This is several orders of magnitude higher than particle release from wastewater treatment plants. About 80% of the particles are less than 10 microns in diameter, the size most likely to harm human health. Despite the Basel treaty prohibiting the export of dirty plastic waste to developing countries, illicit waste trafficking is lucrative (https://tinyurl.com/3tfsvvsu).
How will the war on chemicals affect human health and prosperity? “Identifying alternatives to PFAS requires weighing trade-offs and alternatives.” There is “complex societal reliance” on these chemicals—for firefighting, electronics, aerospace, medicine, food packaging, etc. But as with “climate change,” the potential future harms require urgent action (Science 7/19/24).
EPA Sets Limits on PFAS
The EPA set legal limits for two types of PFAS, called PFOA and PFOS, at 4 parts per trillion. A “part per trillion” is about equal to one drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized pools. The agency also declared that there is no safe level for these extremely nonreactive chemicals, setting a non-enforceable health goal at zero (https://tinyurl.com/4xcxhdx7).
The EPA put the rule’s costs at $1.5 billion each year. The EPA said that its rule will reduce exposure to these substances for about 100 million people, preventing 9,600 deaths and nearly 30,000 illnesses in the coming decades ($156,000 per hypothetical life saved). Activist Emily Donovan, who said she had watched loved ones who had drunk the water suffer from rare or recurrent cancers, wrote, “I’m grateful the Biden EPA heard our pleas…. We will keep fighting until all exposures to PFAS end and the chemical companies responsible for business-related human rights abuses are held fully accountable” (tinyurl.com/yc3v93th).
Essential Materials
Vaclav Smil, distinguished professor emeritus in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba, writes: “Four materials rank highest on the scale of necessity, forming what I have called the four pillars of modern civilization: cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia are needed in larger quantities than are other essential inputs” (tinyurl.com/bdfhfv6t).
Producing these materials imposes a $79 billion annual climate-related cost, according to Environmental Research Letters, owing to emissions from energy production and chemical processes. Authors estimate that if the theoretical “climate costs” from these emissions were factored into prices, some materials would see significant cost increases: cement, 62%; lime, 61%; gypsum, 47%; steel: 22%; plastics, 19%. Steel and plastics, despite costs constituting a lower fraction of their market value, are each responsible for more than $20 billion in annual climate costs due to their high production volumes. The study used the EPA’s social cost of carbon (SCC) estimate of $184 per ton of CO2 to calculate quantifiable economic damage from increased “carbon” emissions, including impacts on human health, agriculture, and coastal infrastructure (tinyurl.com/5c5up4a7).
Just how would increasing prices benefit the climate? And how would making essentials unaffordable benefit humanity? The authors put their faith in spurring “innovations.” Could these make it possible to run a blast furnace on solar panels?
A World without ‘Forever Chemicals’?
In February 2023, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki published a proposal that would heavily restrict the manufacture of more than 12,000 substances, collectively known as forever chemicals. Several PFAS now known to be toxic are already banned under national and international laws. Most PFAS have not yet undergone toxicology assessments or been linked to health harms, but ECHA officials say their persistence means they will inevitably build up until as-yet-unknown safe thresholds are crossed. Some agencies want to ban any molecule with a carbon atom in a chain that’s bonded to two fluorine atoms (or, if at the end of the chain, three). Are there substitutes for these essential compounds? We’d best start looking (Nature 8/3/23, https://tinyurl.com/mryhwa33).
A Toxin-Free World?
The EU Biodiversity Strategy envisions a “toxic-free” environment, with a 50% reduction in pesticides use and risk before 2030, and conversion of 25% of European agriculture land to organic farming. The angry protests of thousands of farmers caused the EU Commission scrap the plan to halve pesticide use.
Food itself delivers tens of thousands of natural chemicals every day, many of them toxic. The average glass of wine contains 25,000 chemicals. According to Bruce Ames et al., 99.99% of the pesticides in the American diet are produced by plants to defend themselves. “We estimate that Americans eat about 1.5 g of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than they eat of synthetic pesticide residues.”
The demand for more organic farming is hugely ironic, as organic agriculture in 12 countries consumes 3,258 tons of copper annually to control bacterial and fungal diseases, only 52% of the permitted usage. The element copper of course is forever, as it cannot break down into other substances. Phasing out copper in organic agriculture is impossible (tinyurl.com/ym268xzf).
Is It Safe to Eat Fish?
With increasingly sensitive tests, PFAS have been detected in the blood of the U.S. population—although at decreasing levels. Human blood levels in 2018 were 70% to 90% lower than in 1999 and continue to decline today. Still, in its relentless focus on PFAS, the EPA’s latest venue is fish. There are some advisories about levels found in recreationally caught fish that are above “safe levels”—well below a level that could harm human health and so low that almost any level found in fish tissue would exceed them. For many reasons it is a good idea to wash and cook the fish. In one study, washing removed 74% of PFOS, with grilling removing 91%, steaming 75%, frying 58%, and braising 47% compared to uncooked samples (tinyurl.com/2vn2v5dx).
Is It Safe to Take Medicine?
Phthalates, which are used to enhance the durability of plastics, are commonly present in various household and personal care products such as shampoo, hair sprays, and laundry detergent. They are also a common ingredient in pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements. They help to localize medication release, enhance stability, minimize after-taste, and make pills easier to swallow. “The potential effects of human exposure to these phthalates through medications are unknown and warrant further investigation” (https://tinyurl.com/3mys769r).
According to Dr. Luíza Mirpuri, of mirpurifoundation.org/, which wants to stop climate change, phthalates might cause breast cancer and endocrine disruption and be could be “another Silent Spring” (https://tinyurl.com/529nu7xd).
No Plastic (or Other Trash) in Singapore
Every day, 2,400 trucks collect all the trash and dump it in the “bunker.” Four waste incineration plants burn trash 24 hours a day. The heat generates electricity. The toxic smoke is filtered and becomes “super clean.” The ash becomes NEWSand. It is taken to a man-made island, where the plan is to convert it into bricks for nonstructural construction such as pathway bricks (https://tinyurl.com/2s395ec9).