It doesn't stay there. And microplastic looks very likely to be an asbestos-level menace up and down the food chain, including to humans. The more it breaks down, the worse it is. The only safe way to dispose of plastic is incineration, adding to the carbon dioxide problem. The best way to avoid this is not to make it.
It does just stay there in a well run landfill, and microplastics mostly either come from tyres and cosmetics, or plastics that aren't disposed of in landfills.
There's some poorly run landfills, but how about we campaign to somewhat improve landfills instead of trying to reform all of modern society?
Most landfills aren't well run. They're in third world countries, or places with business-favouring politics, or corrupt.
Also, you aren't thinking in deep time. Plastic waste needs to be managed indefinitely if it isn't going to be incinerated, because plastic becomes more dangerous, not less, as it becomes finer particles. Which also penetrate containment more readily.
> Most landfills aren't well run. They're in third world countries, or places with business-favouring politics, or corrupt.
We can regulate our own landfills and we can regulate which countries we export to. This is a far more realistic prospect than just banning most plastic products outright, as you suggest.
> Plastic waste needs to be managed indefinitely if it isn't going to be incinerated, because plastic becomes more dangerous, not less, as it becomes finer particles.
Yes, waste needs to be managed indefinitely, and we will always have to manage waste. We can do that.
>Ingested microplastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals—from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) to pesticides—that can compromise immune function and stymie growth and reproduction. Both microplastics and these chemicals may accumulate up the food chain, potentially impacting whole ecosystems, including the health of soils in which we grow our food. Microplastics in the water we drink and the air we breathe can also hit humans directly.
And a little more concerning
>What matters most is whether these physical and chemical impacts ultimately affect an organism’s growth, reproduction or susceptibility to illness. In a surprising study published in March, not only did fish exposed to microplastics reproduce less but their offspring, who weren’t directly exposed to plastic particles, also had fewer young, suggesting the effects can linger into subsequent generations.
Asbestos can take 10-80 years to cause cancer based on a cursory Google search while plastics are capable of causing a decline in fertility rates for at least two generations as well as begin to immediately interfere with hormone levels/production.
It took decades to understand asbestos was bad as it is and even then it took direct exposure (generally with you working with the stuff). Plastic is building up in the environment daily, and the levels have only really start to increase.
Plastic is also effectively forever, there is no practical plastic abatement like there is with asbestos. One great way of dealing with asbestos removal is keeping it damp, microplastics though are just going to spread with water. Microplastics are in the air and water, it's effectively falling like snow from the sky which is documented in the NatGeo article I linked.
Concentrations of microplastics is only going to go up as more and more of the plastic we've created starts to break down into smaller and smaller pieces. When you get small enough, like nano-scale, particles can get extremely dangerous as they can cross the cell membrane.
Plastic pollution is likely going to be far worse than asbestos and for incredibly more species.
Which just defers the problem. What's underground will eventually be returned to the surface by [insert geological event here]. What will a landfill be in 10,000 years time?
Deferring the problem seems like a viable strategy in this case. Plastic recycling seems like the kind of thing that technology might have something to say about eventually - especially if the plastic is already conveniently sorted into its own dedicated place. If petroleum demand falls to the point where oil wells shut down, and there's huge piles of plastic ready for the taking just under the surface, the economics of digging it up become more and more favorable. Plausibly, the problem could solve itself in time.
> I am sure that the deletion of media files in services like Facebook has never meant to be absolute. Many of my colleagues believe the same thing that I believe: Facebook and other services do not actually delete data, they just mark it as "deleted" and purge it only if they need the space.
This is a dumb conspiracy theory. Facebook has made plenty of public statements that say otherwise, and there's a whole team that works on the system that ensures every trace is erased from disks, logs, cold storage and backups when deleting content.
Deletion by flag is very common in IT and presumably has been since the first undelete program was created. It's not a Facebook thing.
Some mail programs for a long time have had a soft-delete that requires an expunging process to create compete removal.
In an IT setting you can delete a blob from a db, but it might still be on disk, and it will still be in caches, on user machines, and in backups/archives.
Because FB deletes by flag so that content disappear instantly and then start the actual process of deletion (which can take while because of stuff like backup, cols storage)...
I'm not inclined to believe PR statements like these when there's no way to verify them.
Can you support your assertion? The infrequent cases where someone manages to extract or recover supposedly deleted data cast a lot of doubt on your claims.
In any case, even if it's not Facebook specifically, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the majority of companies do not actually delete your data.
To be fair though, the article that this comment thread is attached to offers some seemingly direct evidence to support one aspect of this 'dumb' 'conspiracy' 'theory'.
"You just create a new Facebook at Work account to connect with coworkers. This account is separate from your personal Facebook but works in similar ways." (https://work.fb.com)
They absolutely will not mix personal and work Facebooks.
Plenty of companies have blocked [www|m].facebook.com at the firewall, for reasons of productivity and data protection. Facebook-the-company will not jeopardise the chances of adoption of this product by doing anything that will make work.facebook.com fall foul of a similar fate.
Pity they didn't just call it Workbook, then we wouldn't have had all this confusion. Or Workface :)
1c/GB is a tenth of the price of datacenter bandwidth, a hundredth of residential DSL or cable access bandwidth and a thousandth the price of mobile bandwidth.
The purpose of the limitation isn't to save peering costs, it's to ensure users click on Facebook's ads and compensate them for the costs of providing cellular access.
