Scientists issue warning after discovering dangerous particles blowing in wind: 'The impacts on human health are concerning'
Sewage overflows and coastal winds could be sending "billions" of microplastics into the air, according to a study.
While research is still in its early stages, scientists worry about the health impacts of this airborne plastic pollution.
What's happening?
The Plymouth Marine Laboratory study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, analyzed two years of data on sewer overflows and wind conditions in Plymouth Sound, off the coast of England, to determine when conditions were conducive to "aerosolization" — the transfer of microplastics into the air.
Out of those two years, 178 days had conditions that could have resulted in microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) being carried from the sea to the air. Once in the air, the MNPs could have been inhaled by humans, the scientists hypothesized.
The group of experts from the University of Plymouth and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory conducted the study to test whether these conditions could be a significant source of air pollution.
Why is microplastic pollution concerning?
Experts have long raised concerns about the adverse effects of microplastics on human health. The team that conducted this study has called for more research into the link between sewage overspill and airborne plastic pollution.
The authors may have determined why the microplastics that are believed to enter oceans and the real-time data didn't align.
David Moffat, artificial intelligence and data scientist lead at Plymouth Marine Laboratory and co-author of the study, emphasized that "the impacts on human health are concerning."
A second co-author, Clive Sabel, professor of big data and spatial science at the University of Plymouth, said, "Inhaled microplastics can cross into our blood streams and … accumulate in organs such as our brains and livers."
Other experts have found that microplastics could pose a significant risk to human health, from when we breathe them in to where they go once they enter the body.
While research is limited, a study published in the journal Environmental Research linked microplastics in the body to respiratory disorders, fatigue, dizziness, and gastrointestinal concerns.
Do you worry about air pollution in your town?
All the time
Often
Only sometimes
Never
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
13 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Hackers Steal Passwords From UK's NHS With Sneaky Malware Tool
Ambulances parked outside the emergency department at the National Health Service's Royal Liverpool University Hospital in Liverpool, UK.
Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
Do Employers Have A Rational Fear Of Hiring Disabled Staff?
Sir Charlie Mayfield, a stalwart of the UK business community and advisor to Liz Kendall, Work and Pensions Secretary, has recently been quoted in The Times stating that employers have a 'rational' fear of hiring disabled staff. During his review of workplace sickness, Mayfield concluded that adapting work to staff with health problems was a huge issue that required employers to change, but suggested extra duties on businesses were not the answer. He said: "We've got a large amount of legislation which places requirements on employers and it's partly because of that that a lot of employers see it as risky to employ disabled people. And so quite rationally, they don't, even though we all know that's not the right outcome." The context for these comments is one in which 2.5 million UK workers are permanently off sick, and 8.7 million workers identifying as disabled. There's been an increase of 800,000 people too unwell to work since 2019, which is unsustainable for workers, their life outcomes and financial stability as well as the national economy. Rights Versus Reality? So are Mayfield's comments and his discovery report for the Department of Work and Pensions yet another stick with which to beat disabled people? Or are his remarks click bait headlines, papering over some well reasoned insights which need to be surfaced, understood and addressed? Mayfield commented on the rise in Employment Tribunals and the extra duties on UK businesses: The present approach "pitches rights against reality. If someone's ill and they have a fit note, there's a stand-off almost between that person and their employer, who could be part of the solution. We need to move from a position where too much of this is about risk and fear, to one where we humanise this and encourage people to be talking of finding solutions." The adversarial narratives that exist between communities of lived experience and employers has swiftly deepened in recent years, with each group finding very different sources of advice online and increases in perceptions of conflict and unfairness from all sides – employee, colleague and employer. However, read deeper into the report, and Mayfield is recommending an incentivisation approach to disability employment (the proverbial 'carrot', rather than the legislative 'stick'). Crucially, he recommends that employers intervene early when someone is struggling, rather than lagging in the provision of adjustments or support. Indeed, failure to provide timely intervention is a frequent cause of employment tribunals, with compensation up to £230,000 in one recent case. A shift in responsiveness would be very welcome by the disabled and neurodivergent community and it seems pretty logical. Government support and incentives for early intervention seem rational, but we will need to think carefully about what to provide. Early Intervention Guidance Advice on disability adjustments for individuals from the government service Access to Work or in-house / private Occupational Health is routinely a first port of call for employees and employers respectively. Access to Work has been a lifeline for employees over the past few decades, and has funded services and equipment that exceeds the budgets of many small businesses. However, it has become so log jammed that there is a community pressure group now set up to raise awareness of the problem founded by Dr Shani Dhanda. Occupational health services can be excellent and provide or signpost the specialist advice needed. But costs have spiralled with a clinical, 'assessment first' provision when there are so many referrals. There's a lack of filtering so those with the greatest needs are getting the same level of intervention as those who need a simple set of strategies or some software. Some of the occupational health companies are delivering the same services that they recommend, which is a structural conflict of interest and risks driving up costs - this practice is banned in Access to Work and Disabled Students Allowance, for example. So while we're telling employers to do more, faster, we will also need to be clear about the 'how' and the 'what'. With grand policy gestures and an increasingly litigious atmosphere, the needs of the businesses risk being overlooked and on that note, Sir Mayfield's comments are on point. Advice on adjustments for health and disability needs to be a collaboration between employer and employee. An assessment should consult both parties, and review what the individual needs in relation to the resources available. For example, a higher cost burden might be acceptable for a larger business than a small business. Safety critical roles might not have as much flexibility as a standard role. It is therefore not possible to list reasonable adjustments for each physical, emotional or cognitive difficulty. These can act as guidance, but not definitive entitlements. The policy and specialist support environment is going to need to become more sophisticated, and more responsive to balancing needs and addressing conflict, unfairness and unreasonable requests / restrictions. This is not a straightforward ask. Needs-led models How can employers find good advice in a complex and risky environment? The needs-led model is a good alternative to the medical model, relying more on practical support than clinical diagnosis. At work, we don't need to know the cause of back pain to know that a first port of call is a desk assessment or moving and handling review. Improving knowledge of functional, everyday difficulties and potential scaffolding is within the grasp of HR with the occasional advice of specialists where needed. Up-skilling employer confidence and competence is a potential avenue to improving outcomes, particularly in the areas of emotional regulation and cognition-dependent task performance where the challenges and the solutions are not visible. Knowing what to provide can be a pragmatic, low-cost conversation – research indicates that the cheapest or free adjustments are typically the most welcome, and that employees prefer the ability to personalize rather than passively receive an off-the-shelf allocation. As the population ages, the disability inclusion problem is not going to go away. Employers who are not developing a straightforward and accessible pathway to inclusion – at the company and individual level – will remain at risk of employment tribunal losses. This isn't a question of rights versus reality, it is a question of taking charge of a business need versus sticking your head in the sand. The rational fear of tribunals can be replaced by a rational approach to managing a large and growing cohort of disabled employees. Given the urgency of resolving the problem at the national level, now is a great time to start a strategic workforce plan.
Wall Street Journal
13 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Battle of the Big Bang' Review: A Question of Origins
In the 1920s, scientists discovered that the universe was not static in size, as had previously been assumed, but was expanding in all directions. Galaxies were rushing away from one another as the very space between them was stretching. It was tempting, therefore, to imagine running the film backward into the past. The expansion, it seemed, must have started somewhere: at an infinitely hot, infinitely small and infinitely dense point from which everything exploded some 13.8 billion years ago. This origin became known as the big bang, and that infinitely small point at which it all began was called a singularity: a place where all the known laws of physics break down. Time was purportedly created only at the moment of banging, so it made no sense to ask what came before the big bang, just as it makes no sense to ask what is north of the North Pole. Why it happened at all remained an awkward question, but the existence of such an inscrutable singularity at the birth of all things became the mainstream view. It might be surprising, then, to learn that few experts in the field hold this view anymore. The traditional picture of the big bang is actually two separate ideas, explain Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Halper in 'Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins.' Researchers continue to endorse the hot big bang, the idea of a primordial explosion of energy, but most do not think it goes back to 'a state of infinite density where time stands still and the answers to all our origin questions meet their demise.' Mr. Afshordi is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo in Canada; Mr. Halper is a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the creator of the YouTube series 'Before the Big Bang.' Their excellent book promises to map the 'quiet revolution' of 21st-century cosmology and introduce us to the revolutionaries. In very different ways, these rebels are all addressing questions left unanswered by the old theory. One is the origin-of-structure problem: The big bang ought to have spread energy homogeneously throughout space, but we observe clumps of galaxies with vast spaces between them, and measurements of the cosmic microwave background—the fossil radiation from when the universe was only 380,000 years old—reveal an unpredictable pattern of warm and cold spots. Nor have we ever seen an inflaton, a hypothetical particle that is supposed to have driven a period of enormous growth in the size of the early universe.
