Hidden Impacts of Human Trash

Dec 01, 2024

An article about traffic noise published in Public Library of Science, is reviewed by medicalxpress.com:

"The sound of traffic increases stress and anxiety, research shows" by Public Library of Science

The study found that listening to a natural soundscape reduced self-reported stress and anxiety levels, and also enhanced mood recovery after a stressor.

The authors say, "Our study shows that listening to natural soundscapes can reduce stress and anxiety, and that anthropogenic sounds such as traffic noise can mask potential positive impacts. Reducing traffic speeds in cities is therefore an important step towards more people experiencing the positive effects of nature on their health and well-being."

“Natural soundscapes enhance mood recovery amid anthropogenic noise pollution” PLOS ONE (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311487

-- --

Most traffic noise comes from tires. Phys.org reviews an article in The Conversation, titled:

“Car tires shed a quarter of all microplastics in the environment. Urgent action is needed” by Henry Obanya, The Conversation

“Tire particles account for 28% of microplastics entering the environment globally. With more than 2 billion tires produced each year to fit ever-heavier and more numerous cars, the problem is set to escalate.”

See also:

Henry E. Obanya et al, “Priorities to inform research on tire particles and their chemical leachates: A collective perspective” Environmental Research (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.120222 or: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935124021297

This study is the first to collate research questions for TP (Tire Particles).

-- --

Another medicalxpress.com review reports on findings by The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, titled:

“Fine particulate air pollution may play a role in adverse birth outcomes”

“Previous research has found associations between exposure to PM2.5 [fine particulate matter in air] and maternal and child health complications including preeclampsia, low birth weight, and developmental delays in early childhood. The researchers used an innovative technology to understand how pollution modified the DNA of participants' individual cells. The study found that PM2.5 exposure can influence the histone profiles of pregnant women, disrupting the normal balance of cytokine genes and leading to increased inflammation in both women and fetuses. In pregnant women, this increase in inflammation can correspond with adverse pregnancy outcomes.” From:

Youn Soo Jung et al, “Impact of air pollution exposure on cytokines and histone modification profiles at single-cell levels during pregnancy” Science Advances (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adp5227 or: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adp5227

This study (Youn Soo Jung et al,) is very important, please read it, at least the main sections, you may skip the Materials & Methods and data wrangling, those are for people seeking to duplicate the results. The authors are studying what is actually going on inside cells affected by these particles. Here’s a few snippets from the Discussion section:

“Our study investigated the impact of PM_2.5 exposure on the maternal immune programs, which are crucial for protecting the woman and fetus during pregnancy, including anti-inflammatory immune responses fostering maternal-fetal tolerance.”
“A successful pregnancy requires a healthy maternal immune system to promote communication between the mother and fetus while maintaining tolerance toward the fetus and transferring passive immunity to the offspring. However, we found that PM_2.5 exposure can disrupt the normal relationship between cytokines in the mother and fetus, potentially leading to adverse pregnancy outcomes due to the over- or underexpression of specific markers.”

This type of small air-pollution particles from industrial processes, tire dust, vehicle exhaust, etc. represents more human trash falling out of our artificial construct of The Economy onto the underlying natural world. These damaging effects on reproductive processes will occur in all species, not just the human population. But humans, according to the dialectic of capitalism, are both victims and supposed beneficiaries of The System, while all wildlife can only suffer. And NONE of these harmful effects of our civilization will be ameliorated by the hoped-for “green energy transition.” Note that this study was just looking at damage from “normal” air pollution in Fresno, CA; this is a separate issue from the damage to cells by microplastics.

Learn this: traffic and this biosphere are incompatible. Anytime I want to glimpse the insanity of humanity, I need only go down to our street and watch the mass of traffic trampling across this neighborhood all day, both directions, on a street going nowhere in particular. And there is supposed to be a climate crisis? With all these rather new gas-guzzlers whipping by? Here you see the Proof that a rising price of carbon means nothing to motorists - gas prices here are highest in N. America yet they fill up and drive anyway. The first line of The Unsinkable Molly Brown: “I’m gonna go from place to pace, I’m gonna see what there is to see…” (This overture BTW is in seven flats). Thus these incremental moving bits who still consider themselves human, form the active agents of The Economy.

The “Economy” is a layer set above Nature, a human construct based on the imperative of continuous mobility, a constant fizzling around. Someone travels to point X, obtains an object, sends or transports it to location A where it is processed into some non-natural material, then shipped through a multi-point distribution network and eventually reaches the smelliest layer, the “consumers” who use it for a while before it gets disposed of into the system of nature as trash. All of this to avoid actually existing in the natural world, to create our separate special nest. What elevates this human construct above Nature is our profligate consumption of energy. Up to now, use of fossil fuel energy, but going forward, the proposals to employ “carbon-free” energy but certainly no concern about its excessive and ever-increasing use. In the Developed world, we “deserve” to have unlimited energy consumption and “deserve” to gobble up yet another tranche of fossil energy to power a supposed “green transition.”

Some other gnus:

On climate issues, this study at MIT (next paragraph) suggests there is plenty of land on Earth to have Nature-Based-Solutions (storing carbon), produce “biofuels,” grow enough food and have places to live on just one planet. Do you want to live in an environment where every square inch is micromanaged by the people who caused the original problems? And this single-planet notion is debunked multiple times by other quality reports such as oneplanetnetwork.org (need 3 planets) and overshoot.footprintnetwork.org (over 5 planets if everyone lives like people in USA).

From Phys.org: “Is there enough land on Earth to fight climate change and feed the world?” by Mark Dwortzan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“These transformative changes include policies to protect natural ecosystems; stop deforestation and accelerate reforestation and afforestation; promote advances in sustainable agriculture technology and practice; reduce agricultural and food waste; and incentivize consumers to purchase sustainably produced goods.”

Angelo Gurgel et al, “Land-use competition in 1.5°C climate stabilization: is there enough land for all potential needs?” Frontiers in Environmental Science (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1393327

Another one:

"We're excited to explore this approach further and fine tune our understanding," Robertson added. "But for now, we're confident that an integrated approach that combines bioenergy and advanced management of crop, forest and grazing lands can provide climate benefits far greater than previously realized."

G. Philip Robertson et al “Land‐based climate solutions for the United States” Global Change Biology (2022) https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16267

- - -

Ocean’s sulphur compounds affecting atmosphere, in Phys.org:

“Oceans emit sulfur and cool the climate more than previously thought” by University of East Anglia

Dr. Wohl, of UEA's Centre for Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences and one of the lead authors, said, "This is the climatic element with the greatest cooling capacity, but also the least understood. We knew methanethiol was coming out of the ocean, but we had no idea about how much and where. We also did not know it had such an impact on climate.”

Charel Wohl et al “Marine emissions of methanethiol increase aerosol cooling in the Southern Ocean” Science Advances (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adq2465

And on humanity’s final assault on the planet’s oceans:

An important article on REDD-Monitor, on the ongoing fallacy of carbon offsets, goes through all the propaganda buzzwords such as “Net-Zero” and new one, “insetting.” From my comment:

First of all, "Net Zero" is BS, it is 100% spin. It posits that at some future date, the balance between (new) emissions and various counter-emissions are equal. No. We need NO new emissions starting 15 years ago and begin to curtail all emissions ever since, whether from fossil or "bio" fuels.

In the statement: "If the forest is protected instead of destroyed, the managers of the forest can generate carbon credits. These can then be sold to organisations or individuals to offset their carbon pollution," there is an error of logic, a non-sequitor, spread over two sentences as a disguise. The forest was already fully-engaged in absorbing carbon therefore selling offsets on account of its preservation is no different than those selling offsets from Direct Air Capture. There is no net change in atmospheric CO2 levels. Secondly, destroying a forest is a crime against Nature - do you expect a credit in your bank account for deciding to not rob the bank? And how did the polluting corporation get to choose that this particular forest was just sitting there waiting to be its carbon sink, when the forest was already at work absorbing carbon? Yes, "insetting" is simply a re-branding of offsetting. "Onsetting," the initiation of fossil-energy driven civilization, is the problem, and both must be wound down concurrently.

Limits to Progress

Discussion about this post