Our toxic legacy: bushfires release decades of pollutants absorbed by forests

We know forests absorb carbon dioxide, but, like a sponge, they also soak up years of pollutants from human activity. When bushfires strike, these pollutants are re-released into the air with smoke and ash.

Republished from The Conversation by Cynthia Faye Isley and Mark Patrick Taylor

Our new research examined air samples from four major bushfires near Sydney between 1984 and 2004. We found traces of potentially toxic metals sourced from the city’s air — lead, cadmium and manganese — among the fine particles of soil and burnt vegetation in bushfire smoke.

These trace metals were associated with leaded petrol — which hasn’t been used since 2002 — and industrial emissions, which include past metal processing, fossil fuel burning, refineries, transport and power generation.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

This means bushfires, such as the those that devastated Australia last summer, can remobilise pollutants we’ve long phased out. The health and other effects may not be fully understood or realised for decades.

An infographic showing how forests soak up pollutants and then release them in fires.
How bushfires can resurrect pollutants years after they were emitted. Pb is lead, Cd is cadmium, Mn is manganese, and TSP is ‘total suspended particulates’ Author provided

Analysing air samples

We chose four major bushfires — which occurred in 1984, 1987, 2001-2002 and 2004 — because of their known impact on air quality across Sydney. The New South Wales government collected air samples every sixth day on filters over that period and archived them, which meant we could study them years later.

We analysed these air samples during the bushfire periods and compared them to the months either side of each event.


Read more: California is on fire. From across the Pacific, Australians watch on and buckle up


As expected, air pollution levels were higher during bushfires periods, in terms of total suspended particles and fine particles (“PM10”, which are particles 10 microns or less in size).

Using statistical analyses, we separated the source components of the particles: those from natural soils and those originating from human-sourced pollutants. We found the concentration of the human-sourced pollutant component — containing lead and cadmium — doubled during bushfire periods.

Pollution of the air with cadmium is associated with mining, refining, burning fossil fuels, and even from household wastes. But the source of lead pollution has a more complicated story.

Average levels of metals and particles in Sydney’s air before, during and after bushfires.

A story written in lead

Isotopes are variants of an element, such as lead. Different lead “isotopes” have different atomic masses.

Our study measured lead isotopes in the air samples to “fingerprint” the pollution sources.

The data show that the source of the lead ranges from natural origins derived from the weathering of rocks to those from leaded petrol emissions.


Read more: Explainer: what is an isotope?


Leaded petrol started being phased out in 1985 due to environmental and health concerns, and hasn’t been used in vehicles since 2002. Much smaller amounts are still used in AVGAS — the fuel used to power small piston aircraft engines.

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

As a result, lead levels in Sydney’s air decreased dramatically from 1984 to 2004. At the same time, the lead isotopes in the air changed.

The lead used in NSW petrol predominantly came from the mines at Broken Hill. Broken Hill lead has a very different isotopic signature to the lead found in Sydney’s main bedrock, Hawkesbury Sandstone. This corresponds to previous research showing ash from Sydney trees contained Broken Hill lead.

In 1994, lead in Sydney’s air was closer to the Broken Hill lead signature. By 2004, the lead isotopes in air resembled natural Sydney rocks. But during bushfires in 2001-2002 and 2004, the lead that was released started to look more like Broken Hill lead again.

This shows that the forests had absorbed leaded petrol emissions over the 70 years it was used and stored them. When the forests went up in flames, the lead was remobilised along with smoke and other bushfire particles.

What does that mean for our health?

Breathing in bushfire smoke is a serious health risk. Bushfire smoke resulted in more than 400 excess deaths during the devastating 2019-2020 bushfires.

A huge plume of smoke coming from a forest
The concentrations of toxic metals aren’t high enough to be a health risk. Shutterstock

Recently, the focus of air quality and health research has shifted to very fine particles: “PM2.5”. These are particles 2.5 microns or smaller that can penetrate deep into our lungs. During the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-2020, PM2.5 levels reached 85 micrograms per cubic metre of air over 24-hours, more than three times the Australian air quality criteria of 25 micrograms per cubic metre.

While our study shows that potentially toxic metals were more elevated in the atmosphere during bushfires, the concentrations were not likely to be a health risk. The main risk is from the total concentration of fine particles in the air, rather than what they are made of.


Read more: To reduce disasters, we must cut greenhouse emissions. So why isn’t the bushfire royal commission talking about this?


The concentrations of the trace metals measured during the four major bushfires in our study were below Australian and World Health Organisation criteria. The period of increased exposure was also very limited, further reducing risk.

Nevertheless, it’s important to minimise exposure to all chemical contaminants. This is because many, such as lead, have no safe lower exposure limit and the effects are often proportionately greater at the first and lowest exposure levels.

A lingering legacy

It’s not just Australian forests that have a lingering toxic legacy. In Ukraine and Belarus, radioactive materials from Chernobyl have been released during bushfires.

And as global knowledge of the damaging effects of pesticides grew, we stopped using them. Yet we still find them far from civilisation in the frozen Arctic, waiting to be released when the ice melts.

Metals such as lead, copper, manganese and uranium continue to be mined and processed in Australia. The most significant environmental and health impactsare felt by the immediately surrounding communities, particularly children, as contaminants in the air deposit on surfaces and are later ingested.https://www.youtube.com/embed/zEgLPiFKVm8?wmode=transparent&start=0

Globally, the recycling of lead batteries continues to contaminate communities and environments, particularly those in low to middle income countries.

Yes, our modern lifestyles depend on these metals and other toxic chemicals. So, we must mine, use and dispose of them with great care, because once in the environment, they do not go away.


Read more: How bushfires and rain turned our waterways into ‘cake mix’, and what we can do about it

20% of Water Pollution Is From Your Clothing

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The dyeing and treatment of textiles uses many dangerous chemicals, such that these processes are said to contribute 20% of industrial water pollution globally
  • Millions of gallons of toxic effluent are discharged from textile mills, often at high temperatures and pH, which in and of themselves are damaging
  • Combined with the chemicals, the wastewater can contaminate drinking water and soil and even deplete the water of oxygen, harming marine life
  • Some of the heavy metals used in dyes are known to cause cancer and accumulate in crops and fish via contaminated water and soil
  • Chronic exposure to dye chemicals has also been linked to cancer and hormone disruption in animals and humans
  • When shopping for clothing, make sure it’s organic, biodynamic and/or GOTS-certified, and opt out of fast fashion’s “throwaway” clothing mindset

The clothes on your back probably don’t come to mind when you think about the biggest polluters on the planet, but the clothing industry is a toxic one, nearing the top of the list. Along with being a water-intensive industry, the dyeing and treatment of textiles use many dangerous chemicals, such that these processes are said to contribute 20% of industrial water pollution globally.1

As noted by Rita Kant of the University Institute of Fashion Technology at Panjab University in India, color is a major reason why people choose to buy certain articles of clothing. “No matter how excellent its constitution, if unsuitably colored it is bound to be a failure as a commercial fabric.”2

While there are ways to dye clothing that are safe and do not harm the environment, the majority of textile dyes are toxic for virtually all forms of life.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

Why Textile Dyes Are so Dangerous

When clothing is dyed, about 80% of the chemicals stay on the fabric, while the rest go down the drain.3 Problems exist not only with the dyes themselves but also with the chemicals used to fix or set the colors onto the fabrics. According to Kant:4

“The textile dyeing and finishing industry has created a huge pollution problem as it is one of the most chemically intensive industries on earth, and the No. 1 polluter of clean water (after agriculture). More than 3600 individual textile dyes are being manufactured by the industry today.

The industry is using more than 8000 chemicals in various processes of textile manufacture including dyeing and printing … Many of these chemicals are poisonous and dam- aging to human health directly or indirectly.”

Examples of some of the toxic chemicals used to dye textiles include the following:5

SulphurNaphthol
Vat dyesNitrates
Acetic acidHeavy metals, including copper, arseniclead, cadmium, mercury, nickel and cobalt
Formaldehyde-based dye fixing agentsChlorinated stain removers
Hydrocarbon based softenersNonbiodegradable dyeing chemicals

Toxic Dye Chemicals Lead to Water Pollution

Millions of gallons of toxic effluent are discharged from textile mills, often at high temperature and pH, which in and of themselves are damaging. Combined with the chemicals, the wastewater can contaminate drinking water and soil and even deplete the water of oxygen, harming marine life. Kant explained:6

“It [mill effluent] prevents the penetration of sunlight necessary for the process of photosynthesis. This interferes with the oxygen transfer mechanism at air water interface. Depletion of dissolved oxygen in water is the most serious effect of textile waste as dissolved oxygen is very essential for marine life.

This also hinders with self purification process of water. In addition when this effluent is allowed to flow in the fields it clogs the pores of the soil resulting in loss of soil productivity. The texture of soil gets hardened and penetration of roots is prevented.

The waste water that flows in the drains corrodes and incrustates the sewerage pipes. If allowed to flow in drains and rivers it effects the quality of drinking water in hand pumps making it unfit for human consumption. It also leads to leakage in drains increasing their maintenance cost. Such polluted water can be a breeding ground for bacteria and viruses.”

Some of the heavy metals used in dyes are known to cause cancer and accumulate in crops and fish via contaminated water and soil. Chronic exposure to dye chemicals has also been linked to cancer and hormone disruption in animals and humans.7

Azo dyes are among the most commonly used and the most toxic, as they break down into cancer-causing amines. According to the Soil Association, in their report “Thirsty for fashion?” even azo dyes in very small quantities of less than 1 part per million in water may kill beneficial microorganisms in soil such that it affects agricultural productivity and may also be toxic to flora and fauna in water.8

Further, textile dyeing facilities tend to be located in developing countries where regulations are lax and labor costs are low. Untreated or minimally treated wastewater is typically discharged into nearby rivers, from where it spreads into seas and oceans, traveling across the globe with the currents.

An estimated 40% of textile chemicals are discharged by China.9 According to Ecowatch, Indonesia is also struggling with the chemical fallout of the garment industry. The Citarum River is now one of the most heavily polluted rivers in the world, thanks to the congregation of hundreds of textile factories along its shorelines.

When Greenpeace tested discharge from a textile plant along the river, they found antimony, tributylphosphate and nonylphenol, a toxic endocrine-disrupting surfactant.10 Kant further noted, “Some 72 toxic chemicals have been identified in water solely from textile dyeing, 30 of which cannot be removed. This represents an appalling environmental problem for the clothing and textile manufacturers.”11

Clothing Manufacturing Uses Staggering Amounts of Water

The clothing industry is not only polluting water but also using massive quantities of it. Kant stated that the daily water consumption of a textile mill that produces about 8,000 kilograms (17,637 pounds) of fabric a day is about 1.6 million liters (422,675 gallons).12 Further, some of the greatest water usage comes from growing the cotton used to make the clothing.

The Soil Association stated that growing cotton accounts for 69% of the water footprint of textile fiber production, with just 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton requiring 10,000 (2,641 gallons) to 20,000 liters (5,283 gallons) of water to produce.13

Green America also noted that it takes 2,700 liters (713 gallons) of water to grow enough cotton to make a T-shirt (and this doesn’t account for the water used for dyeing and finishing).14 Cotton is also considered to be a “dirty” crop, requiring 200,000 tons of pesticides and 8 million tons of fertilizers to grow, annually.15 The Soil Association added:16

“Cotton production uses 2.5% of the world’s cultivated land, yet it accounts for 16% of all insecticides sold globally. It also accounts for 4% of artificial nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers used globally. It is estimated that growing cotton requires 200,000 tonnes of pesticides and 8 million tonnes of synthetic fertilisers every year.”

Problems With ‘Fast Fashion’

The fast fashion industry dictates that you must buy the latest new clothing fad each season, adding more garments to your probably already overstuffed closet. Americans have increased how much clothing they buy due to this consumption trend, with the average person bringing home more than 65 articles of clothing in 2016, according to the “Toxic Textiles” report by Green America.17

At the same time, Americans throw away 70 pounds of clothing and other textiles each year.18According to the U.S. EPA, textiles made up 6.1% of municipal solid waste in 2015. Only 15.3%, or 2.5 million tons, was recycled while landfills received 10.5 million tons of textiles in 2015, accounting for 7.6% of all municipal solid waste landfills.19

Even when clothing is recycled, Green America notes that “less than 1% of the resources required to make clothing is recaptured and reused to create new clothing.”20 When you donate clothes, it’s also not a sustainable solution, as the majority end up getting sold to textile “recyclers” and exported to other countries.

The Ellen Macarthur Foundation’s Circular Fibres Initiative describes the clothing industry as a linear system that is “ripe for disruption:”21

“The textiles system operates in an almost completely linear way: large amounts of non-renewable resources are extracted to produce clothes that are often used for only a short time, after which the materials are mostly sent to landfill or incinerated. More than USD 500 billion of value is lost every year due to clothing underutilisation and the lack of recycling.

Furthermore, this take-make-dispose model has numerous negative environmental and societal impacts. For instance, total greenhouse gas emissions from textiles production, at 1.2 billion tonnes annually, are more than those of all international flights and maritime shipping combined.

Hazardous substances affect the health of both textile workers and wearers of clothes, and they escape into the environment. When washed, some garments release plastic microbreads, of which around half a million tonnes every year contribute to ocean pollution – 16 times more than plastic microbeads from cosmetics. Trends point to these negative impacts rising inexorably, with the potential for catastrophic outcomes in future.”

‘Alarming’ Explosion of Toxic Pesticide Use Causing Insect Apocalypse in United States: Study

“Insect abundance has declined 45 percent. This is a global crisis—we must ban neonics to save the bees!”

(Common Dreams) The rapid and dangerous decline of the insect population in the United States—often called an “insect apocalypse” by scientists—has largely been driven by an increase in the toxicity of U.S. agriculture caused by the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a study published Tuesday in the journal PLOS One.

We need to rapidly shift our food system away from dependence on harmful pesticides and toward organic farming methods that work with nature rather than against it.”

—Kendra Klein, Friends of the Earth

The study found that American agriculture has become 48 times more toxic to insects over the past 25 years and pinned 92 percent of the toxicity increase on neonicotinoids, which were banned by the European Union last year due to the threat they pose to bees and other pollinators.

Kendra Klein, Ph.D., study co-author and senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth, said the United States must follow Europe’s lead and ban the toxic pesticides before it is too late.

“It is alarming that U.S. agriculture has become so much more toxic to insect life in the past two decades,” Klein said in a statement. “We need to phase out neonicotinoid pesticides to protect bees and other insects that are critical to biodiversity and the farms that feed us.”

“Congress must pass the Saving America’s Pollinators Act to ban neonicotinoids,” Klein added. “In addition, we need to rapidly shift our food system away from dependence on harmful pesticides and toward organic farming methods that work with nature rather than against it.”

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

According to National Geographic, neonics “are used on over 140 different agricultural crops in more than 120 countries. They attack the central nervous system of insects, causing overstimulation of their nerve cells, paralysis, and death.”

With insect populations declining due to neonic use, “the numbers of insect-eating birds have plummeted in recent decades,” National Geographic reported. “There’s also been a widespread decline in nearly all bird species.”

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

As Common Dreams reported in February, scientists warned in a global analysis that by decimating insect populations, widespread use of pesticides poses a serious threat to the planet’s ecosystems and ultimately to the survival of humankind.

Klein said the “good news” is that neonics are not at all necessary for food production.

“We have four decades of research and evidence that agroecological farming methods can grow our food without decimating pollinators,” said Klein.

White House Has “Monsanto’s Back on Pesticides,” Newly Revealed Document Says

(URSTK by Carey Gillam) Internal Monsanto records just filed in court show that a corporate intelligence group hired to “to take the temperature on current regulatory attitudes for glyphosate” reported that the White House could be counted on to defend the company’s Roundup herbicides.

In a report attached to a July 2018 email to Monsanto global strategy official Todd Rands, the strategic intelligence and advisory firm Hakluyt  reported to Monsanto the following:

“A domestic policy adviser at the White House said, for instance: ‘We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have with, for example, the EU. Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation from this administration.”

In the email accompanying the report, Hakluyt’s Nick Banner told Rands the information related to issues both for the United States and for China. The report notes that “professional” staff has “sharp” disagreement with “political” staff on some areas, but that the concerns of some of the professional staffers would not get in the way.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

“We heard a unanimous view from senior levels of the EPA (and USDA) that glyphosate is not seen as carcinogenic, and that this is highly unlikely to change under this administration – whatever the level of disconnect between political and professional staffers.”

The report said that a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lawyer and a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) official confirmed that both agencies see the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen as “flawed” and incomplete.

“There is little doubt that the EPA supports the use of glyphosate,” the report says. It quotes a current EPA lawyer as saying: “We have made a determination regarding glyphosate and feel very confident of the facts around it. Other international bodies… have reached different conclusions, but in our view the data is just not clear and their decision is mistaken.”

Related: How to Avoid GMOs – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The report also suggests similarities between the Trump Administration’s support for glyphosate and its actions around a pesticide called chlorpyrifos that is the active ingredient in an insecticide made by Dow Chemical, now DowDupont. There is a large body of science showing that chlorpyrifos is very damaging to children’s brain development and that children are most often exposed through the food and water they consume. Chlorpyrifos was due to be banned from agricultural use in 2017 because of its dangers but the Trump administration postponed the ban at the request of Dow and continues to allow its use in food production.  The Hakluyt reports says:

“The way the EPA under the Trump administration has handled Chlorpyrifos might be instructive in how it would handle new science or new developments related to glyphosate.”

At the time the report was delivered to Monsanto last July, Monsanto had just been acquired by the German company Bayer AG and was in the midst of defending itself in the first Roundup cancer trial. That San Francisco case, brought by cancer victim Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, resulted in a unanimous jury verdict handed down in August ordering Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson. The judge in the case later lowered the amount to $78 million. A second trial, also held in San Francisco in a separate case, resulted in an $80.2 million verdict for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman.

A third trial is underway now in Oakland, California. Closing arguments are scheduled for tomorrow in that case, brought by a husband and wife who both have non-Hodgkin lymphoma they allege is due to their decades of using Roundup.

The documents that include the Hakluyt report were filed in Alameda County Superior Court by lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the current case – Alva and Alberta Pilliod.

The filing is in response to Monsanto’s effort to tell jurors about a recently released EPA glyphosate assessment in which the agency reaffirmed its finding that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The Pilliod lawyers say the Hakluyt communications with Monsanto speak “directly to the credibility of the 2019 EPA glyphosate evaluation, issued by an administration which holds itself out as favoring Monsanto’s business interests.”

Widening rift reported between political and professional staffers in regulatory agencies

The Hakluyt report to Monsanto also notes that increasingly professional staffers inside “most” federal agencies are feeling at odds with political staffers on issues such as pesticide regulation, climate science and other matters.

“While this appears to be true of various agencies – Health and Human Services, Commerce, Education, Interior, the Food and Drug Administration, and so on- the EPA may be the leading example of this phenomenon.”

The report quotes a prominent Washington DC law firm partner who has “extensive contacts at the EPA as saying:

“In essence, the political leadership favors deregulation and dismisses the expert risk analysis. It is especially averse to theoretical risk analysis, for example, on the risks of glyphosate, about which a scientific consensus is yet to form… With regard to glyphosate, in particular, the differences between political and professional staff are sharp.” 

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

The professional staffers, those scientists and others who typically have been within an agency for many years through multiple administrations.

Within the EPA, professional staffers are said to have “doubts about glyphosate,” but those doubts “are not shared by the EPA’s leadership.”

The report also provides feedback on Monsanto’s reputation and provides a cautionary note to Bayer, which had just closed the purchase of Monsanto a few weeks before the July 2018 communications:

“Developments in California on glyphosate are striking a chord with the public… The company regularly goes to ‘DEFCON 1’ on the slightest challenge from the environmental, academic or scientific community.”

“Even within the EPA there is unease about your ‘scientific intransigence.’” 

According to the Hakluyt report, an official with the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs said: “There is growing unease in this office at what seems like scientific intransigence by Monsanto to give credibility to any evidence that doesn’t fit their view. We would agree with them that such evidence is non-conclusive, but that does not mean that it is without basis.”

For more information and updates follow @careygillam on Twitter.

Study: Microplastics Were in the Gut of Every Sea Turtle Tested

(Dr. Mercola) Every year, anywhere from 5 million to 12 million tons of plastic debris enter waterways worldwide, which equates to an estimated 5 trillion pieces of plastic.1 While some of this plastic is in the form of large debris like plastic bottles, six-pack rings and bags, much of it is in the form of tiny particles known as microplastics, which are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in size.

Featured Image Source

Microplastics can come from direct or “primary” sources, such as microbeads used in cosmetics or fibers used in clothing. They can also be secondary microplastics, meaning they’re the result of larger plastic items that have disintegrated due to exposure to waves, salt water, ultraviolet radiation and physical abrasion against shorelines.

Microplastics do not, unfortunately, simply disappear into the water. Their prevalence and abundance has made them one of the worst polluters in the oceans, with a variety of marine life ingesting the particles, either by intention or happenstance.

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

Sea Turtles Are Ingesting Microplastics

Research published in Global Change Biology revealed that microplastics are ubiquitous in sea turtles.2 Every turtle tested, which included 102 turtles from all seven marine turtle species from three ocean basins (Atlantic, Mediterranean and Pacific), contained the plastics, at varying levels.

Most abundant were plastic microfibers (most often blue or black in color), but fragments and microbeads were also detected, albeit in lesser quantities. Microfibers come from many sources, including shedding from synthetic fabrics, wear from automotive tires and degradation of cigarette filters and fishing nets and ropes.

Once in the water, turtles may be exposed via contaminated sea water and sediments. In the latter case, many sea turtles are known to feed along the ocean bottom, stirring up and ingesting sediment along with their prey.

They may also be exposed directly via their dietary sources. Microplastics can bind to seaweed electrostatically, for instance, while sponges, another turtle delicacy, also ingest microplastics.

In all, more than 800 particles were found by the researchers,3 but because the featured study only tested a small sample of the turtles’ gut content residue, it’s believed that their findings represent only minimum exposure levels to plastics.

“The total number of synthetic particles within the whole gut is likely to be the order of 20 times higher,” the researchers explained. “This suggests that the total levels of ingestion per individual (whole gut) may be higher in marine turtles than large marine mammals.”4

While microplastics don’t pose a risk of internal blockage the way larger plastics do, it’s likely that they affect marine animals on a more subtle, put potentially equally harmful, level. Microplastics may act like sponges for contaminants including heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or pathogens, for instance, or could cause harm on a cellular or subcellular level, the study noted.

Sea Turtle Hatchlings Threatened by Microplastics

While the Global Change Biology study authors did not believe microplastics would pose as grave a risk to sea turtles as ingestion of larger plastic debris, this may not be the case for post-hatchling sea turtles.

“They’re pretty nondiscriminatory with what they’re eating at this life stage. They eat whatever floats past them,” Samantha Clark, a veterinary technician at the Loggerhead Marinelife Center (LMC) in Juno Beach, Florida, said in a news release.5 Clark cowrote a study that involved 96 post-hatchling sea turtles collected from the Atlantic coastline in Florida.6

Forty-five of the turtles were able to be rehabilitated and released, but 52 of the turtles died, allowing the researchers to analyze their gastrointestinal tracts, most of which contained visible pieces of plastic. Microplastics, larger mesoparticle plastics and even smaller nanoparticles were found in the turtles, with polyethylene and polypropylene the most common types of plastic detected.

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

“[I]ngestion of micronizing plastic by post-hatchling sea turtles is likely a substantial risk to survival of these endangered and threatened species,” the study concluded, with study coauthor Dr. Charles Manire, director of research and rehabilitation at LMC, adding, “It’s not a question of if they have it, it’s how much they have.”

He told global conservation news service Mongabay, “Twenty-five years ago we would occasionally see a little bit of plastic in some of the smallest turtles,” said Manire. “Now, essentially, 100 percent of them have it … Sea turtles tell us the health of the ocean. The ocean tells us the health of the planet.”7

Filter Feeders Also at Risk

Other marine life, including filter-feeding sharks, rays and baleen whales, are also being negatively affected by microplastics. Animals like these may swallow thousands of cubic meters of water daily in order to capture enough plankton to survive, and with it they’re exposed to whatever else may be lurking in the water.

Not only do filter feeders live in some of the most polluted waters on the planet, but their numbers are already threatened. Half of the species of mobulid rays, along with two-thirds of filter-feeding shark species and more than one-quarter of baleen whale species are listed as threatened species by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).8

“Emerging research on these flagship species highlights potential exposure to microplastic contamination and plastic-associated toxins,” according to a study in Trends in Ecology & Evolution.9Study author Elitza Germanov, researcher at the Marine Megafauna Foundation, told Phys.org:10

“Despite the growing research on microplastics in the marine environment, there are only few studies that examine the effects on large filter feeders. We are still trying to understand the magnitude of the issue.

It has become clear though that microplastic contamination has the potential to further reduce the population numbers of these species, many of which are long-lived and have few offspring throughout their lives.”

Are You Eating ‘Plastic’ Fish?

The Center for Biological Diversity noted that fish in the North Pacific are known to ingest 12,000 to 24,000 tons of plastic every year, and, in a study of fish markets in California and Indonesia, one-quarter of the fish were found to have plastics in their guts.11

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Plastics and other man-made debris was also found in 33 percent of shellfish sampled.12 What this means is that when you sit down to a seafood dinner, you’re probably eating plastic.

Writing in the journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, researchers noted, “The potential for humans, as top predators, to consume microplastics as contaminants in seafood is very real, and its implications for health need to be considered.”13

The fact is, fish aren’t eating microplastic only by mistake. The particles develop a biological covering of algae and other organic materials while they’re floating in the ocean. And that film makes them smell like food to marine life.

Anchovies, for instance, use odors to forage, and the smell of microplastic entices the fish to eat. Study author Matthew Savoca, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the Guardian:14

“When plastic floats at sea its surface gets colonized by algae within days or weeks, a process known as biofouling. Previous research has shown that this algae produces and emits DMS, an algal based compound that certain marine animals use to find food.

[The research shows] plastic may be more deceptive to fish than previously thought. If plastic both looks and smells like food, it is more difficult for animals like fish to distinguish it as not food.”

There’s Probably Plastic in Your Sea Salt and Bottled Water, Too

Microplastics, including microfibers, are seemingly everywhere. For instance, they were also found to be the predominant type of microplastic found in beer, tap water and sea salt samples.

“Based on consumer guidelines, our results indicate the average person ingests over 5,800 particles of synthetic debris from these three sources annually, with the largest contribution coming from tap water (88 percent),” according to researchers in PLOS One.15

Another study revealed the average person may swallow an estimated 68,415 plastic fibers every year just from contaminated dust landing on their plate during meals.16 This is a much larger source of exposure than plastics from seafood such as shellfish, those researchers noted, stating, “The risk of plastic ingestion via mussel consumption is minimal when compared to fiber exposure during a meal via dust fallout in a household.”17

Other sources of microplastics that you probably come across daily include sea salt, as 90 percent of sea salt sold worldwide contains plastic microparticles; it’s estimated that people consume nearly 2,000 such particles a year in their sea salt alone.18 More than 90 percent of popular bottled water brands sampled also contained microplastics, which in some cases may be coming from the packaging and bottling process itself.19

That being said, 94 percent of U.S. tap water samples were also found to contain plastic,20 with microfibers again representing a major part of the problem. Even sewage sludge, which is applied as a fertilizer in industrial agriculture, is loaded with microfibers,21 which were found to cause changes in the soil, including altering the bulk density, water-holding capacity and microbial activity.

Are You Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?

The magnitude of plastic used worldwide daily is mind-boggling, but you can make a dent by becoming conscious of the plastic you’re using daily — and cut back where you can. Some steps are easy, like swapping plastic bags, bottles, straws, utensils and food containers for more durable, reusable options.

Other steps may take more thought, like reconsidering what types of clothes to buy. A synthetic jacket (such as a fleece) may release up to 2.7 grams (0.095 ounces) of microfibers with each washing (that’s up to 250,000 microfibers). On average, such a garment releases 1.7 grams of microfibers, although older jackets released fibers at twice the rate.22

So one thing you can do to curb plastics pollution is to wash your fleece and microfiber clothing less often, and when you do use a gentle cycle to reduce the number of fibers released. There are also products on the market that catch laundry fibers in your washing machine to help curb pollution.

Special coatings may also help to stop the loss of microfibers during washing, but the apparel industry has been slow to respond in taking steps to stop microfiber pollution.23 You can also consider what your clothing is made out of. In a comparison of acrylic, polyester and a polyester-cotton blend, acrylic was the worst, shedding microfibers up to four times faster than the polyester-cotton blend.24

Ultimately, however, plastic pollution needs to be curbed at its source. Rivers, being a major source of transport of plastic into oceans, should be a major focus of cleanup and prevention efforts. In fact, 95 percent of the riverborne plastic flowing into the ocean comes from just 10 rivers.25

Martin Wagner, an associate professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s (NTNU) department of biology, believes that focusing on removing plastic from the ocean is a shortsighted solution because in order to stop it in the long run, it has to be traced back to its source, which in most cases is land and the rivers that transport it.26