Uncategorized

Beware!! Plastics Are Found In Almost Everything & They Do Make A Difference….

November 2, 2015 Rachel Naftali 1 Comment

Guilty for disregarding the hazardous effects of plastics and ignoring the need to recycle them? I certainly am. To be honest…before this semester, I did not pay heed to plastics, let alone to any wastes that require recycling. I did not own a separate recycling can, as I didn’t care much nor understand the reason for recycling. However, following the lectures given in this semester, I will admit, I am guilty- I am guilty for disregarding the harmful effects plastics have on the environment.

Following the Plastics Data Collection, I became extremely aware of every piece of plastic that was thrown away. I had a separate bag that collected mine and my husband’s plastics. I did not think for a second that I would actually begin recycling after this assignment. I thought to myself, ‘well, I’ll do this for 4 days just for Professor Branco.’ Oh, How I was wrong!

My husband has been nagging me to recycle every single day since the day we married. Being ‘lazy’ and kind of inconsiderate to the environment, I found the idea of recycling ‘dumb’ and ‘time-consuming,’ having to separate certain wastes from others. To my dismay, during this assignment, I realized exactly how difficult the process of recycling really is, even though I ONLY separated plastics. Being mindful and attentive to what was considered plastic and what was not was an endless and tiresome process, but it opened my eyes to the abundance of plastics that I throw to waste each and every day. Every water bottle was considered 2 pieces of plastics. I consume about 6 bottles a day, alone, disregarding the amount of water my husband consumes, and the other pieces of plastics I throw away throughout the day. Although the process of separation was tedious, the results were outrageously shocking! At the end of each day, the bag set aside for plastics was full, while my usual garbage can was almost empty! Almost everything I put to waste contained wholes or fragments of plastic!!

I found that the research obtained before the data collection of plastics was extremely crucial because without the knowledge of the harmful effects plastics can have on the environment, I would not have paid heed to the amount of plastics I threw out a day and would certainly not begin recycling. I am proud to say, to my husband’s surprise (and happiness of course!) I bought a recycling bin for my house and began recycling what needs to be recycled. I now understand the effects that recycled wastes, especially plastics, can have on the environment and do not intend on causing any more harm!

So thanks to Professor Branco, for opening our eyes to the hazardous effects that plastics have on the marine environment!

Uncategorized

Home Plastics Data Collection: Is Being Mindful Enough?

November 2, 2015 Miriam Zami 4 Comments

Upon receiving the assignment for the home plastics data collection, I was immediately hesitant. I didn’t think my family would be particularly participatory, and besides, who wants to quantify the harm they’re personally contributing to the environment?

To my surprise, my family responded relatively warmly. I hung up a chart on the refrigerator with a pen conveniently attached (if they had to expend effort looking for a pen to record the data, I wasn’t going to get much), and acted as the annoying voice in the back of their head reminding them to be aware of the plastic they’re consuming.

In addition to learning more precisely what is and isn’t plastic, and in which category the pieces belong, the data collection compelled us to be mindful—mindful of our plastic intake, where we dispose of these plastics, and how dependent on plastics our lives have become.

I think that doing research before participating in this plastics audit was a good idea. It allowed us to be mindful in another way, besides the aforementioned ones: we were able to understand, at least to some extent, the damage of plastics in the environment. It contextualized what exactly we were doing. However, it then led me to wonder: yes, all those who participate in such a data collection will inevitably learn of the harm caused by plastics, but does that prompt a real shift in plastic consumption? Is there a tangible change in attitude and lifestyle? Besides, how many households could even make a dent in national—or even citywide—plastic consumption? We talked a bit in class about what corporations can do, since they’re the ones with the power. But what can the average layperson, who’s throwing out 6 pieces of plastic a day, do to positively impact the environment?

This led me to think about what recycling really does. Why didn’t we just count the plastic that we didn’t recycle? I did some simple googling, and came across an informative CBS News article, in which I learned that “the materials least likely to be melted and reused were plastic: PET…bottles and jars had a recycling rate of 29.2 percent, white translucent bottles a rate of 27.5 percent.” Also, a professor from Baruch (go CUNY!) was quoted as saying, “Even if everyone is America was perfect at recycling everything, it wouldn’t make a dent in the overall flow in the waste materials.” Ultimately though, recycling isn’t bad and “it helps companies and governments save some money in the long run.” Still, I’m not satisfied.

All I can say is, instead of providing answers, this data collection prompted lots of questions.

Uncategorized

Each Key on Your Keyboard Will One Day Be a Separate Tally: The Home Plastics Audit

November 1, 2015 jvarughese2000 1 Comment

It’s amazing how dependent our society has become on plastics. Imagine a world without plastics. How would we eat lunch in public? How would we be able to sit down, relax and change the channels of our televisions? If all the plastic in our world suddenly disappeared, we would be so debilitated that even a simple task such as getting on the train would be impossible.

Participating in the home plastics audit made it clear to me just how much plastic I use daily. Prior to the audit, I didn’t think that I used plastic as much as other people, but then while I was going about my day in school, the tallies started adding up. I wake up in the morning and turn off my alarm clock— the one that’s made of plastic. I get out of my bed and touch my glasses, which just happen to have a plastic frame. Then there’s my tube of toothpaste, the stylish plastic cover on my faucet handles, my toothbrush, and that’s within 5 minutes of waking up. Although the home plastics audit only took into account the plastics that we consumed, I realized that my life was way more dependent on plastics than I thought it was.

I believe that the way this data was collected was flawed. It only takes into account the plastics that one throws away. It does not distinguish specifically between category of plastic or size of plastics well. If a bottle has three pieces of plastic associated with it (bottle, bottle cap, and the plastic wrapper) and a person places three tallies in the area labeled beverage bottles, how would the data interpreters know the difference? And even if the person placed the cap and wrapper into the plastic fragments category, how would one know if the wrapper contained more plastic than the dense cap? The interpreters would not even be able to tell that it was a wrapper and a bottle cap at all!

Although this is a flaw, it doesn’t affect the main concern of this data collection: informing participants of just how much plastic they consume daily. It shows us how important plastics are in our lives. We begin to notice how dependent we are on them and then most importantly we begin to plan different ways on hindering our plastic usage. Although the data might not be completely accurate for definitive scientific use, I believe the numbers are enough to cause change in the way we view plastics and the issue we have with its waste products.

I think this data collection also brings into question the media’s use of statistics. When news channels state statistics such as “every year the average American uses 15,000 pounds of plastic” (a 100% made-up statistic) what kinds of plastics are they using? What sample size? Over the course of how many days was each person surveyed? What season? Almost anything can affect statistics, so clarification is necessary whenever reporting the results of any scientific study.

The home plastics audit is extremely important in that it lets all individuals track their plastic usage and create anti-plastic approaches that are specific to their own lives.

itf post

Two articles from The Atlantic about communicating research to the general public

October 30, 2015 Alexis Carrozza Leave a comment

Given the recent posts about mainstream media as the conduit between scientific research and the general public, I thought these two articles might be of interest to our class. “The Needless Complexity of Academic Writing” by Victoria Clayton adds another layer to the class discussions about science literacy among the general public: not only is there a lack of understanding of scientific vocabulary or certain topics but how academics (and not just scientists!) write about their work adds to the barriers to the publics’ understanding of research. The second article, “Where Science Meets Magic” by Julie Beck, contains an interview with science journalist Matt Kaplan about his book published this week, Science of the Magical: From the Holy Grail to Love Potions to Super Powers.

These two articles address two central issues explored in Science Forward: how does the general public get access to scientific research? What are some of the barriers to their understanding of scientific research?

Clayton’s article describes the problem of “needlessly complex writing” in academia that has “become something of a protected tradition.” She quotes several academics and discusses various initiatives intended to rectify this problem. One particularly interesting issue that her article raises is the conflict between open-access resources and academics’ language – while the former grants public access to the materials (usually behind paywalls) it is researchers’ language acting as as a linguistic paywall that prevents people from understanding their work:

“Some research funders, such as National Institutes of Health and The Wellcome Trust, have mandated in recent years that studies they finance be published in open-access journals, but they’ve given little attention to ensuring those studies include accessible writing. “NIH has no policies for grantees that dictate the style of writing they use in their research publications,” a spokesperson told me in an emailed statement. “We do advise applicants about the importance of using plain language in sections of the application that, if funded, will become public on theRePORT website.”

So even if the general public has access to the latest research, how can they understand it? Is it the job of the NIH to edit submissions for more accessible language or should that be the responsibility of the researchers?

In the interview with Matt Kaplan about his book, Julie Beck highlights his source for quotes, The Lord of the Rings rather than scientists. Kaplan’s choice serves as a rhetorical framing device for the book’s overall argument: science and magic aren’t so far apart. While Kaplan’s book seems to be more about science history than scientific research, his approach seems like an effective means to increase the general public’s interest in scientific research. Here is an excerpt from their interview:

Beck: A number of the different things that you talk about in the book I kind of thought about as “close but no cigar,” where people kind of got the effects of something right, but got the causes wrong. Like with the Egyptians’ eyeliner, which they thought had healing powers bestowed by the god Horus, and it turned out it was helping activate their immune system, but they didn’t know why. In that way, can magic kind of be a step towards scientific understanding?

….

Another example of what I was thinking about from the book is how in the 13th century, people knew that breathing in the breath of a sick person would make you sick, and so then there were the old men who were like, “Let me just breathe the breath of young girls and it’ll make me young again.” It’s a step, but just the wrong step.

Kaplan: That’s the problem with magic, because when you use mythology and magic to explain the inexplicable, you end up in situations where you do things like that.

Beck: Right, that surprises me zero percent.

Kaplan: And to some extent you do have these things giving birth to science. I think a lot of the fascination with the philosopher’s stone, this stone of immortality, and seeking to find it and distilling it from different compounds, in many ways gave birth to what eventually became chemistry.

Do books like Kaplan’s serve as an important “middle step,” translating scientific research into more accessible language for the general public? If so, would a book like Kaplan’s be more likely to stimulate interest in the history of science rather than scientific disciplines like geology, biology, and chemistry?

Uncategorized

Must Read: “Environmental Implications of Plastic Debris in Marine Settings”

October 28, 2015 Cale Donaldson 1 Comment

Group One is focused on the effect of plastic debris on the marine environment. The purpose of this general focus is to increase awareness of this issue and incite the public to combat the threat. Our “MUST-READ” article is “Environmental Implications of Plastic Debris in Marine Settings—Entanglement, Ingestion, Smothering, Hangers-On, Hitch-Hiking and Alien Invasions,” written by Murray R. Gregory (click title to read the article). His paper describes the various ways in which plastic debris can impact the marine environment and harm its organisms. We find that this paper provides a basic, yet vital understanding of the scope of effects that plastic debris can have on the environment. This knowledge is necessary in order to fully grasp the severity of this issue. Since there are a multitude of ways in which plastic debris are harmful, some more obvious than others, there may be an equal number of ways in which these dangers can be limited or prevented.

Aesthetic value and ingestion by marine organisms, for example, is the first topics related to plastic debris covered in this paper, and coincidentally are also two of the major components used in raising awareness of the public to marine pollution issues. Additional topics, which are less frequently known to the public, in this paper include smothering, unnatural and increased growth of flotsam, and the migration of invasive species.

The preventative measures offered in this paper are scant, despite there being an evident critique of beach clean-up procedures. Gregory seems to offer that other methods must be created or refined in order to better combat the threat of plastic debris. While beach clean-ups, international conferences, and an increasing amount of research has certainly provided an introduction into solving this issue, the sources of marine plastic debris must be handled more effectively. Most importantly, according to Gregory, is the “further development of biodegradable plastics with significantly reduced and tightly managed disintegration times.” This is not fully discussed however, and so, further research would need to be examined to better grasp how this technological development can occur. Data not disclosed in this paper, such as the density and specific disintegration times of different plastics, would help in this assessment.

This review paper solidifies the notion there need to be more attention devoted toward understanding the different impacts of plastic debris and preventative solutions, as opposed to a narrower view on their affects and a focus on post-contamination solutions.

Uncategorized

Are You There, Pods? It’s Me, Margaret.

October 28, 2015 Margaret Iuni 1 Comment

If by “pods” you mean “left-over, un-dissolvable plastic particles from PODS” and by “there” you mean “in our water” then the answer is probably yes.

After participating in our Home Plastic Audit Data Collection, my mother asked me if we should have been counting our use of laundry and dishwasher pods. My answer to this was, “Well, probably, but if they’re biodegradable, we aren’t really throwing them out.” But are pods really as eco-friendly as most consumers believe? To answer this question, I did some basic research pertaining to Tide PODS.

Most advertising listings for these pods list that they are completely dissolvable. In Aaron Mickelson’s Masters Thesis Project, The Disappearing Package, Mickelson even reports that the, “POD plastic is… water soluble.” Yet, on Drugstore.com, the ingredients for Tide PODS are listed as, “Nonionic and Anionic Surfactants, Ethoxylated Polyethylene Polyamine (Polymer) and Enzymes.” A Google search was unable to tell me whether or not this kind of polymer was dissolvable in water, so I turned to the less-specifics. According to, “How a Polymer Gets Dissolved,” polymers take a long time to dissolve but when they do the particles are not completely broken down, which is why polymeric solutions have a high viscosity. To my understanding, then, Tide PODS seem to dissolve in water because there is no residue left in a consumer’s washing machine, but plastic particles remain in the water that is flushed out.

With a rise in plastics being found in the world’s water overall, it seems counterintuitive for companies to be packaging detergent in plastic to be sent directly into our water systems. However, the Environmental Success Stories in the Consumer Packaged Goods Industry reports that Tide PODS, “are packaged in either a recyclable tub or a lightweight bag, reducing plastic use by 50 percent per customer.” Perhaps the PODS and their packaging are more friendly in their attempt to decrease overall plastic use than their predecessor, but they are still far from perfect. The Mickelson Thesis claims that each PODS bag is 16 grams of plastic waste and with the plastic component of the PODS themselves, the reduction of plastic use per consumer by 50% seems like a drastic statistic.

I am not a scientist, nor am I a research analyst, but Tide PODS do not seem to be as environment-friendly as I originally believed them to be. My family will probably continue to use Tide PODS because they are quick and easy to use, so I hope that the statistic labeled by the Grocery Manufacturers Association is correct in that consumers who use PODS are reducing their plastic use overall. After all, as Tide states in the PODS product description on their website, “The Earth’s resources are limited and valuable, and we have an obligation to future generations to use these resources wisely.”

Works Cited

Environmental Success Stories in the Consumer Packaged Goods Industry. Grocery Manufacturers Association Online. Grocery Manufacturers Association, 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Grassino, Susanna B. “How a Polymer Gets Dissolved.” Polymer Solutions. University of Southern Mississippi Department of Polymer Science, 2000. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Mickelson, Aaron. “The Disappearing Package – Tide PODs.” Thesis. Pratt Institute, 2015. The Disappearing Package – Tide PODs. Pratt Institute. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Tide Laundry Care 5-Item Bundle Pack. Drugstore.com. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Tide PODS Laundry Detergent Original Scent. Tide. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Uncategorized

Must-Read: Plastiki: Across the Pacific on Plastic: An Adventure to Save Our Oceans

Video October 19, 2015 Lora Pavlovich 1 Comment

The “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” has become an issue that is at times both forgotten and exaggerated. Group 3 is focusing on the Pacific Gyres, a multilayered phenomenon involving the ocean currents that lead to the plastic accumulation, the spatial distribution of the plastic debris, and the effects of the microplastics on ecosystems and on our lives. Plastic accumulation in the Pacific is clearly a problem with many components; aside from the research already done to lay the groundwork, it’s still an area of active scientific study, and many articles stress the need for more research. The use of advanced mathematical models and varied sampling methods, contributing to our still-developing understanding of the facts, might make the (dys)functioning of the Pacific Gyres seem too complex for most lay people to get involved with. David de Rothschild’s Plastiki, however, makes plastic accumulation in our oceans an extremely accessible topic.

The book deals with 12,500 plastic bottles that were built into the titular boat and taken on a 10,000 mile journey from the U.S. to Australia. One of de Rothschild’s primary goals was to raise awareness for ocean pollution, and he presents the voyage in an engaging format that makes the read as exciting as it is educational. He details the construction of the boat and then how he and his five-person crew take it on what’s billed as an “extraordinary journey” across the Pacific, describing “urgent study of ocean pollution, island nations threatened by rising seas, damaged coral reefs, and the acidifying ocean itself.” He was motivated by a desire to prompt people to learn about plastic as a material — the way we’re using it and disposing of it — and to further our understanding of how we’re dependent upon the viability of the planet for our survival. For that the earth needs people to be both aware and active. De Rothschild does an excellent job of communicating an environmental message and of providing an “entertaining adventure for sailors and explorers alike” (x), and Plastiki is full of graphics, diagrams, and photographs to both raise interest in the subject and to inform people of the facts through a digestible format. As both a “unique narrative [of a] first-hand experience” and a scientific investigation (A. Caruso), the book provides a singular introduction to the growing problem of plastic accumulation in the Pacific while giving readers further impetus to do something about it.

Check out the publisher’s website for a preview of the book, and this video for a sampling of the work that went into creating it:

Uncategorized

Other Ways Media Communicates Science

October 19, 2015 alexmendez 2 Comments

Hey all! Our discussion a few weeks ago led me to really think about other ways the media can communicate the science world to everyday people. So here is another good example of how they do it, aside from news articles. Enjoy!

Below in the link are two political cartoons referring to two major topics of discussion we have had in class. The first political cartoon being about plastics in the marine environment, and the second cartoon about Climate change. Although this post is not a particularly enlightening video or article, helping us learn something new about either of the topics, I do believe it relates to another discussion we were having in class about communicating science to everyday people. When a New York Times writer has to write an article about a certain set science topic, the article will be completely different from the article the scientist published in a scientific journal. The language and concepts would be simplified so everyday people would understand, at the least, what the issue at hand is. Some crucial information may be lost along the simplification process, but all in all, it creates some sort of awareness. It had struck me that the media does this in some many more ways than just news articles, one of these ways being political cartoons.

The media’s goal when presenting topics about “frontier” science is to get people interested and wanting to know more about the topic they are writing about. Political cartoons do this in a way that not only gets the readers attention but makes them do the thinking and them do the research. For example, the first cartoon of the marine plastics. The man says that “you can hear the sounds of the mid ocean garbage patch.” The cartoon ends there, yet people completely unaware of the plastics issue would be lost as to the punch lie of the joke. However, the reader has already become aware of the issue at hand due to a visually joke. That is, the man holding the plastic bottle to his ear while walking along a beach full of plastics. So the cartoon has fulfilled the media’s goal of presenting an issue and creating awareness, while provoking interest in a medium both scientists and everyday people understand, humor.

It is interesting how these political cartoons can speak to both everyday people, and scientists alike. With articles, it is hard to get the other party’s approval due to the language and knowledge barrier scientists have over people. The political cartoons use humor and visual stimulus to get attention but also something articles do not get; and that is curiosity. We had mentioned that for those people who knew nothing of the plastics issue, they would have missed the punch line completely. However, this does something an article does not, and that is, it provokes curiosity. The curiosity of understanding the joke will make people do their own research about the issue at hand. I see this as a better way to communicate science because people will go across many sources that talk about issue instead of just one media source that may not be up to par scientifically. So the cartoons almost force the engaged readers to do their own research, which seems to be the best way to get one’s information.

Not all political cartoons are so straightforward as the first one. Take a look at the second one, it seems to be a little harder to understand. Some may argue that difficult cartoons such as the second one are hard for people to understand and would turn them away from trying to understand the issue. However, through the visual aspect of the cartoon, even the youngest and most ignorant readers will understand at least a part of it. For example, there is a really big snake eating a person, and on it, it says global warming. From this, people already know that this thing called “global warming” is a bad thing, because 1) it is being portrayed as a snake, and 2) it is eating the person.

In writing their articles the media is so interested in getting people’s attention and giving them the answers and consolation they look for when they’re curious about a topic. I don’t think people give political cartoons the credit they deserve. They can be very useful in getting a point across, quickly, and comically while provoking both curiosity and interest. This seems to be particularly useful when dealing with the realm of science.

Download (DOCX, 869KB)

Uncategorized

5.25 Trillion Pieces

October 19, 2015 Brett Branco Leave a comment

Data are the currency of scientists, but it is always a challenge to present data in ways that allow their stories to emerge. When you find a data visualization that really makes the story come alive, it can be exciting, both as a researcher and as a teacher. An ecologist for the Wildlife Conservation Society, who himself is quite good at allowing data to tell stories, posted a link on Twitter to this visualization of ocean plastics:

http://app.dumpark.com/seas-of-plastic-2/#

It tells the story of 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic that currently inhabit the oceans. It’s worth a look. The data come from some work by Eriksen et al. 2014 that can be found here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111913

I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but will post something about it when I get a chance.

Fall 2015 Science Forward at Brooklyn College

Each Key on Your Keyboard Will One Day Be a Separate Tally: The Home Plastics Audit

Two articles from The Atlantic about communicating research to the general public

5.25 Trillion Pieces

A Macaulay Honors College Seminar taught by Prof. Brett Branco