Recycling of Waste Materials

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares109 Views

    Do I Really Need to Throw Out My Black Plastic Spatula?

    by

    Q: I have a few black plastic kitchen utensils in my drawer, but I’ve read that they’re dangerous. Is that true?Recent headlines have urged people to immediately throw out any black plastic items lying around their homes, warning that they could contain toxic chemicals.A study published in October in the journal Chemosphere spurred many of these reports. It found that some of these items — including spatulas, sushi takeout trays and children’s toys — could shed flame retardants.But whether they pose a risk to your health is a more complex question. Previous studies have shown that flame retardants can seep out of plastics, especially when heated. While exposure to high levels of these chemicals has been linked to serious health effects, it’s not clear how much any one household item increases risk.Why are flame retardants in spatulas, anyway?Manufacturers started adding flame retardants to products like TV sets and computers in the 1970s to slow the spread of fire. But companies have had to phase them out as studies over the past two decades have shown that they are toxic and could be cancerous to animals and humans at high levels of exposure. Some of these chemicals, however, have resurfaced in plastic household items made from recycled electronic waste, since the regulations that reined in the use of certain flame retardants did not apply to such materials.The fact that the banned chemicals have appeared in household products shows that they “can bite us a second time if we’re not careful,” said Joseph Allen, a professor of environmental health at Harvard University who has studied the health risks of flame retardants.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      California Sues Exxon Mobil Over Plastics Pollution and ‘Myth’ of Recycling

      by

      The lawsuit, seeking ‘multiple billions of dollars,’ opens a new front in the legal battles with oil and gas companies over climate and environmental issues.The attorney general of California, Rob Bonta, sued Exxon Mobil on Monday alleging that the oil giant carried out a “decades-long campaign of deception” that overhyped the promise of recycling and spawned a plastic pollution crisis.The suit, filed in superior court in San Francisco, argued that people were more likely to buy single-use plastics because of the false belief, promoted by Exxon Mobil, that they would be recycled. Mr. Bonta said the company is a leading producer of a key component used to make single-use plastics. The suit seeks unspecified damages that Mr. Bonta estimated would amount of “multiple billions of dollars.”In an interview, Mr. Bonta said that plastic pollution was “fueled by the myth of recycling, and the leader among them in perpetuating that myth is Exxon Mobil.”The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.The case opens a new front in the legal battles against oil and gas companies over climate and environmental issues. More than two dozen state and local governments, including California, have sued the companies for their role in the climate crisis, making claims that the companies deceived the public in a quest for profit. None have gone trial yet.The California suit filed on Monday alleged that Exxon Mobil promoted the widely used “chasing arrows” symbol on plastic products, which led buyers to believe that their bottles and other products would, in fact, be recycled if disposed of properly. But only about five percent of the plastic waste in the United States is recycled, according to Mr. Bonta’s office, citing an estimate by the advocacy group Beyond Plastics, which looked at 2021 data. At the same time, the amount of plastic manufactured, much of it single-use, grows yearly.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Beautiful World of Birding

      by

      More from our inbox:Civility on the Court, but These Are Not Civil TimesA History of Deception About Politicians’ HealthTest the CandidatesBanning Plastic Foam Nadine RedlichTo the Editor:Re “Birds Open Our Eyes and Ears,” by Ed Yong (Opinion guest essay, March 31):Mr. Yong has written a marvelous article that will resonate with many birders, especially in these troubled times. Many are the mornings when I’ve put aside reading the news in favor of watching the birds at my home in southeast Arizona.To Mr. Yong’s article I would add that seeking and identifying new birds are wonderful ways to experience the world. Spending time getting to know the birds you’ve already seen can be equally fulfilling, if not even more so.People who don’t have the luxury of traveling to find exotic species need not feel deprived; they can find fulfillment creating a songbird habitat in their backyard.Craig CorayPatagonia, Ariz.To the Editor:Thank you for the wonderful birding article. I too have become obsessive, and I am learning the names of different birds.The positive healthy aspects of birding are obvious, but people should not just get to know birds, but also think about their safety and their food. Sanctuary and breeding grounds are being depleted around the world. Shorelines are being paved and water conditions are subpar.Birds are not just for us to enjoy, enhancing our photo albums or improving our species lists. Stay a distance from their habitats, and don’t let your dog or cat tread on them. Get protected glass for buildings. Think of birds as precious, not as a game for humans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Sydney Asbestos Problem Grows as Taylor Swift Venue Tests Negative

      by

      Officials have found the toxic mineral at 34 sites, including schools and parks. The grounds outside a Taylor Swift concert venue tested negative.Officials in Sydney, Australia, said on Sunday that they had found traces of asbestos at 34 public sites across the city in recent weeks, and that a venue for an upcoming Taylor Swift concert was declared free of the toxic mineral.The hunt for asbestos in recycled mulch in the city began last month, and sites that have tested positive include parks and the grounds of hospitals, train stations, supermarkets and four schools, two of which have temporarily closed. The figures released by the Environmental Protection Agency of New South Wales on Sunday included two new sites, both schools.The scandal has received international attention in part because the authorities have been testing mulch on the grounds of Sydney Olympic Park, where Ms. Swift is scheduled to perform four shows starting on Friday. But the agency said on Sunday that those tests were negative.“I can say with certainty that the Harbor City is ready to welcome Taylor Swift with open arms,” Tony Chappel, the agency’s chief executive, told reporters on Sunday.If inhaled, asbestos fibers can cause lung diseases like asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Laws about it vary by country: Asbestos is not banned in the United States, while the European Union banned white asbestos, the most common form, in 2005.Australia began to phase out asbestos in the 1980s and banned it completely in 2003. But the substance had already been used for construction, automotive manufacturing and other uses for decades. Many homes that were built there before the 1990s still contain asbestos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More