It is now clear that we are all part of a massive global experiment to determine if microplastics are affecting human health. There are ways though, to reduce individual exposure. Read on – 4 minute read
Allan Maynard, MSc. – November 2025
Annual plastic production increased from two million tonnes in 1950, to about 475 million tonnes is 2022, and it is projected to grow over 70% by 2040. We are overwhelmed with plastic pollution: At least 8.8 million tons – of plastic waste is entering the ocean – EACH YEAR. Moreover, that is only the tip of the iceberg when we also add in all the waste found on land and accumulating in landfills. Over time, much of this plastic pollution degrades to form microplastics.
Microplastics are now found everywhere in the environment and unfortunately lodged deep inside our bodies. I first wrote about microplastics in 2020 (see link below): Fast forward to 2025, and a multitude of research has now been conducted. This is a brief update with some ideas on measures each of us can consider for reducing daily exposure.
REMINDER – WHAT ARE MICROPLASTICS?
Click image to enlarge.
WHERE ARE MICROPLASTICS FOUND IN THE ENVIRONMENT?
Microplastics are found virtually everywhere in the environment, from the deepest ocean trenches to the highest mountains — in air, soil, water, sediments and biota. As such, they find their way as contaminants in food, beverages, and the air we breathe.
MICROPLASTICS – ARE HUMANS ARE EXPOSED?
Microplastics have been found almost everywhere in humans: in blood, bones, saliva, urine, placentas, an array of organs and even the human brain. One study estimated our brains may contain as much as 5 grams – or roughly a teaspoon. Plastic isn’t just wrapped around our food or woven into our clothes: it is lodged deep inside us.
Microplastics enter our bodies by inhalation (contaminated air) and ingestion (food, water, beverages). There is a wide range of estimates dealing with how much exposure and its greatly dependant on factors such as water source, air quality, diet and lifestyle. An article by the World Economic Forum claims we inhale an average of around 60,000 particles per day. In terms of mass, one widely cited estimate suggests a person may ingest as much as 5 grams of microplastics per week, equivalent to the weight of a credit card. However, this estimate has been disputed in other studies. The important point – microplastics are ubiquitous and are now deep inside every human on earth.
WILL THIS EXPOSURE AFFECT OUR HEALTH?
A recent article in the medical journal “The Lancet” describes microplastics as an underestimated and under-regulated health crisis. Microplastics may affect human health by causing inflammation, oxidative stress, and DNA damage at a cellular level. They can also absorb and then release chemicals and pathogens, potentially leading to a range of issues including cardiovascular problems, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption. A very recent (2025 study) identified microplastics in the brains of human cadavers. Most notably from this study – those who had been diagnosed with dementia prior to their death had up to 10 times as much plastic in their brains compared to those without the condition.
While definitive causal links are still under investigation, research is exploring associations with diseases like cancer and metabolic disorders. It will likely take decades to establish links to human health. Sadly, we are all part of a large, decades long experiment. Minimizing exposure is our best course of action.
A single one litre plastic bottle can contain as many as 240,000 different plastic particles of varying dimensions and materials – from NIH 2025 – see below.
WHAT CAN EACH OF US DO?
Most of what MUST be done, is at the policy level, but unfortunately, political will is lacking. Single use plastic should be banned. The plastics industry must be held accountable and forced to manufacture ONLY plastic products that can be easily recycled (presently only around 10% of plastic products can be recycled). Plastic production must be reduced – sadly – global talks (August 2025) to develop a landmark treaty to deal with plastic pollution with a legally binding production cap have once again failed.
That leaves us with our own individual actions. Here are some suggestions:
Consider a reuseable water filter if you suspect that the water source could have microplastics (it should not be needed in Metro Vancouver)
Don’t buy processed foods that are stored in plastic containers – in fact, most health professionals recommend avoiding ultra processed food altogether
Use only glass or steel containers for heating food with a microwave oven – heat greatly accelerates the shedding of plastic particles and the leaching of plastic chemicals
Minimize or even stop the use of single use plastics like water bottles, straws, plastic bags
Don’t use plastic cutting boards
Be aware of non-stick cookware – especially Teflon coatings that could be scratched
Clean the air in your home with a high efficiency air cleaner
Avoid wearing synthetic clothing
Refuse to buy washing pods (encased in plastic) for laundry or dishwashers
Refuse to buy products that contain micro-beads (these are already microplastics)
Try to buy beverages that come in cans or glass bottles – see figure above and the study of bottled water by the NIH
Check out your tea bags – many are made with plastics and will release thousands of particles per cup – better to use loose tea if possible or make sure the tea bag is paper
Rinse rice thoroughly – especially instant rice
Reduce intake of sea food – especially filter feeders – oysters, clams and mussels that accumulate microplastics
Clean your house frequently – mopping non carpet floors and having a good filter on your vacuum
It is especially important for younger people to minimize exposure. Exposure to toxins is usually cumulative, and the consequences often manifest over the long term. This process, often referred to as bioaccumulation or biomagnification, means that even small, repeated exposures to certain harmful substances can lead to a significant buildup in the body or the environment over time
NEXT UP – is our cookware toxic? Hint – maybe — but the fix is easy.
Can factual science communication compete with the lure of doom scrolling?.
Allan Maynard, MSc. –October 2025
Carl Sagan – the highly respected astronomer and science communicator (1934-1996), wrote of a foreboding in his children’s or grandchildren’s time — “when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues. Unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…” – moreover he lamented about “ the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
I now ask the question – are we currently at this point of dumbing down? My conclusion – YES WE ARE. What is occurring globally and notably, in the USA, is beyond anything I could have fathomed. Populism around the world, supported by social media has created a world of chaos and division, so much so that many people don’t believe even the most basic truths. Facts are skewed and politicized to the point that false science is becoming official policy. The retreat backwards is astounding!
Science and Truth Under Attack.
WHY SCIENCE?
Simply put, science is the systematic and objective investigation of the natural world to acquire reliable knowledge through observation, experimentation, and reasoning, ultimately aiming to understand how things work. This knowledge is constantly refined and expanded. Consensus eventually becomes widespread.
Science then, tells us what is. In a perfect world, our choices for societal policy would be based on the best scientific knowledge. However, what we do with that knowledge becomes another matter especially when inconvenient truths are revealed. The choices or decisions we make depend on our worldviews, ethics, values and goals some of which may be contradictory to the truth revealed. The science of climate change provides the clearest example of this conflict – the truth highly inconvenient for those with vested interests in the status quo.
The decisions we make are also dependent upon how well (or indeed how little), the scientific knowledge is understood by most of society. I feel, therein lies our biggest challenge especially when communicating highly complex issues – such as climate change and vaccine assessments. The author – V. Smil refers to a “comprehension deficit” bemoaning the notion that most of society have only a superficial knowledge of how the world works. The matter is likely becoming worse as billions of people gather their information from little black boxes with little regard for how and where the information is coming from.
THE CURSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Social media is not designed to inform but rather around algorithms tailored to provide explanations that match users existing beliefs and, more important for the platform’s bottom line, to continually drive user engagement. Nothing drives user engagement more than outrage generally amplified by lies and fiction. In fact, as the author Yuval Harari points out in his most recent book “Nexus”, the tech giants are complicit in this world of misinformation with the development of unprecedented “error enhancing mechanisms that reward lies and fictions.” These tech giants hide behind a fiction that their supposed role is to be moderators of human-produced content. They dismiss or ignore the role their algorithms play in cultivating human emotions through falsehoods. As such -it is the most extreme moments that grab our attention and then get super charged (going viral).
I am not so sure that AI (Artificial Intelligence) will help to rescue this post truth world. Afterall, most AI platforms are owned by the same companies (and individuals) that own the social media empires. There have been some early warning signs. In July – 2025, Elon Musk sought to explain how his AI chatbot, Grok, praised Hitler as the best leader for our times – https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8r34nxeno
It is clear to me that the current state of information disorder is a significant threat to science, progress and to democracy itself. Some strong, bipartisan measures are needed to start rectifying this, but I am not hopeful on that front considering the political divides around the world.
Social Media companies should certainly be regulated. Afterall, we regulate other sectors such as airlines and food production. It is known that social media companies have the technology to moderate content. However, these companies and their extremely wealthy shareholders, spend massively to elect politicians (usually conservative) that will act in their interest – that being limited or no regulations. Fortunately, several influential leaders are speaking out against the lies and conspiracy theories being peddled at the highest levels of office and we can only hope their warnings will be heeded.
It is also vital that young people, who are the biggest users of social media, receive more education on the dangers of false information, how to assess fact from fiction and how to recognize proper journalism. We need to support the teaching of civics, critical thinking and media literacy.
It is also my hope that people will become more responsible in deciding what to read and share via email, U-Tube and social media platforms. We need to refuse to let social media platforms take charge of our newsfeed. Even better – calling out false or suspect posts that people share by respectfully asking – Are you sure this is true? // What is the source? // When did this come out? // etc.
There will no doubt be a rise in resistance to wrong-headed retrogressive policies, as well as exposure from the media when dangers from bad policy become evident. Will this be enough? Time will tell.
Carl Sagan – The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark – Random House – 1995
Vaclav Smil – How the World Really Works – Viking – Random House – 2022
Yuval Noah Harari – Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks – Random House – 2024
THE CRYING INDIAN – If you watched TV during the 1970s and 80s you would likely have seen one of the most iconic ads ever made. A buckskinned, black braided Native American (but called “Indian” in those days) is seen paddling down a pristine river but eventually enters a polluted harbor. He paddles his boat to a bank strewn with litter. As he exits his boat and wanders near a road someone flings a bag of trash from a moving car. The trash scatters at his feet. The Native American then looks into the camera; a single tear is seen rolling down his cheek. The narrator booms –“People start pollution. People can stop it.”
The ad in many aspects is a fraud. The “Crying Indian” is neither Native American nor crying. He was played by an Italian actor known for playing natives in western movies. The ad was sponsored by the organization “Keep America Beautiful”. What eventually became clear, the Keep America Beautiful organization was founded, and is still mainly funded, by the beverage and packaging industries. While anti-littering campaigns should certainly be lauded, the sinister reality behind this campaign was to shift blame for packaging waste in the environment towards the users of the products rather than the manufacturers. Thus began THE MYTH OF PLASTICS RECYCLING.
THE NUMBERS IN REVIEW – In my October 26, 2020 article – “We Are Drowning in Plastics”, I presented dramatic statistics concerning plastic waste. A quick review of the main facts:
6 billion (approximately) tons of plastic materials have been produced in the period 1950 to 2015 (Science Advances, 2017)
The estimate to update that number into 2020 – approximately 9 billion tons
Of the 6 billion tons of plastic ever made up to year 2015 – 9% has been recycled, 12% has been burned, and the remaining 79% has ended up in landfills or in the environment.
The amount of plastic entering the oceans (earth’s last sink) is over 9 million tons each year. This is only a fraction of the total plastic waste generated.
WHAT THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY KNEW – For decades, we have been sorting trash believing that most plastic could be recycled. But the truth is, the vast majority of all plastic produced can’t be or won’t be recycled. In a joint investigation, NPR (U.S. National Public Radio) and the PBS series Frontline found that oil and gas companies — the makers of plastic — have known this reality all along, even as they spent millions of dollars telling the American public the opposite.
The main points from this investigation are:
Plastics industry had “serious doubt” recycling would ever be viable
The investigators dug deep into various archives and found internal correspondence. For example, the investigators state — “A report sent to top industry executives in April 1973 called recycling plastic ‘costly’ and “difficult.’ It called sorting it ‘infeasible’, saying ‘there is no recovery from obsolete products.’ Another document a year later was candid: There is ‘serious doubt’ widespread plastic recycling can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”
The industry promoted recycling to keep plastic bans at bay
The investigators interviewed three former top officials from the plastics industry who revealed that the industry promoted recycling as a way to beat back a growing tide of awareness about plastic pollution along with calls for banning certain products (late 80s, early 90s). Recycling, the former officials told NPR and Frontline, became a way to pre-empt the bans and sell even more plastic. In fact the industry projection is to triple production by 2050.
More recycling means fewer profits for petrochemical companies
The more plastic is recycled, the less money the industry will make selling new plastic. And those profits have become increasingly important with the declining market for fossil fuels. In essence the petrochemical companies are aware that a successful recycling operation will become their competitor. Or, if they undertake recycling themselves, it will reduce profits. It’s much cheaper (and thus more profitable) to make new products from raw materials than to make an inferior plastic product from waste.
The sad truth is that is that the plastics industry has promoted recycling mainly to sell more products. The public has been lead to believe that the recycling triangle on the bottom of plastic packing means the item the item can be recycled. The truth of the matter? – It’s complicated.
Is it really necessary to package lettuce like this? These plastic containers are made of #1 PET thermoform and are usually used for berry containers, salad containers, tomato containers, etc. They are not readily recyclable.
WHAT PLASTICS ARE THERE? WHICH ONES CAN BE RECYLCED
Recycling is determined by two factors: the market and city or municipal government programs. If there’s an organized recycling program along with a demand in the market for the plastics collected, then recyclers and companies will pay for post-consumer recyclables. The market demand is quite limited in reality, and it greatly depends on the type of plastic.
In general terms there are two broad categories of plastic – thermoset plastics and thermo-plastics. Thermo-plastics are plastics that can be re-melted and re-moulded into new products, and therefore, recycled. Thermoset plastics contain polymers that cross-link to form an irreversible chemical bond, meaning that no matter how much heat is applied, they cannot be re-melted into new material and hence are not recyclable.
Examples of plastic containers that can be recycled in curb side programs. These are #2 – HDPE – see table below.
In more specific terms, the following are the various formulations of plastics, what they are used for, the approximate proportions in the waste streams (up to and including the year 2015) and the possibilities for recycling. Note – the numbers – 1 to 7 referenced appear on the plastic items usually in a small triangle.
Similar to #1 – mostly accepted in blue bin programs
3
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
2 forms – a) rigid – for plumbing, windows, bank cards and b) non rigid – inflatable products, electric wire insulation, etc.
5
Some items can be recycled – but there are difficulties in separating.
4
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
Plastic bags, food wrappings, squeezable bottles,
20
Only a few items can be recycled. The big issue is single use bags as they get caught in the sorting machines.
5
Polypropylene (PP)
Bottle caps, straws, coolers, diapers, clothing and carpet fibers, and some food packing – yogurt, margarine, etc.
19
Most cannot be recycled through curb side programs
6
Polystyrene (PS)
White Styrofoam – used in packaging and also for rigid food containers
6
Most municipalities do not accept Styrofoam products in curbside recycling programs
7
Other – category 7
A grab bag of plastics not found in any other category.
24%
Mostly non recyclable
# – Refers to the number found in the triangle on each plastic item
% – Refers to the estimated percentage of each kind of plastic in the waste stream – up to 2015.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECYLING – In general – it is the plastics with the numbers 1 and 2 (mostly) that can be recycled in curbside recycling programs. Others usually need to be taken to recycling locations or are simply sent to landfills or incinerators. Careful citizens will take the time to sort their plastics and take, to recycling depots, those items not permitted in curbside bins. However, the main concern is that a large majority will simply put all plastic items in curbside blue boxes. In such cases – likely the majority – the items that cannot be recycled will be considered trash.
Mixed material such as zip lock bags can be a problem. For instance – take away coffee cups. While the outside of the cup is made of paper, inside is a thin layer of plastic. The PP (Polypropylene) film protects the liquid from seeping into the paper (and thereby burning you) and keeps your warm drink from cooling too quickly. Because there are two different materials, the cups cannot be recycled unless the materials are separated, which is impossible to do by hand and requires a special machine.
Any plastic material with food residues on (or in) it CANNOT be recycled. In order for plastics to be transformed into recycled goods, they must be of decent quality. So, it is important to wash the plastic before it goes in the blue box.
To sum up – most plastic we use cannot be recycled. The plastic industry knows this and yet continues to extensively market plastic for multiple uses. We users can do more by becoming aware and refusing to use single use plastic or buying items that are inappropriately packaged. However, regulation is the only way to revers the troubling trend towards increasing plastic use. Canada for instance will ban single use plastic in 2021. But this is only a start.
UPCOMING – 2 more articles.
The serious concern about micro-plastics
Long-term solutions – yes – we can get out of this mess.
OUR DIGITAL WORLD IS NOT SO CLEAN Allan Maynard, MSc. – October 2021
A 4 MINUTE READ — The internet and associated technologies have taken over our lives with an ecological impact that is impossible to ignore. This is the next article in the series – “FOOTPRINTS – By the numbers” – addressing the environmental impact (or FOOTPRINT) of some of our normal, everyday lives.
When I was growing up in the 1950s – phones were attached to the wall with the phone lines shared with neighbours – “the party line” as it was called. The first computer I encountered was in 1966 at Simon Fraser University. It was the size of a living room and basically processed calculations. Fast forward to now.
In the space of 50 years, the digital world has grown to become crucial to the functioning of society. Computer processing power has increased a staggering 1 trillion times between the early 80s and now. The revolution has proceeded at breakneck speed — approximately 4.1 billion people, or 53.6% of the global population, now use the internet. No technology has reached more people in as short a space of time and it is far from finished.
The benefits of digital technology are immeasurable – society can no longer carry on without it. However, the negative aspects of the internet are also many and growing – One of the many significant negative aspects is — THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
ONE OF GOOGLE’S DATA CENTERS
CARBON FOOTPRINT
Every single search query, every streamed song or video and every email sent, billions of times over all around the world all adds up to an ever-increasing global demand for electricity by the central servers and data storage centers. Our increasing reliance on digital tools has an environmental impact that’s becoming increasingly harder to ignore.
One of the difficulties in working out the carbon footprint of our internet habits is that few can agree on what should and should not be included. In reviewing the literature though – most reports calculate that the carbon footprint of our gadgets, the internet and the systems supporting them account for about 3.4 to 4% of global greenhouse emissions – comparable to the global airline industry. These emissions are expected to double by 2025.
Most significant in energy use is cryptocurrency. Solving the equations to acquire new bitcoins (referred to as “mining”) requires large volumes of computer hardware that frequently overheats and is extremely energy intensive. Estimates put the annual energy usage of bitcoin mining equivalent to that of Sweden or Malaysia. And as these “mines” multiply, their operations begin to stretch and even overwhelm national power grids. Iran banned bitcoin mining last month after it led to blackouts. Multiple provinces in China, one of the world’s biggest producers of bitcoin, banned mining too, leading miners to relocate their hardware to sites of more traditional underground extraction in Canada and South Dakota.
POLLUTION FROM PRODUCTION OF OUR DEVICES
For their production, green energy and digital technologies require a variety of precious and rare earth metals. For the most part, they exist in minute quantities in metal ores that also contain more abundant metals such as copper. For example, a tonne of rock produces ONLY four to seven grams of the precious metal – platinum (about 0.0004 to 0.0007 %). The extraction of these minerals is difficult and complex, requiring abundant labour, chemicals, water, and land. Two examples (of many) are provided.
Example 1 – China produces 45% of the world’s metals and 95% of some of the key rare earth metals. It is also now the biggest consumer of metals in the world. China also has some of the most polluted rivers and land areas in the world due to this prominence. From north near the Mongolian border to south in Guangdong, China is struggling to clean up the environment polluted by mining. The clean-up process is expensive and time-consuming, and some say it could be 50-100 years for the environment to recover. A 2019 US Army report highlights a central issue driving rare-earth pollution in China: “China is less burdened with environmental or labor regulatory requirements that can greatly increase costs incurred in mining and manufacturing rare-earth products.”
Example 2 -In Malaysia, Mitsubishi Chemical is now engaged in a $100 million cleanup of its Bukit Merah rare earths processing site, which it closed in 1992 amid opposition from local residents and Japanese politicians and environmentalists. It is one of Asia’s largest radioactive waste cleanup sites, and local physicians said the thorium contamination from the plant has led to an increase in leukemia and other ailments.
WASTE FROM DISPOSAL (also called E-Waste)
An international study by Global Waste (see link below) concluded that the world dumped a record 53.6 million tonnes of e-waste last year. To put that in perspective this is equivalent to the weight of 350 cruise ships the size of the Queen Mary 2, To make matters worse, just 17 per cent (approximately) of it was recycled, meaning that an estimated $57 billion worth of gold, silver, copper, platinum and other high-value, recoverable materials used as components were mostly dumped or burned rather than being collected for treatment and reuse.
Planned Obsolescence – One important factor exacerbates the issue of E-Waste – Planned Obsolescence. This is the well documented fact that some of the world’s biggest companies have been selling products either knowing full well that they will only last a couple of years or having deliberately built a short lifespan into the item or its software. As an example, in the US – Apple paid millions to users related to allegations that software updates caused older iPhones – such as the iPhone 6, 6s Plus, 7 and 7 Plus – to slow down.
This is perhaps why the average time an individual keeps a smartphone is reckoned to be between two and three years. Astonishingly, according to EU research, the average lifetime of desktop printers is a mere five hours and four minutes of actual printing time. This is simply scandalous. However, a push back movement is developing – see link below on the “Right To Repair” movement.
While the overall damage done to the environment from all the unrecycled waste may be incalculable, the message from the Global Waste report was conclusive: “The way in which we produce, consume and dispose of e-waste is unsustainable.”
IS IT WORTH IT?
One wonders – where is all this headed? Even though we managed in the past, there is no doubt our world can no longer function without the internet and the associated technology. It allows people to be connected globally, it allows much better access to education, it allows rapid processing of data and an unprecedented ability for predictive science. Data storage and retrieval is many orders of magnitude better than before such digital powers were commonplace.
But in my view – and shared by many evaluating society — it is TOO MUCH. Do we need technology to open and close our curtains, to track the ‘best before’ dates of food in our fridges or to continuously monitor our back yards with a video cam? Do we need to see what our friends are having for dinner or watch silly pet videos or teenagers dancing in what should be their private spaces? Even more detrimental is the accelerated spread of misinformation and disinformation. I firmly believe that without the nonsense on Facebook etc., there would be much less resistance to the safe and effective CoVid vaccines.
Digital technologies have given rise to a new machine-based civilization that is increasingly linked to a growing number of social and political maladies. Accountability is weak and insecurity is endemic, creating disturbing opportunities for exploitation. Moreover, society is well entrenched in an era of surveillance capitalism. The companies at the core of the social media revolution — Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the like — vacuum up our personal data turning us into products for sale.
THE ANSWER – A BIG RESET: The manufacture, use and disposal of technology products is unstainable. Moreover, the benefits to society are being offset by many detrimental aspects. I believe that less is more. A great reset is needed to restore the initial intention of the internet. There is a very definite need for this massive industry to be much better regulated in all ways. Ron Deibert is Chair of the “The Citizen Lab”, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. I agree with this conclusion in a CBC article about his research “In order to combat authoritarian practices, environmental degradation, and rampant electronic consumerism, Deibert urges restraints on tech platforms and governments to reclaim the internet for civil society” (see link below to Ron Deibert’s book).
