According to the scientific community – science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely peoples'. 

I created an art work on this very theme : The choice is yours ...

Art work by Dr. Krishna kumari Challa 

http://www.kkartfromscience.com 

 

Now let me take the example of plastic pollution. 

The 20th century saw a revolution in plastic production: the advent of entirely synthetic plastics. 

Belgian chemist and clever marketeer Leo Baekeland pioneered the first fully synthetic plastic in 1907 (2).

• One of the earliest examples was invented by Alexander Parkes in 1855, who named his invention Parkesine. We know it today as celluloid.
• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) was first polymerised between 1838-1872.
• A key breakthrough came in 1907, when Belgian-American chemist Leo Baekeland created Bakelite, the first real synthetic, mass-produced plastic. (1)

He beat his Scottish rival, James Swinburne, to the patent office by one day. His invention, which he would christen Bakelite, combined two chemicals, formaldehyde and phenol, under heat and pressure. 

Bakelite sparked a consumer boom in affordable yet highly desirable products. It had a dark brown, wood-like appearance but could be easily mass-produced, making it ideal for bringing new design trends such as Art Deco to the masses.

In the early decades of the 20th century, the petroleum and chemical industries began to form alliances in companies like Dow Chemicals, ExxonMobil, DuPont and BASF. These companies are still the major producers of raw material resins for the plastics industry today.

These alliances were driven by the desire to make use of waste material from processing crude oil and natural gas. One of the most abundant of these was ethylene gas, a by-product that the British company Imperial Chemical Industries  (ICI) beat its German and US competitors to make a plastic from.

The following year, a team at ICI’s plant in Winnington were attempting to combine ethylene and benzaldehyde under great pressure and heat. The experiment failed. Instead, due to a leak of oxygen into the vessel, they found a white waxy substance in a reaction tube.

This was found to be a polymer of ethylene. Now the world’s most abundant plastic, polyethylene was a wonder material: strong, flexible and heat-resistant.

Its first application was insulating radar cabling during the Second World War, but consumer products soon followed, from the plastic shopping bag and Tupperware to artificial hip and knee joints.

ICI’s US rival DuPont had a series of plastic successes in the 1930s, notably Nylon and Teflon. Nylon stockings were an immediate worldwide sensation. 

The history of the plastic industry in India dates to 1957 with the production of polystyrene. Since then, the industry has made substantial progress and has grown rapidly.

Then plastic was treated as a wonder material.

 From stockings to space suits, plastic has been used for an incredible variety of products in the modern world.

Maybe nobody anticipated that it would become a huge problem when it was developed. Only commercial viability was seen, not environmental problems. 

But the chemical properties that have made plastic an incredibly useful and durable material also make it difficult to dispose of, with some types taking thousands—even tens of thousands—of years to degrade in landfill. 

The degradation itself is an even bigger environmental issue, as the breaking down of plastics into microscopic particles pollutes our ocean, air and ecosystems. The health implications of microplastic deposits in our bodies are not yet fully known.  

Many of our plastic problems began in the post-war period, when plastic began to replace the more expensive paper, glass and metal materials used in throwaway items, such as consumer packaging. 

Among the worst offenders, along with polyethylene shopping bags and polystyrene food containers, is the PET (polyethylene terephthalate, a form of polyester) drinks bottle. 

The economics of mass-produced, cheap plastic products have led to a single-use culture. As the plastic figures are increasing, and as the majority of these bottles are ending up in our oceans, and degrading into microplastics and as the scientific community is realizing what is happening, alarm bells started ringing. 

This problem has been identified by science. 

When plastic was first developed in earlier centuries nobody studied these things in detail. It was a primitive stage. People have seen only the positive side of it.  Nobody even anticipated this boom in both plastic and human populations. Now it has become a giant and difficult to deal with and became negative. 

As science advanced, and when we understood the problem thoroughly, we realized what 's happening around us.  

Now we are being asked to control it. But people are refusing to cooperate! They are refusing to minimize the use of plastic. 

Why? And who is responsible for this situation? 

Research shows that knowledge isn’t the only thing that will change behaviour. You usually need much more. The benefits have to be tangible and the behaviour needs to be feasible and within their abilities.

As plastic production increases and our landfills fill up, can social "science" help us control peoples' plastic addiction?

One significant obstacle is that single-use plastic is almost impossible to avoid.

The consumer often times has little choice to refuse plastic. And because it’s so ubiquitous and such a common item, it becomes a force of habit. We go to the market, buy some produce, put it in a plastic bag, and come back. 

To break that habit, environmental advocates are turning to social behaviour change campaigns.

What these campaigns have in common is that they all use social marketing principles, which combine ideas from social science and commercial marketing to influence behavior for the benefit of both the individual and for society as a whole.

The first step: identifying the barriers to behaviour change. For instance: 

The most common thing that keeps people from using reusable alternatives to single-use plastic—like reusable water bottles and tote bags—is forgetting the reusable version at home.

But it’s not just a problem of individuals forgetting. It doesn’t matter, for example, if you bring your own water bottle with you if there is nowhere to fill it up. And for some, it comes down to preference, or a belief that re-using some products is unsanitary.

Once the barriers have been identified, the next challenge is to find the right message to change human behaviour.

People will not do anything just because somebody told them to.They want to understand that the single action matters.

We take the help of numbers here. When we tell them when  an average person generates about 0.73 pounds of plastic waste each day, which adds up to more than 265 pounds of plastic waste per person each year.

Behaviours that are done on an individual level can have a big impact when you aggregate them, say the social scientists. But that’s not easy to see until after the fact.

Public displays of the amount of waste we produce are another powerful tool for social change that has bolstered the “zero waste” movement. 

We have to show people how much plastic trash the average family creates in a day.

These types of visualizations can help people realize that they need to change their behaviour. And once one person makes a change, it’s likely they will influence those around them to rethink their choices. People want to be part of the “in group,” and new behaviors need to feel socially acceptable. To facilitate this shift in social norms, public commitments or pledges can create “a sense of both community and peer pressure.

These different ways that we can move through our lives by avoiding single-use plastics is something that is cool and can be a fun thing to do as a community.

In the grocery store context, this could involve in-store or parking lot signs to remind customers to remember their re-useable bags. Or cashiers could be encouraged to ask customers whether they have their re-useable bag or, if not, if they would prefer to go without a bag.

Although plastics are ubiquitous today, they are actually relatively new to consumer markets. Widespread plastic use began only after World War II, but plastic production now surpasses the manufacture of all other materials. Almost half of the plastics ever manufactured have been made since the year 2000.

One of the reasons it’s so hard for people to switch is because we live in a different, faster-paced society. It really comes down to a convenience thing when we talk about human behaviour.

The best way to change people’s behaviour is to hit them where it hurts — their wallets. Giving consumers a discount or making single-use items harder to access can be a start.

If you make them more expensive, or if you don’t make them available, it will be less convenient for people to get them.

A ban? Will it work? The industry people will fight back!

Those are bigger, systemic changes. Even if we have a very engaged and motivated, educated public, there are forces out there that are profit-driven and want to see single-use plastics continue to make it into the consumer stream.

 And the governments have to balance things to put the situation under control.  

You have a lot of power as a consumer. If enough consumers get together, they can affect change as far as industry and government policies go. 

Appealing to both cost-effectiveness and public perceptions of eco-friendliness can help businesses reduce the number of single-use plastics available to the public.

If you decide to stop serving plastic straws, you’re saving money because you don’t have to buy that material.

These types of business-centered approaches can lead to larger policy changes.

With the help of science again,  there’s a real shift happening now about how we view plastic in our lives.

So as you can see, it had started as an innocent invention but became a huge problem because of unseen consequences on part of everybody, and again science is coming to the rescue to stop this addiction and negative effect of it. 

Who do you blame for this?  

Science is not the culprit. The way commerce developed it, the way people used it,  got addicted to it and refused to let go is responsible for the complication of the situation.

But science is  bringing the solution to it.

If you don't see this clear picture and blame science for the mess, what should I think? I don't want to  continue any further and share my thoughts any more. 

But my science communication skills are becoming sharper and sharper because of people who criticize science. I must thank you for that.

Footnotes:

1. https://plasticseurope.org/plastics-explained/history-of-plastics/

2. https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/chemistry/age-....

                                                  ------

Researchers  counter solar energy misinformation

Misinformation is being spread by vested interests in some cases. This is one such example. 

Resistance to adoption of solar panels as an economical and efficient replacement for fossil fuels is based on inaccurate information being spread by foes of renewable energy.

That's the finding of researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado who say claims about the toxicity of photovoltaic (PV) modules are spurring opposition to a promising energy alternative.

"Transitioning away from fossil fuels, a substantial reduction in waste mass and toxicity is possible and the remaining waste is well within our capabilities to manage responsibly," said study author Heather Mirletz. Her paper, "Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization," appears in the journal Nature Physics.

Communities, government agencies and policymakers may be operating under outdated or false assumptions about PV module waste and toxicity hazards resulting in delay or unnecessary impediments to the rapid deployment of PV needed to meet decarbonization goals," Mirletz said.

The report raises several points. Health sites in several states list PV toxins such as arsenic, gallium, germanium and hexavalent chromium. But the majority of PV units are composed of crystalline silicon or cadmium telluride, Mirletz said. Those are toxic substances, but comprise less than 0.1% of the modules, which consist mainly of glass, aluminum and polymers.

The report further cites the International Energy Agency (IEA) assertion that the "only potential human health and environmental concern" about PV models are "trace amounts of lead in solder" used in the manufacture of modules.

The IEA also states that the more recently used cadmium telluride is "extremely stable" and does not pose the same toxicological risk as cadmium.

Opponents of solar energy often cite the 2016 IRENA end-of-life report that calculated that if solar energy is embraced globally, 60 million tons of waste will be generated through PV disposal by the year 2050.

Mirletz notes that her group's study determined the number may be closer to 54 million tons, though in a worst-case scenario, she said, the number could go as high as 160 million tons.

But the lifetime of PV modules has nearly tripled since that report, and required PV capacity has risen sharply. Waste generated by fossil fuels—coal ash and oily sludge—are up to 800 times and five times greater, respectively.

"Compared another way," Mirletz said, "globally we will generate up to 440–1,300 times more mass of municipal waste than PV module waste by 2050."

NPR reported earlier this year that one leading source of misinformation was a former White House aide who once defended Donald Trump's claim that noise from wind turbines can cause cancer. Anti-solar energy activist Susan Ralston, NPR said, received hundreds of thousands of dollars from a key GOP donor and investor in fossil fuel companies.

"Incorrect information about toxic materials in PV modules is leading to unsubstantiated claims about the harms that PV modules pose to human health and the environment, fueling public concern and opposition to PV development," Mirletz said.

The report by Mirletz's team did not address at least two points previously raised by those opposing solar energy.

The Harvard Business Review in June 2018 took issue with the IRENA report. It said the report presumed the highly unlikely scenario that solar customers would keep their modules for the entire projected 30-year lifespan.

Accounting for the greater likelihood of turnover, the Harvard report estimated waste tonnage nearly 20% higher than the IRENA report. PV waste numbers cited by Mirletz's team would be significantly higher if they similarly ignored turnover probabilities.

Also, a 2017 toxic landfill waste report by the National Center for Biotechnology Information found, contrary to the Colorado report, that "given the high toxicity of cadmium," leakage of cadmium telluride even in "marginal" amounts, underscores the need to limit its disposal in landfills.

How many such misinformation and disinformation cycles should we disrupt before the world sees reality as it is?