• PolPotPie [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    48·
    2 years ago

    i recently attended a training where we were informed that a degraded compound from tires breaks the blood-brain barrier in salmon and causes them to die.

      • dat_math [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        14·
        2 years ago

        We have larger body compartments outside the brain to soak up those degraded synthetic rubbers, so human bodies will probably tend to get lower intensity doses spread over a greater surface area of tissue to penetrate!

    • redtea@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      24·
      2 years ago

      I was going to mention the fish. I didn’t know this about salmon. But I knew that rivers that have bridges have a lot fewer fish around the bridges than they otherwise would/should. There is a type of tire that’s better for fish (unsure how much better) but it’s more expensive so you can guess how likely it’ll become widespread.

  • MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    34·
    2 years ago

    Not to belittle the actual problem of tire rubber particulates, but the wording of the headline is very consistent with a green nationalist focus on “pollution” and “clean air” that minimizes exactly how many orders of magnitude more dangerous GHG emissions are than anything like this.

    Also, even this is total bullshit - “more particle pollution by mass?” So CO2 is not a particle? A typical car emits waaaay more CO2 by mass in a month than the mass of an entire set of tires.

    Again, not to minimize the actual cause for concern, but wording like this actively minimizes the climate apocalypse that the developed world has created and is sustaining.

  • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    27·
    2 years ago

    i’ve always been a bit skeptical of the hyperfocus on CO₂ emissions as a proxy for pollution but

    more particle pollution by mass

    is suspiciously specific. No i will not click on the article.

    • sawne128 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      9·
      2 years ago

      CO2 isn’t pollution* fyi.

      Edit: I think I misread your comment, but to expand on what I mean, some people use CO2 emissions as a way to slam measures to reduce pollution that is toxic to nature, such as catalytic converters and plastic tax. I think this is possible because people confuse the concepts of “We shouldn’t poison nature” and “We should stop climate change”, which are both technically issues of pollution.

      • Einstein@hexbear.netEnglish
        24·
        2 years ago

        Jesus christ. Anything that shouldnt be there, is by definition pollution. There is salt and calcium in sea water. Would you agree that industrial discharge of salt and calcium is pollution? If so then you have to agree that discharge of manmade carbon dioxide is pollution of the balance of the atmosphere.

    • RNAi [he/him]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      8·
      2 years ago

      Yes it’s a nitpicked measure, obviously the most environmental damage comes from all the fuel being burned.

  • Frogmanfromlake [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    23·
    2 years ago

    Fucking hate those bigass trucks I used to see in Upstate New York. I saw more of them when I went a year ago and those bigass trucks almost always had US flags plastered all over them and a blue-line flag somewhere on the back. You’d get the occasional “don’t tread on me” stuff as well.

  • tactical_trans_karen [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    20·
    2 years ago

    There’s four of them for every car too, and each car will go through several sets in it’s life. Tires don’t just dissolve into thin air, these toxic compounds are literally ground into powder and flushed into our rivers every time it rains.

  • Einstein@hexbear.netEnglish
    17·
    2 years ago

    I remember having to point this out to a local councillor some 15 years ago. The wanted to expand road development in our city centre from 3 lanes to 4. Whilst it didnt run past homes it was a very busy shopping area at the time. The councillor, at the time, thought that cars didnt pollute, and it was a real struggle to get the point across. Until the local sewerage system got gunked up with a grey paste every time after heavy rain. Turned out that was tyres that had worn. It kind of blocked the water from flowing and had a weird effect.

    What made this oddly schadenfraude was the water, when it did come out of the storm drain, discharged into a part of the River Itchen that said councillor liked to fish in. It was probably, and probably is to this day, depleting the fish stocks. We know that microplastics have been found in fish, but we’ve found other chemicals related to cars have also been found.

    • RNAi [he/him]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      18·
      2 years ago

      And that kid telling you not to widen the stroad that’s killing your favortie river? Yep, it was Albert Einstein

  • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    9·
    2 years ago

    By “bigger ones” I assume this is strictly in an American point of which yeah I agree, there is nothing green about an electric F-150 or whatever.

    But we can make small and lightweight cars, these actually exist elsewhere in China and even some in Europe. Of course the American car culture is irredeemable, burn and destroy it all or don’t and let climate change do it for you anyway.