1 . Plastic is everywhere, from the Arctic ice to vital organs in the human body. In fact, previous estimates suggest that the average person swallows a credit card-worth of microscopic plastic particles(颗粒) every week. But new research shows that this could actually be an understatement.

Microplastics are plastics smaller than 5 millimeters, found in industrial waste, beauty products, and formed during the degradation of larger plastic pieces. Over time, they break down into even smaller nanoplastics. These tiny particles can pass through our intestines and lungs into our bloodstreams, reaching vital organs like the heart and brain.

While the idea of eating plastic is unsettling in itself, the major concern here is that these plastic particles contain chemicals that can interrupt our body’s natural release of hormones, potentially increasing our risk of reproductive disorders and certain cancers. They can also carry toxins(毒素) on their surface like heavy metals.

In the past, researchers have shown bottled water can contain tens of thousands of identifiable plastic fragments in a single container. However, until recently, only the larger microplastics were detectable with available measuring tools, leaving the area of nanoplastics largely a mystery.

Using Raman microscopy (显微镜学), capable of detecting particles down to the size of a flu virus, the team measured an average of 240, 000 particles of plastic per liter of bottled water, 90 percent of which were nanoplastics, a revelation 10 to 100 times larger than previous estimates.

These plastics likely originate from the bottle material, filters used to “purify” the water, and the source water itself. “It is not totally unexpected to find so much of this stuff, ” the study’s lead author, Columbia graduate student Naixin Qian, said in a statement. His team hopes to expand their research into tap water and other water sources to better inform our exposure to these potentially dangerous particles. “The idea is that the smaller things get, the more of them I reveal, ” he added.

2 . As plastic waste increases rapidly around the world, an essential question remains unanswered: What harm, if any, does it cause to human health?

A few years ago, as microplastics began turning up in the organs of fish and shellfish, the concern was focused on the safety of seafood. Shellfish were a particular worry, because in their case, unlike fish, we eat the entire animal — stomach, microplastics and all. In 2017, Belgian scientists announced that seafood lovers could consume up to 11,000 plastic particles (粒子) a year by eating mussels (贻贝), a favorite dish in that country.

By then, however, scientists already understood that plastics continuously fragment small pieces in the environment, tearing over time into fibers even smaller than a strand of human hair — particles are so small that they easily fly in the air. A team at the U.K.’s University of Plymouth decided to compare the threat from eating polluted wild mussels in Scotland to that of breathing air in a typical home. Their conclusion: People will take in more plastic by breathing in or taking tiny, invisible plastic fibers floating in the air around them—fibers from their own clothes, carpets, and soft covering on furniture — than they will by eating the mussels.

So, it wasn’t much of a surprise when, in 2022, scientists from the Netherlands and the U.K, announced they had found tiny plastic particles in living humans, in two places where they hadn’t been seen before: deep inside the lungs of surgical patients, and in the blood of unknown donors. Neither of the two studies answered the question of possible harm. But together they signaled a shift in the focus of concern about plastics toward the cloud of dust particles in the air, some of them are so small that they can get into deep inside the body and even inside cells, in ways that larger microplastics can’t.

Dick Vethaak, a professor of ecotoxicology (生态毒理学), doesn’t consider the results alarming, exactly—“but, yes, we should be concerned. Plastics should not be in your blood.” “We live in a multi-particle world,” he adds, referring to the dust, pollen (花粉), and smog that humans also breathe in every day. “The trick is to figure out how much plastics contribute to that particle burden and what does that mean.”

3 . Last week came solid evidence that living in toxic Britain can seriously harm your health. Cardiologists at Queen Mary University of London found that even "safe" levels of air pollution are linked to heart abnormalities similar to those seen during the early stages of heart failure. Their study of almost 4,000 people was backed up by a major US study which showed that higher exposure to fine particles and nitrogen oxides is linked to an acceleration in the hardening of the arteries (动脉).

We have long known that air pollution leads to coughing, shortness of breath and irritation in the eyes, nose and throat. It is also clearly linked to respiratory diseases such as asthma and bronchitis, as well as diabetes and some cancers. It is now beyond doubt that children's health is greatly affected, and links have been made between it and Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, dementia and congenital birth defects.

The statistics are alarming. In the UK, more than 2 million people suffer from cardiovascular (心血管的) diseases, and nearly one in seven men and one in 12 women will go on to die from them. Heart disease costs the UK economy nearly £30 bn a year to treat, as much as the state spends on secondary education. It is one of the greatest single drains on the public purse. Britain, however, rejects common sense, and shows little sign that it wants to seriously address pollution any time soon.

Despite the mounting evidence of air pollution's costs and health impact, Britain has had to be dragged screaming through the courts to make it comply with minimal clean air guidelines and laws. Successive governments have continually tried to evade their legal responsibilities, spending millions of pounds fighting in the courts and lobbying the EU to be allowed to continue to pollute.

The government now has a new draft clean air strategy our for consultation until 14 August and claims to be acting faster to tackle air pollution than almost every other major developed economy. It pledges to halve the number of people living in places that do not meet World Health Organization pollution guidelines, and it propose to end the sale of new diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2040.

But intending to cut the air pollution bill by around 12.5% in 12 years and waiting 20 years to be rid of the worst vehicles seems criminally weak. Meanwhile, government is knowingly forging ahead with infrastructure plans that will inevitably increase air pollution. The effect will inevitably be to massively increase air pollution and health costs for millions of Britons.

So could the car-clogged streets of Sunder-land, Birmingham and London, where I lived for many years, have contributed to my disease and those of millions of others? Probably. Could the oil companies be responsible for far more than climate change? Certainly. Could Britain's monstrous and mounting bill for heart disease be partly due to the highly polluting diesel cars that governments so scandalously encouraged us to drive? Quite possibly.

What is certain is that air pollution is now an international scandal, and the cause of a health emergency that governments and industry have failed to address. It undoubtedly threatens life more than any war or disaster. When there are clear alternatives to burning fossil fuels then politicians who do not act to prevent it must stand accused not just of failing to act, but of condoning the mass poisoning of their people.

6 . A recent study published in the journal Science Advances has revealed that the United States ranks as high as third among countries contributing to coastal plastic pollution. The new research challenges the once-held assumption that the US is adequately “managing” its plastic waste. A previous study using 2010 data that did not account for plastic waste exports had ranked the US 20th, globally, in its contribution to ocean plastic pollution.

Using plastic waste generation (产生) data from 2016 — the latest available global numbers — scientists calculated that more than half of all plastics collected for recycling (1.99 million tons of 3.91 million tons collected) in the US were shipped abroad. Of this, 88% of exports went to countries struggling to effectively manage plastics; and between 15-25% was low-value or contaminated (受污染的). It means it was unrecyclable. Taking these factors into account, the researchers estimated that up to 1 million tons of US-generated plastic waste ended up polluting the environment beyond its own borders.

Using 2016 data, the paper also estimated that between 0.91 and 1.25 million tons of plastic waste generated in the US was either littered or illegally dumped into the environment domestically. Combined with waste exports, this means the US contributed up to 2.25 million tons of plastics into the environment. Of this, up to 1.5 million tons of plastics ended up in coastal environments. This ranks the US as high as third globally in contributing to coastal plastic pollution.

“The US generates the most plastic waste of any other country in the world, but rather than looking the problem in the eye, we have outsourced it to developing countries,” said Nick Mallos, senior director of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas program and a co-author of the study. “The solution has to start at home. We need to create less, by cutting out unnecessary single-use plastics; we need to create better, by developing innovative new ways to package and deliver goods; and where plastics are inevitable, we need to greatly improve our recycling rates.”

“Previous research has provided global values for plastic input into the environment and coastal areas, but detailed analyses like this one are important for individual countries to further assess their contributions,” said Dr. Jenna Jambeck, Distinguished Professor at the University of Georgia’s College of Engineering and a co-author of the study. “In the case of the United States, it is critically important that we examine our own backyard and take responsibility for our global plastic footprint.”

7 . Beijing is hardly alone in its air pollution problems. The world Health Organization has said that roughly half of the world’s urban population is exposed to pollution at least 2.5 times higher than it recommends.

While it may take years to fix this global problem, innovative minds in the Asia region have come up with creative solutions for living with air pollution.

DIY Purifier

Thomas Talhelm started worrying about the air inside his Beijing home during “airpocalypse” in 2013 when Beijing’s air quality index skyrocketed to a terrifying 755.

The scholar couldn’t afford the luxury of an expensive air purifier. “Fillers are actually very simple— a high efficient filter is all you need to get over 96% of the PM2.5,” he said.

With three of his friends, Talhelm created Smart Air, an air purifier consisting of a basic household fan with a high efficient filter attached to it.

It works as efficiently as the big brands selling for thousands of dollars, removing more than 90 percent of PM 2.5 in your room, according to Talhelm’s research.

Invisible Mask

Infipure’s “nose mask” claims to cut 99% of PM2.5 without the trouble of a surgical face mask.

The filters, made from special materials, are inserted into your nose and aim to be undetectable.

“People care about their health, but don’t want all the downsides that come with a traditional face mask.” Infipure co-founder Francis Law explained.

Plant Backpack

Taiwanese artist Chui Chih has designed a survival device for an apocalyptic world.

Named Voyage on the Planet, a potted plant is housed inside a clear backpack hooked up to two tubes to bring fresh to a face mask. It’s a bold, abstract idea from an oxygen tank.

Smog Vacuum

Daan Roosegaarde has been working on a smog vacuum that will suck pollutants from the sky to the ground like a vacuum, making way for clean air.

A byproduct of this smog vacuum, namely The Smog Free Tower, is the “smog ring”—a piece of jewelry made from smog particulates.

“The pollution we suck up, the small particulates, we don’t throw them away. We put them under pressure for a couple of weeks and they crystallize, creating something like a diamond,” Roosegaardc explains.

8 . You’ve heard that plastic is polluting the oceans — between 4.8 and 12.7 million tonnes enter ocean ecosystems every year. But does one plastic straw or cup really make a difference? Artist Benjamin Von Wong wants you to know that it does. He builds massive sculptures out of plastic garbage, forcing viewers to re-examine their relationship to single-use plastic products.

At the beginning of the year, the artist built a piece called “Strawpocalypse,” a pair of 10-foot-tall plastic waves, frozen mid-crash. Made of 168,000 plastic straws collected from several volunteer beach cleanups, the sculpture made its first appearance at the Estella Place shopping center in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Just 9% of global plastic waste is recycled. Plastic straws are by no means the biggest source (来源) of plastic pollution, but they’ve recently come under fire because most people don’t need them to drink with and, because of their small size and weight, they cannot be recycled. Every straw that’s part of Von Wong’s artwork likely came from a drink that someone used for only a few minutes. Once the drink is gone, the straw will take centuries to disappear.

In a piece from 2018, Von Wong wanted to illustrate (说明) a specific statistic: Every 60 seconds, a truckload’s worth of plastic enters the ocean. For this work, titled “Truckload of Plastic,” Von Wong and a group of volunteers collected more than 10,000 pieces of plastic, which were then tied together to look like they’d been dumped (倾倒) from a truck all at once.

Von Wong hopes that his work will also help pressure big companies to reduce their plastic footprint.