Death by Recycling

 

Death by Recycling

Refuse Derived Fuel (“RDF”)

If you’ve ever wondered if those “well-tested” solutions to very serious issues – like climate change and environmental pollutions – are actually safe and effective, well, today’s blog is for you. Sometimes, rich people have a way of putting a pleasant-sounding label or arguments of “on balance, not worth the cost” on profound toxicity, the same people who will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to install very efficient air and water filters in their offices, homes, yachts, jets and cars. Their three-star restaurants do not serve micro-plastic prime steaks, but even these fat cats cannot avoid the problem. But when it comes to business efficiencies and profits, health and safety concerns are often washed away as the chemicals remain. For those finding controlling these toxic substances, they have an anti-environmental, climate change denying ally ready declare a new “hoax” and push regulation aside. Orange Man.

A report published on January 29, 2025, in Stanford Medicine tells us: “Microplastics — plastic fragments up to 5 millimeters long — are inescapable. An estimated 10 to 40 million metric tons of these particles are released into the environment every year, and if current trends continue, that number could double by 2040. Most come from larger plastic items that break down over time, while some are added directly to products we use such as paint, cleansers and toothpastes… ‘Plastic never goes away — it just breaks down into finer and finer particles,’ said Desiree LaBeaud, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases physician at Stanford Medicine who co-founded the university's interdisciplinary Plastics and Health Working Group...

“Research on the health impacts of microplastics in humans is just beginning. The particles have been found in multiple organs and tissues, including the brain, testicles, heart, stomach, lymph nodes and placenta. They've also been detected in urine, breastmilk, semen and meconium, which is a newborn's first stool. ‘We're born pre-polluted,’ LaBeaud said.

“Evidence is growing that this exposure could be harmful. Studies show that microplastics make fish and birds more vulnerable to infections. Animal and cellular studies have linked microplastics to biological changes including inflammation, an impaired immune system, deteriorated tissues, altered metabolic function, abnormal organ development, cell damage and more. A recent large-scale review of existing research by scholars at the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that exposure to microplastics is suspected to harm reproductive, digestive and respiratory health and suggested a link to colon and lung cancer.”

Microplastics are often lumped with a litany of non-or-very slow biodegradable chemicals and known as “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (also PFAS, PFASs, and informally called ‘forever chemicals’) are a group of synthetic organofluorine chemical compounds that have multiple fluorine atoms attached to an alkyl chain; 7 million such chemicals are listed in PubChem.” Wikipedia. As the Stanford scientists point out, even as our bodies are permeated with such plastics, even before we are born, they can cause serious medical issues throughout life.

RFD’s are not headline grabbers, but there are a few people paying attention. Sean Mowbray is a Scottish scientific writer (with a hot website) who specializes in those environment issues that slide under the radar. Microplastics, which make up about half of RFDs, have drawn his attention as “climate friendly’ recycling solutions that would be stored in landfills and forever chemicals if not dissipated. But there’s a catch. If there isn’t an effective microplastic removal or containment system before the RFD is incinerated, and the post-burning filters are not totally effective, this just might help spread those microplastics. Mowbray writes:

“RDF is typically made up of around 50% plastic waste, which is combined with other combustible materials like wood, cardboard and textiles. The mixed waste is processed via drying and shredding, with the resulting materials then burned in so-called waste-to-energy incinerators, cement kilns, or other industrial facilities such as paper mills.

“Proponents argue that burning waste is an effective way to simultaneously reduce landfilling and plastic pollution, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as it’s a substitute for fossil fuels. Advocates have even marketed RDF as a circular economy solution… Critics aren’t convinced. They say that incinerating RDFs, with their high plastic content, is akin to swapping out one dirty fuel source for another, resulting in the release of significant greenhouse gases, along with harmful particulate and chemical pollutants, including dioxins, a potential byproduct of burning plastics…

“RDF proponents like the RDF Industry Group say it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, though it appears to do so using a carbon accounting loophole also used by the forest biomass industry: While RDF’s biomass components (wood, paper and cardboard) do add significant carbon to the atmosphere, contributing to climate change when burned, those emissions often aren’t counted by countries because the burning of biomass is classified by United Nations rules as carbon neutral, since trees can eventually be regrown. But nature does count those emissions, which do add to near-term climate change.

“Industry advocates also argue that RDF avoids emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, because burning it reduces the amount of waste going into landfills, which emit large amounts of methane to the atmosphere.

“Both these carbon arguments have led to RDF being touted as a low-carbon solution, and even ‘zero-carbon,’ for industry. The RDF Industry Group, for example, said the volumes of imported and exported waste-derived fuels in the EU prevented the release of an estimated 83.7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent from 2015-2024… Brown argues that while reducing, recycling and reusing waste is ultimately the ideal environmental solution, incinerating it is still beneficial. ‘The primary reason for [burning RDF] isn’t because it’s a low carbon fuel generating low carbon energy,’ he says. ‘The primary reason is because it’s better than the alternative of landfill.’” If this blog makes you feel warm and fuzzy, that just might be microplastics doing their thing.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the shame in all of this is how deprioritized climate change and chemical pollution as naked greed seems be the value our society cherishes most.