Slashdot Mirror


Foam-Eating Worms May Offer Solution To Mounting Waste

ckwu writes: Polystyrene foams—including products like Styrofoam—are rarely recycled, and the materials biodegrade so slowly that they can sit in a landfill for hundreds of years. But a pair of new studies shows that mealworms will dine on polystyrene foam when they can't get a better meal, converting almost half of what they eat into carbon dioxide. In one study, the researchers fed mealworms polystyrene foam and found that the critters converted about 48% of the carbon they ate into carbon dioxide and excreted 49% in their feces. In the second study, the researchers showed that bacteria in the mealworms' guts were responsible for breaking down the polystyrene--suggesting that engineering bacteria might be a strategy for boosting the reported biodegradation.

90 comments

  1. Frost by adolf · · Score: 1

    I have some mealworms upstairs. Should I sprinkle them on the styrofoam pile in the garage that only the landfill will accept locally?

    1. Re:Frost by VernonNemitz · · Score: 4, Interesting
  2. CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good, because if there's one thing we need, it's more atmospheric CO2.

    1. Re:CO2 by evanh · · Score: 2

      That's what I was thinking. Last thing we want is to convert it to more CO2. It's better to leave it in the landfill until global warming is sorted at least.

    2. Re:CO2 by DrXym · · Score: 3, Informative

      I assume anyone going to bother of doing this would feed the output from the worm farm into a secondary chamber filled with algae or bacteria which would consume the CO2 to produce fuel or something along those lines.

    3. Re:CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      We could do with a lot more CO2. It's good for the crops.

      And since the AGW scam has been clearly busted for the fraud it is, it will cause no other problems...

    4. Re:CO2 by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer they shit diamonds? Being serious here, but you do know that polystyrene foam is made from refined oil, yes? Once the oil is extracted, you can either A) leave it in a tank. B: make it into something and bury it into the ground. C) Covert it back into CO2 via burning or organic methods.

      What would you prefer is done with the existing polystyrene foam out there?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:CO2 by donaggie03 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Would you prefer they shit diamonds? Being serious here, but you do know that polystyrene foam is made from refined oil, yes? Once the oil is extracted, you can either A) leave it in a tank. B: make it into something and bury it into the ground. C) Covert it back into CO2 via burning or organic methods.

      What would you prefer is done with the existing polystyrene foam out there?

      The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground. Anthropogenic global warming is caused by us taking carbons that have been locked away underground in the form of fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere. If we use those fossil fuels but keep the carbon locked up or re-entered into the ground instead of the atmosphere, we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with all the greenhouse effects. We'd have another problem in the form of mountains of waste we don't know what to do with, but that's a different discussion.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    6. Re:CO2 by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, your answer is "it's not landfill waste, it's carbon sequestration."

      Funny. Every silver lining comes in a dark cloud.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:CO2 by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Good, because if there's one thing we need, it's more atmospheric CO2."

      Because a small amount of additional CO2 is less of a problem than a large amount of landfilled styrofoam.

    8. Re:CO2 by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what I was thinking. Last thing we want is to convert it to more CO2. It's better to leave it in the landfill until global warming is sorted at least.

      The planet is turning into a desert from lack of available carbon for plant growth.

      Earth needs more co2 not less.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re:CO2 by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

      Would you prefer they shit diamonds? Being serious here, but you do know that polystyrene foam is made from refined oil, yes? Once the oil is extracted, you can either A) leave it in a tank. B: make it into something and bury it into the ground. C) Covert it back into CO2 via burning or organic methods.

      What would you prefer is done with the existing polystyrene foam out there?

      The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground. Anthropogenic global warming is caused by us taking carbons that have been locked away underground in the form of fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere. If we use those fossil fuels but keep the carbon locked up or re-entered into the ground instead of the atmosphere, we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with all the greenhouse effects. We'd have another problem in the form of mountains of waste we don't know what to do with, but that's a different discussion.

      So you like deserts?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:CO2 by ultranova · · Score: 2

      The planet is turning into a desert from lack of available carbon for plant growth.

      My lawn, nearby forests, and algae blooms in the waterways disagree.

      Earth needs more co2 not less.

      "3) Climate change is happening, it may well be due to human activity, but itâ(TM)s generally beneficial"

      Like clockwork.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:CO2 by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Except that it doesn't stay in the ground. Much of it flows out into the ocean, floats around forever getting broken into smaller and smaller pieces and ends up killing things.

    12. Re:CO2 by random+coward · · Score: 2

      YES! Been saying for years that our recycling has been the cause of global warming! Leave all that paper waste in the landfill, its carbon sequestration! Don't recycle it.

    13. Re:CO2 by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Pull the other one Potsy.

    14. Re:CO2 by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You believe that the material in landfills 'flows out into the ocean'?

      Have you ever considered that the source of the oceanic plastic waste may not be 'any source of plastic waste we happen to be discussing right now'?
      Read this: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb...

    15. Re:CO2 by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Deserts are not caused by lack of CO2. They're caused by a lack of water.

    16. Re:CO2 by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 1

      I would hope so. Given our rather significant issues with excess atmospheric CO2 right now, the last thing we need is to dig up old polystyrene and create more. That might make sense once we've reigned in total CO2 and/or can do a full capture of what these worms output, but for now I say let sleeping foam dogs lie. (though absolutely keep working on the science/tech in the meantime)

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    17. Re:CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't care about CO2 anymore, that's so yesterday. NOx, that's what the kids are panicking about now. NOx!

    18. Re:CO2 by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Why do we think that breaking down a *large* amount of trash into is going to release a *small* amount of CO2? Sure, it may be less than cow farts, but it can't be trivial.

    19. Re:CO2 by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      The article hit me the same way. We need to find out how to capture and bind CO2 in such a way as it remains isolated from us.

    20. Re:CO2 by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      +1. I fail to see the harm being created by idle plastic sitting in landfills.

    21. Re:CO2 by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Well, I was more referring to the waste that never makes it into the ground. But up until this article, there were no known natural processes that broke down plastics aside from sunlight. So, that waste sits in the landfill indefinitely until natural erosive and/or other geological forces move it into the sea, or down into the earth where it's destroy by heat.

    22. Re:CO2 by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      - "The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground."
      = "Except that it doesn't stay in the ground." ...
      = "I was more referring to the waste that never makes it into the ground."

      That is a pretty silly sequence of sentences, don't you think?
      The solution is simple: just retract your initial statement and say that it's better to leave plastic buried in landfills than convert it to CO2 until we have a better way of dealing with it. Trying to inject the effects of buried plastic on geological time scales into the discussion is also just very very silly.

    23. Re:CO2 by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      My original reply was poorly worded. I retract it. And replace it with this: Perhaps we should ask which is worse, the extra CO2, or preventing *some* of the plastics from spilling over into the ocean where they can stay for thousands of years. I'm not which is worse because I don't know. I'm just pointing out that all that plastic lying around isn't as innocuous as everyone thinks.

    24. Re: CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that it was made from oil its just resequestration, less the energy to extract the oil, make the polymer, and dig the hole to put it back in the ground.

    25. Re:CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the "-1, Stupid" mod when you need it?

    26. Re:CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of, sort of not. Paper waste in landfills does slowly decompose, anaerobically. What this means is that a) it's slow and b) it doesn't release CO2, it releases methane, a far worse greenhouse gas. Of course, you can flame off the methane and get CO2 and some energy in the process. You could convert it to biochar and use it for agriculture, which would probably be a better idea, except for the logistics. But that's another battle.

    27. Re:CO2 by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Styrofoam is specifically designed to be bulky (high volume to weight) and is not recyclable. As has been pointed out above, the only way to dispose of it now is to burn it, which releases worse stuff into the atmosphere.

    28. Re:CO2 by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I salute your act of retraction. It is praiseworthy.

      I'm just pointing out that all that plastic lying around isn't as innocuous as everyone thinks.

      I agree that putting time and effort into preventing plastic from entering our oceans is wise. I do believe we should do so in a rational way and choose the most efficient solutions for the problems. Research into bacteria that mitigate the issues is definitely one of the roads to efficient solutions. You may find this interesting:
      http://news.discovery.com/eart...

      Nature is a very versatile thing.

    29. Re:CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you just wanted it to be CO2, there's a much cheaper way: light a match...

    30. Re: CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 80's McD's defended their polystyrene packaging with the argument that it aerated the soil.

    31. Re:CO2 by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Really? Because a lot of the styrofoam around here has the little recycle icon on it, with a number inside (usually 6 or 7 or something like that); and items with that icon and those numbers are accepted at the recycling depots around here.

      Somehow, I don't think the recycle depots are taking in the styrofoam for free and just turning around and burning it.

    32. Re:CO2 by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to bio-engineer a strain of bacteria that takes in CO2 and output O2 and/or H20.

  3. Breed better mealworms by Macdude · · Score: 1

    Why bother with all the hassle of trying to isolate the bacteria then trying to figure out how to grow it on an industrial scale when we could just breed better mealworms -- better in the sense of being able to digest a higher percentage of the styrofoam.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    1. Re:Breed better mealworms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tremmors are the ultimate mealworms and look what that got us into.

    2. Re:Breed better mealworms by sexconker · · Score: 2

      I call em Graboids.

    3. Re:Breed better mealworms by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I call em Graboids.

      But don't ass-blasters release greenhouse gasses?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  4. burn it by europrobe · · Score: 1

    If we're going to convert it to CO2 anyway, why not simply burn it in the first place? Then we'd get some heat as a bonus, too.

    --
    Score:-1, Wrong
    1. Re:burn it by whyloginwhysubscribe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because of the toxic chemicals which are released when it is burnt - http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_831... - although this article says that if you burn it hot enough it is safe - it doesn't say *how* safe...

    2. Re:burn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is what is done already in practice. Polystyrene is incinerated, like other non-recyclable waste, with the heat being used to generate electricity.

    3. Re:burn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are reasons trash burning is very bad in reality it is a dioxin distribution process. Dioxin rains out over the countryside.

    4. Re:burn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trash is a underestimated resource.

      Sweden sorts all domestic waste and some of the industrial waste. Reusables are collected and sorted for reprocessing. In total 50% of domestic waste is burnt in very high temperature furnaces. The high temperature destroys most volatile dangerous hydrocarbons. Then the exhaust is scrubbed for heavy metals and other stuff before releasing it. The heat is used to provide remote heating since most buildings in Sweden are connected to a remote heating grid.
      The ash is reused as base in various projects. Road building etc.

  5. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    polystyrene can be burned cleanly emitting the same amount of CO2 and also be refined through pyrolysis to useful carbohydrate usable as fuel in diesel and gas vehicles.

    The only argument for using meal worms is that the Styrofoam is mixed with household waste or in a land fill where it's too dirty to recover.

    This is a poor band aid for a failed recycle system!

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, we can eat the meal worms. Protein from trash! The world food problem is solved! (Why do you think they call them meal worms anyway?)

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always assumed it was because they were often found eating things like corn meal.

      Didn't see anything regarding mealworms, but mealmoths are named for this reason it seems.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianmeal_moth

      They are a common grain-feeding pest found around the world, feeding on cereals and similar products.

    3. Re:Why? by theIsovist · · Score: 1

      burning and cleaning both take energy. if the worms are able to compost this, that's a natural, lower impact way of dealing with this waste.

  6. Future Generations Will Thank Us. by bjwest · · Score: 2

    Not to worry, future generations, possibly even some living now, will be mining our landfills for resources.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  7. I, For One... by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new detrimental polystyrene-eating overlords.

    1. Re:I, For One... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      But can the castings be formed into a Natalie Portman statue?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:I, For One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said they were drowning in waste, they said they had no hope; but I say: send in the worms! Bi-lal kaifa.

    3. Re:I, For One... by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but if you use whole worm, you at least have the phalanges.

    4. Re:I, For One... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I have long suspected you of being Phalangist.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  8. Recycling is for losers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    We live only once. Let's make the most of it.

  9. Question for the chemists by Solandri · · Score: 2

    Polystyrene is mostly air. If you dunk it in a solvent like acetone, it dissolves, releasing the air and decreasing to something like 1% its original volume. Why isn't this considered a viable way to deal with polystyrene trash?

    1. Re:Question for the chemists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Recycling centers don't like dealing with Napalm B, and your government would prefer you don't have it around also.

    2. Re:Question for the chemists by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I suspect that the problem is dealing with mixed/contaminated waste streams. Outside of the lucky folks doing nuclear remediation, a lot of waste materials aren't actually too unpleasant to deal with if they would have the decency to show up clean and sorted. If you had a bunch of polystyrene foam you could indeed attack it with solvents, melt it, crush it, if you wanted to reduce its volume; or incinerate it according to the correct parameters if you wanted to get rid of it; and it'd probably actually be worth money to somebody, plastics don't get better with each melt cycle but they can definitely be good for a few.

      The trouble is that, unless there is some elegant trick available, or the material is pretty valuable, sorting is a giant pain in the ass. Even if you try to make the end users do it, compliance isn't great and mixing of plastic types is almost inevitable(which is hard to blame people for, given that plenty of products and packages contain multiple plastic types and often aren't coded). That is where biological solutions get much more attractive: mealworms could easily enough survive, probably thrive, on a ground and moistened mixture of styrofoam, bits of food, household paper; etc. and eat around what they can't digest as long as it isn't overtly toxic. Attempting to devise a chemical attack that would work against such a mixture would be less fun.

      Aside from any practical waste-management considerations; this story is pretty cool because, while polystyrene was discovered in the mid 1800s, it wasn't really used in any quantity until the 1930s. That's pretty quick work for the evolution of a new metabolic mechanism to attack a previously nonexistent food source.

    3. Re:Question for the chemists by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And then what the hell do you do with a vat of acetone and dissolved polystyrene?

      You've essentially turned it into a whole new kind of nasty waste. How do you plan on disposing of that?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  10. 2 meal worms in series will convert 99% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a simple engineering solution: Put the meal worms in series.

  11. better solution: bioplastics by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    "normal" plastic wont break down under typical conditions on Earth so the best thing we can do is change the type of plastic we are using to something that will degrade over a much shorter period of time or can be metabolized by most living things. the good news is we have already invented many variants of plastic that meet this requirement and they have been named bioplastics. why are we still using these plastics that are bad for everyone? it's a simple matter of money and legal [ir]responsibility.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:better solution: bioplastics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because for many purposes we don't want to it degrade quickly. Think for example of childrens toys, where you don't want the plastic to start falling apart for at least a decade. Or anything used as a building material. You're absolutely right that this sort of thing should replace packaging materials though.

  12. That's all good and well. by idbeholda · · Score: 3, Informative

    But congress is notoriously non-biodegradable, and they don't really do much for the environment anyways. At least the garbage attracts flies. Why not start with them first?

  13. Isn't this the last thing that we need? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, instead of just re-using it or recycling the stuff more and hopefully turning it into something useful or even go through the trouble of burning the stuff, we've found another way of turning it into CO2. We already have too much Carbondioxide in the atmosphere, leading to global climate change. Isn't more CO2 the very last thing that we want? There is still plenty of space to use for landfills, there is really no pressure to free up landfills as soon as possible. So while this is scientifically interesting, it doesn't seem very to have any advantage.
     
    Instead, we should find a way to reuse the stuff. Styrofoam packaging material for instance, is so cheap, it doesn't make sense to ship it back and reuse it. But if you factor in the environmental costs, wouldn't instituting some kind of recycling scheme be more efficient? I'm sure not all of the delivery vehicles go back to their depot fully loaded, so why not have them pick up packaging material that can be recycled? They have to go back anyway, might as well take something with them. Just put some containers in a central location in every town or city and have them pick up a cargo there before they return. We just take the stuff with us when we go shopping, dump it there and the cycle is complete.

    1. Re:Isn't this the last thing that we need? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Styrofoam is just plain nasty! We should make a serious effort to avoid foam containers whenever possible.

      Burning that crap is not only going to produce carbon dioxide, but literally dozens(look it up) of nasty petrochemicals which we don't want in the environment. Never do that! Styrofoam placed in garbage containers and landfills takes up a huge volume by weight. We don't want landfills "filling up" any faster than necessary. Other major problems with the landfill idea are that it can easily be scattered by the wind and easily broken into small particles. Therefore, it doesn't stay in landfills and ends up all over the place. It gets into animal digestive systems and ends up in rivers and streams where it eventually goes into the ocean where it is very harmful to marine life as well.

      Most places will not take styrofoam for recycling because it is notoriously hard to clean and un-economical to recycle. The UPS store will accept and re-use those styrofoam peanuts if you happen to have some, but that's pretty much the only option.
      If these worms can break it down into C02 and (according to the study) excrement that is safe to return to the soil, it would be a HUGE benefit. Still, anyone who is the slightest bit environmentally conscious will avoid this stuff like the plague.

      Note: Styrofoam dissolves into an odd sticky substance when mixed with gasoline, so in the rare instance you might need a molotov cocktail, you can put some of that in the mixture.

  14. Cane Toads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I suggest the use of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad. What could possibly go wrong?

  15. Trypophobia by aknowles · · Score: 1

    Those photos set off my trypophobia something chronic.

    1. Re:Trypophobia by AndyKron · · Score: 1

      Would you like a trigger warning next time?

  16. Weed grow rooms and greenhouses by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Mealworm co2 generation FTW!

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  17. This reminds me by sergei83 · · Score: 2

    Back when I was a kid in Russia we had a big garbage container outside our kindergarden filled to the brim with worms. We threw in the foam that was lying around near by and watched it disolve. Good times.

    1. Re:This reminds me by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Back when I was a kid in Russia we had a big garbage container outside our kindergarden filled to the brim with worms. We threw in the foam that was lying around near by and watched it disolve. Good times.

      In Soviet Russia worms garbage you?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  18. By all means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please spread polystyrene eating bacteria indiscriminately. Because it's not used as light structural support in anything at all.

  19. The EPA should tighten up the limits by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Funny

    The EPA should tighten up the limits on meal worm CO2 emissions, and force them to put more in their feces.

    1. Re:The EPA should tighten up the limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found that if I put meal worms on dynos, they emit some kind of red liquid and much less CO2 or feces than their brethren in the wild. In fact, many animals that I put on the dyno have a different emissions profile than they do in the wild, be it a pig, cow, or human. They all release red liquid more so than in the wild, and less CO2 or feces. They must have some kind of defeat device installed as well. EPA must investigate immediately.

  20. Headline from 2030 by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    "Scientists seek solution to uncontrolled worm infestation".

    The law of unintended consequences is always hiring.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  21. Rememeber When? by jjhues7676 · · Score: 2

    Back in the early nineties I read an article that someone received a patent for a bacteria that when spread across a garbage dump would eat the garbage and its waste would be methanol. Where is that today?

  22. So, it's a matter of landfill pairings by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't want to put polystyrene with, say, broccoli, because the worms might prefer it and ignore their serving of polystyrene, but if you pair the polystyrene with something less delicious (fiberglass, maybe) then the worms will eat their polystyrene right up.

    They still recycle polystyrene into Rastra, but soon genetically engineered bacteria can make your Leed certified house emit CO2.

  23. just like kids with vegetables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the kids, they will eat the less tasty things when nothing else is around.
    Maybe we should just feed the Styrofoam to the children, they would loose weight. (sarcasm)

    1. Re:just like kids with vegetables by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      It is funny that these articles were so close together. Apparently the science is in and living things will eat shit rather than starve. Valuable research going on here...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:just like kids with vegetables by neminem · · Score: 1

      The interesting study would be, if given the choice between Styrofoam and broccoli, how many kids would choose the Styrofoam?

  24. That CO2 was locked in that plastic by mpercy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Polystyrene would keep that CO2 sequestered for what, 1000 years or so? And now they've just released more into the atmosphere with the cow farts and Volkswagen emissions!

  25. Re:www.evarkadas.net by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    What's 404 in Turkish?

  26. What is wrong with fire? by cnaumann · · Score: 1

    If you want to convert Styrofoam to CO2, just burn it. But why would you want to do this?

    In a landfill, Styrofoam really does not hurt anything.

  27. SodaStream adapter? by ZipK · · Score: 1

    When will the mealworm-to-SodaStream adapter be ready so we can stop paying inflated prices for CO2?

  28. I think they have this backwards. by jimbob6 · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't it be a much more beneficial project if they found a way to convert CO2 into polystyrene. Creating a parasite that eats houses, boats, marina's and refrigerators in order to dump green house gases into the world seems like a bad idea. Why do we hate plastic so much? If the forest floor is covered with plastic, and the plants are growing around it, so what? Sure plastic has some stuff in it that is mildly toxic but its only released when the plastics break down, which is contrary of the argument of the article which states that it doesn't break down. Granite has been around for billions of years but you don't see any one going all "mad scientist" on the granite epidemic that has for generations plagued rock quarry's. Our prejudice towards plastic is mostly cosmetic.

    1. Re:I think they have this backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It floats. That's the big deal.

  29. Potting soil by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Potting soil and seed starting soil contain fillers like vermiculite to keep the mix light and airy. Polystyrene foam would be a perfect additive.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate