What kind of data do, do we see there in relationship to what we often hear?

Yeah.

Well, I want to say one thing that's important is that if you do start with solid science, solutions that work become really obvious.

If you start with junk, you end up coming up with solutions that cost you more money and just make things worse.

And that's why knowing the, the science is so important, and the oceans is a great example of that.

So people are told that we have a floating island the size of Texas.

And it's a funny thing because it doesn't show up on a satellite image.

Right.

So it's interesting that those are the things that they're talking about.

With zero evidence.

There's one study where they had an obesity study with mice where they fed it a ridiculous concentration of like nanoplastics of a kind that don't even exist in the environment.

And then said, oh, look, we found something.

I mean, that's the thing that the few microplastic studies you find that... do show an effect and do claim harm they literally use a million times too much plastic compared to what we're exposed to i mean that's the science that's so bad that i will put them in a rocket ship and and blast them off the planet for being so inept and i would demand my tax money back for them burning through i calculated they're spending 200 million dollars a year of our tax money to replicate to do bad science on on nano and microplastics and by that i mean things which are so woefully incompetent like using a million times too much particle And just for comparison, you know, probably as a scientist, Oxygen is healthy at 20% concentration, but if you breathe 100% oxygen, you feel great for a few minutes, then you die.

So using five times too much oxygen, which no one would say oxygen is toxic, using even five times too high a concentration is lethal.

So to take plastic, use a million times too much of it and say, look, I think I found something.

So to your point about putting the burden on people who are already too burdened, I think that that's partially what this author is saying as well.

What do you think

on that? Well, that's where deposits come in.

So the reason that people drop plastic and paper is that it's cheap enough that we can drop it.

If you gave somebody a golden cup, they would never drop it.

And you can prove this very easily.

The average American has 2.4 credit cards in their wallet.

And I've never seen one on the ground in my life.

What about that health aspect? I want to hit on chemical leaching and microplastics as kind of those two big questions.

Help us understand a bit more about that.

Yes, so they might be liquids, they might be gases, and you're right that the raw materials do come from the fossil fuel industry, but what 99.999% of the public don't understand is that although plastics are made from fossil fuel, if you were to replace them with paper, metal or glass, that requires two times more fossil fuel.

So even those are not made from fossil fuel, obviously, but those materials require so much more energy to make that you end up using twice as much fossil fuel to make them by burning it to create heat and energy.

to make those materials.

So people think that because plastics are made of fossil fuel it's automatically going to reduce fossil fuel usage to get rid of plastics and that's exactly wrong.

It's the exact opposite.

You would double fossil fuel usage if you got rid of plastics and replaced them with something else.

yeah be incredibly good i want to understand to make sure this is balanced like what are the problems with plastic like what are shortcomings we're painting a picture that gives it some some breathing room and some light

Hm.

And the third, the third factor is billionaires all around the world are funding this.

And, and my audience is, I give keynote lectures all around the world, and my audience number one question at the end of it was t- number...

Well, two questions.

What can we do to get the science out and show people the facts? And the second one was always, "Why? Why are billionaires funding this?" Michael Bloomberg is on record as funding an anti-plastics campaign.

Bill Gates is on record as funding anti-plastic stuff.

He's publishing ridiculous things funded by his foundation, and there's a couple of billionaires in the Australia called the Forrests, and they're iron and steel billionaires, so you can understand why they would want to have a nonprofit that says nasty things about their competitor.

And then, and then there's the question of whether we're actually con- You know, is it us? And I think that's a very hard, uh, one to know, isn't it?