Category Archives: bacteria

So many things to write about

Every day the constant barrage of news stories offers me a host of topics worth writing about.  My first choice for this month was to focus on the appalling level of gun violence in this country and the many efforts that are valiantly trying to reduce it.

A raft of other troubling topics keep me up at night.

But I’ve decided to go in another direction.  I want to focus on a more hopeful topic:  Success combatting the longstanding problem of plastic pollution.

I’ve written about plastic pollution before.  Years ago I asked “What shall we do about plastic bags?” https://susanjustwrites.com/2014/04/30/.  I lamented the horrific pollution those bags have created and highlighted a Nigerian artist who uses them in her artwork.

I later focused on the crusade against the use of plastic straws. https://susanjustwrites.com/2017/08/

But the problem of plastic pollution goes way beyond plastic bags and straws.  It’s now recognized as a global problem.  According to the NRDC, negotiations aimed at finalizing the first-ever international treaty to tackle the plastics crisis will resume this August in Geneva.  But that will be less than a year after a meaningful agreement at the last round of talks was “derailed by a coalition of nations closely allied with the fossil fuel industry.” More than a hundred countries had agreed to curb plastic production, but some oil-producing nations, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, repeatedly blocked progress.

That sounds discouraging, doesn’t it?  But activists associated with groups like NRDC will be back in Geneva to push for a strong treaty reducing plastic production, phasing out the most harmful chemicals used in plastics, and eliminating the most toxic forms of plastics.  We have to hope they will be successful.

In the meantime, there’s another reason to hope for change.  We all know that current efforts to recycle plastic haven’t gone very far. Although glass and aluminum can be recycled endlessly, plastic cannot. 

According to Lindsey Botts, writing in the Summer 2025 issue of Sierra magazine, “Almost all the plastic ever created is still with us, polluting the planet.”  But he asks: “What if we had a better way to recycle it?”  His answer: “Nature may offer one solution.”

Here’s the hopeful part.  Botts notes that in 2016, Japanese scientists discovered tiny bacteria that were breaking down plastic in a pile of trash.  The bacteria were consuming one of the most common plastics, one that’s used in food wrappers, clothes, even water bottles.

We’ve since learned that other bacteria can do something similar.  One family of bacteria apparently munches on PET (a type of clear, durable plastic) in wastewater. And in a lab, scientists observed still another form of bacteria working on plastic in seawater.

Bacteria can’t actually eat plastic, but they can absorb it.  Some bacteria do this by producing chemicals that liquefy plastic.  They soak up the resulting goo and use some of it as energy.  What they don’t consume becomes a material that can be used to form new plastic.

Botts concedes that this process is relatively slow.  It requires the right temperature and amount of moisture, and creating those conditions outside of a lab can be challenging.  But a French company has found a way to process about 12,000 water bottles a day.  That will only scratch the surface of the half-a-trillion bottles people are using every year.  But it’s a start.

I agree with Botts’s conclusion:  More plastic is entering the world every day, and bacteria can’t clean up all of it.  Not yet. “The best solution” is still to “stop making and buying plastic.” 

I’ve been doing what I can, buying much less plastic in the past few years.  Here in San Francisco, we put our waste in three bins.  One of them holds trash that must go into landfill, but the other two take items for recycling and for composting.  And that makes things a lot easier.  Instead of plastic bottles, I opt for aluminum cans.  Instead of plastic plates and glasses, I use compostable paper ones or old-fashioned glass and ceramics. 

Even if you don’t live where you can do composting, you can still avoid using plastic as much as possible.  Instead of plastic, you can choose recyclable items made of aluminum or glass.

Of course, plastic has its uses.  It may be necessary, for example, in medical settings.  But even there, the amount of plastic can probably be reduced.

Instead of continuing to follow the lazy ways of our past, grabbing a plastic item and pretending that it doesn’t matter, let’s all adopt a different approach. 

Let’s think about the future of our planet. Until we can track down more and more helpful bacteria, let’s try to avoid buying plastic as much as we possibly can.

Hand-washing and drying–the right way–can save your life

The flu has hit the U.S., and hit it hard.  We’ve already seen flu-related deaths.  And now we confront a serious new threat, the coronavirus.

There’s no guarantee that this year’s flu vaccine is as effective as we would like, and right now we have no vaccine or other medical means to avoid the coronavirus.  So we need to employ other ways to contain the spread of the flu and other dangerous infections.

One simple way to foil all of these infections is to wash our hands often, and to do it right.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have cautioned that to avoid the flu, we should “stay away from sick people,” adding it’s “also important to wash hands often with soap and water.”

On February 9 of this year, The New York Times repeated this message, noting that “[h]ealth professionals say washing hands with soap and water is the most effective line of defense against colds, flu and other illnesses.”  In the fight against the coronavirus, the CDC has once again reminded us of the importance of hand-washing, stating that it “can reduce the risk of respiratory infections by 16 percent.”

BUT one aspect of hand-washing is frequently overlooked:  Once we’ve washed our hands, how do we dry them?

The goal of hand-washing is to stop the spread of bacteria and viruses.  But when we wash our hands in public places, we don’t always encounter the best way to dry them. 

Restaurants, stores, theaters, museums, and other institutions offering restrooms for their patrons generally confront us with only one way to dry our hands:  paper towels OR air blowers.  A few establishments offer both, giving us a choice, but most do not.

I’m a strong proponent of paper towels, and my position has garnered support from an epidemiologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rodney Lee Thompson.

According to a story in The Wall Street Journal a few years ago, the Mayo Clinic published a comprehensive study of every known hand-washing study done since 1970.  The conclusion?  Drying one’s skin is essential to staving off bacteria, and paper towels are better at that than air blowers.

Why?  Paper towels are more efficient, they don’t splatter germs, they won’t dry out your skin, and most people prefer them (and therefore are more likely to wash their hands in the first place).

Thompson’s own study was included in the overall study, and he concurred with its conclusions.  He observed people washing their hands at places like sports stadiums.  “The trouble with blowers,” he said, is that “they take so long.”  Most people dry their hands for a short time, then “wipe them on their dirty jeans, or open the door with their still-wet hands.”

Besides being time-consuming, most blowers are extremely noisy.  Their decibel level can be deafening.  Like Thompson, I think these noisy and inefficient blowers “turn people off.”

But there’s “no downside to the paper towel,” either psychologically or environmentally.  Thompson stated that electric blowers use more energy than producing a paper towel, so they don’t appear to benefit the environment either.

The air-blower industry argues that blowers reduce bacterial transmission, but studies show that the opposite is true.  These studies found that blowers tend to spread bacteria from 3 to 6 feet.  To keep bacteria from spreading, Thompson urged using a paper towel to dry your hands, opening the restroom door with it, then throwing it into the trash.

An episode of the TV series “Mythbusters” provided additional evidence to support Thompson’s conclusions.  The results of tests conducted on this program, aired in 2013, demonstrated that paper towels are more effective at removing bacteria from one’s hands and that air blowers spread more bacteria around the blower area.

In San Francisco, where I live, many restrooms have posted signs stating that they’re composting paper towels to reduce waste.  So, because San Francisco has an ambitious composting scheme, we’re not adding paper towels to our landfills or recycling bins.  Other cities may already be doing the same, and still others will undoubtedly follow.

Because I strongly advocate replacing air blowers with paper towels in public restrooms, I think our political leaders should pay attention to this issue.  If they conclude, as overwhelming evidence suggests, that paper towels are better both for our health and for the environment, they can enact local ordinances requiring that public restrooms use paper towels instead of air blowers.  State legislation would lead to an even better outcome.

A transition period would allow the temporary use of blowers until paper towels could be installed.

If you agree with this position, we can ourselves take action by asking those who manage the restrooms we frequent to adopt the use of paper towels, if they haven’t done so already.

Paper towels or air blowers?  The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.  The answer is blowin’ in the wind.