While doing my Google search for manufacturers of gas filled polymer microbubbles (which I have yet to find, and will be the topic of a different thread soon), I unearthed this article about using microbubbles in the ocean to reflect sunlight back into space, in order to try and ameliorate 'global warming'. My major difficulty with this article is the suggestion that using latex microbubbles, which won't breakdown might be a better option. Only one slim sentence even mentions the toxic nature of these materials, and then seems to dismiss that possibility with a flick of the wrist.
HOWEVER! An even bigger unknown, which is totally ignored is the possible adverse effects they may inflict on the flora, and fauna that will inevitably ingest, and inhale them when these particles are introduced into the ecosystem.
Breathing in microparticles is a certain cause of Mesothelioma in mammals, and was virtually unknown until asbestos started deteriorating, and the diseased mushroomed into near epidemic proportions. Why is it not logical to assume that there might be similar problems in aquatic life by starting off with free floating microparticles?
Am I somehow deserving of being pummeled for not 'going along' with the flow; because, everyone knows that results don't count nowadays, as long as your intentions were good!
_________________________________________
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/08/low-intensity-geoengineering-microbubbles-and-microspheres/
Good Answers:
"Almost" Good Answers: