At a quick glance they break it down into carbon dioxide at about a 50% consumption rate. The rest is excreted as biomass and degraded fragments (which I gather means shorter polymer chains and oxidation). Sounds really good if itâs true.
I agree this is probably overall a good thing, but I worry if this bacteria thrives due to the amount of plastic around what that would mean for the amount of CO2 produced.
And how much of the plastic remains in the food chain when animals eat the worms? This likely isnât the good news that it appears to be on the surface.
I know an old lady who swallowed a flyâŚ.
Mostly because it was found not to be effective in trials, or it had some side effect that made it a bad idea. See thalidomide for an example of what happens when you don't test properly.