Some Hope for Me and Other CKD Sufferers

A Phase II trial of lubiprostone for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study published in August 2025 that included 150 patients, though the efficacy analysis included 116 patients. The trial evaluated lubiprostone's potential to reduce kidney function decline in patients with CKD, with the full results published in the journal Science Advances in late August 2025. 

Trial Details: 

• Name: The LUBI-CKD TRIAL.
• Design: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled.
• Participants: 150 screened patients, with 116 included in the efficacy analysis.
• Setting: Nine centers in Japan, from July 2016 to December 2019.

Findings and Implications:

• PPrimary Goal:

  ThThe trial aimed to assess lubiprostone's effect on kidney function decline. 
• MMechanism:

  LliLubiprostone was shown to increase spermidine production, which is thought to immprove mitochondrial function and provide a renoprotective effect. 
• FFFuture Research:

  TThe research team plans to validate these findings in a larger Phase III trial and to exexplore biomarkers that predict treatment efficacy. 
• PPotential:

  ThThis discovery suggests a new therapeutic strategy for managing CKD, focusing onon preventing the progression of kidney damage rather than just managing sysymptoms. 

Note: While the initial statement claims lubiprostone reduced decline in kidney function, this is likely referring to the preliminary findings and overall results of the Phase II trial, not necessarily a direct outcome of just 150 patients' observations.The study also noted the cohort's lack of diversity, which could affect the generalizability of the findings.

Meanwhile, 

Scientists have developed a groundbreaking universal cancer vaccine that trains the immune system to fight virtually any type of cancer. Unlike traditional therapies that target specific tumours, this revolutionary vaccine activates a broad immune response, allowing the body to recognise and attack multiple cancer types effectively.

Preclinical studies in mice have shown astonishing results, with tumours—including those resistant to conventional treatments—being eliminated. When combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the vaccine’s effectiveness skyrockets, offering new hope for patients battling aggressive or hard-to-treat cancers.

This innovation represents a massive leap forward in cancer treatment, moving from personalised, high-cost therapies to a potential standardised solution that could be accessible worldwide. Scientists are now preparing for human clinical trials, aiming to confirm these results and transform the future of oncology.

The universal cancer vaccine has the potential not only to save millions of lives but also to change the way we fight cancer forever. The era of a truly global, immune-powered defense against cancer may finally be within reach.

Finally, Did you know that.....

The Philippines was nearly self-sufficient in rice before the Marcos era? By the late 1960s, strong harvests and early Green Revolution gains gave the country near self-reliance.

But during the Marcos years, corruption in the fertilizer industry, mismanaged agricultural policies, and weak rural investment led to declining productivity. As a result, the Philippines shifted from near self-sufficiency to being one of the world’s top rice importers—a status it still struggles with today.

Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert on the Fragile Edges of Free Speech

This posting is inspired by yesterday's suspension of the Jimmy Kimmel TV Talk Show on ABC 

Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and the Fragile Edges of Free Speech

Freedom of speech in America has always lived in tension with power. We like to think of the First Amendment as an unshakable shield, guaranteeing that no matter how offensive, satirical, or politically charged our words may be, the government cannot silence them. And yet, every so often, a case comes along that tests just how strong that shield really is.

The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! after Kimmel’s remarks about Charlie Kirk’s assassination is one of those moments.

Kimmel and the Weight of Words

Kimmel’s monologue was blunt, even scathing. He accused conservatives of trying to distance themselves from Kirk’s killer while simultaneously exploiting the event for political theater. That kind of commentary is classic late-night fare — sharp, partisan, designed to provoke laughter and discomfort in equal measure.

But this time, the consequences came fast. The FCC Chair, Brendan Carr, openly threatened broadcast affiliates with regulatory action if they aired Kimmel’s words. Nexstar, a powerful group of ABC affiliates, quickly dropped the show. Disney’s ABC followed, pulling Kimmel off the air indefinitely.

What troubles me here is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Kimmel’s words. It’s that the machinery of government regulation — the FCC’s licensing power — was invoked as a weapon against political commentary. That should send a chill down anyone’s spine.

---

Colbert’s Brush With the FCC

This isn’t the first time late-night comedy brushed up against the limits of official tolerance. Back in 2017, Stephen Colbert faced a wave of FCC complaints after a crude joke about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The FCC said it would “review” the matter, but ultimately no sanction followed.

Why? Because Colbert’s joke, however vulgar, aired after 10 p.m. (the “safe harbor” for indecency) and, more importantly, it was satire — protected political speech, not obscenity. Courts have long held that satire and opinion, especially about political figures, occupy the “core” of the First Amendment.

Colbert’s case ended as a reaffirmation of free expression. Kimmel’s case, so far, feels more like a warning.

---

The Difference That Matters

Both Colbert and Kimmel live in the same legal universe. They are broadcast personalities, subject to the FCC’s rules. They both trafficked in sharp political commentary. Yet the response was starkly different.

• Colbert: Investigated, but ultimately shielded by precedent and public tolerance.

• Kimmel: Pulled off air under the shadow of license threats.

The distinction isn’t about the law so much as about power and will. The FCC technically has limited authority over content — mostly around indecency, obscenity, and knowingly false “news distortion.” Kimmel’s remarks don’t neatly fit any of those categories. They were political opinion, not news. But a regulator’s threat, even if legally shaky, is often enough to make broadcasters fold.

That’s where the danger lies. The appearance of censorship, the risk of reprisal, is sometimes as effective as censorship itself.

---

The Chilling Effect

Free speech isn’t just about what’s written in court decisions. It’s about what people feel safe to say. When networks see a comedian suspended after a regulator’s threat, they internalize the lesson: play it safe. Avoid sharp commentary. Don’t risk the license.

This is the chilling effect at work. Speech doesn’t have to be banned outright to wither; it can die quietly in boardrooms and affiliate offices, smothered by the fear of government retaliation.

---

Why This Matters

If Colbert’s case showed that satire could still survive the outrage cycle, Kimmel’s case suggests that times have changed. Political speech — the most protected category of expression under our Constitution — is now at risk of being muzzled, not through legal judgments but through regulatory intimidation.

The First Amendment was designed to protect us against precisely this kind of abuse. It was meant to ensure that political commentary, even when offensive, even when uncomfortable, could not be punished by those in power. But what happens when power doesn’t need to win in court — when the mere threat is enough to silence?

---

What Comes Next

The real question is not just what happens to Jimmy Kimmel, but what happens to everyone who dares to speak freely on air. If regulators can target late-night comedians, could local broadcasters tone down investigative reporting? Could journalists soften coverage of political figures to avoid the FCC’s glare?

We may be entering a new era where the “safe harbor” for satire and commentary shrinks — not because the law changed, but because fear did. And once fear reshapes the media landscape, it’s hard to roll back.

If we want freedom of speech to remain more than a slogan, we have to defend it not only in courtrooms but also in cultural practice. That means demanding courage from broadcasters, accountability from regulators, and vigilance from all of us.

Because in the end, free speech survives only if enough people are willing to risk speaking freely.

---

Meanwhile, I asked my Virtual Assistant if what happened to Kimmel and Colbert may also happened to Jimmy Fallon, Another late night Show on NBC.

Here's what I learned: It’s hard to say for sure whether Jimmy Fallon will be next, but there are several factors that suggest it's a possibility — and some reasons why it might not happen. Here’s a look at the situation through a speculative/legal lens, based on what we know so far.

---

Evidence That It Might Happen

1. Public pressure & precedent

   • Former President Trump publicly called for NBC to cancel shows hosted by Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, following the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Reuters+1

   • There’s now a precedent: a late-night host (Kimmel) was pulled off air following regulator threats over political commentary. That sets an example that could encourage similar pressure on others. Reuters+2Business Insider+2

2. Regulatory environment & FCC activism

   • The FCC Chair (Brendan Carr) has shown a willingness to criticize and threaten action against broadcasters for content he deems “misleading” or politically biased. The Kimmel episode makes clear that these threats can lead to real consequences (affiliates dropping the show, ABC suspending broadcast). Reuters+2Reuters+2

   • Conservative groups have also filed complaints against late-night hosts, including Jimmy Fallon — for ideological bias, for unequal political guest distribution, etc. TheWrap+1

   • There is growing scrutiny of how public airwaves are used by broadcasters. FCC licensing and public interest criteria give regulators some leverage, even if legal constraints remain. The concern over “news distortion” is becoming part of the conversation. WRAL.com+2The Guardian+2

3. Fallon’s style and visibility

   • Fallon has historically been less confrontational politically than some of his late-night peers — less incendiary. That might give him more leeway, but also means that if he were to make a sharper political comment, it would stand out and possibly draw attention.

   • Because he hosts a major national broadcast show (The Tonight Show on NBC), any controversy around him tends to have higher visibility and could draw regulatory or political interest quickly.

---

Evidence That It Might Not Happen

1. Fallon’s relative moderation

   • Compared to Kimmel (in this instance) or some others, Fallon often skews more toward celebrity/entertainment material than extremely pointed political commentary. If he stays in that lane, there may be fewer triggers for regulatory or political backlash.

2. Legal protections & constraints

   • As with Colbert, Fallon is protected by the First Amendment, especially if what he says is opinion/satire rather than false factual claims. Regulatory action (like license revocation) over political commentary is a high bar legally.

   • FCC rules traditionally emphasize indecency, obscenity, “safe harbor” times, and false news/distortion in more limited ways — the law has not been clearly established for punishing political commentary that is merely critical or satirical.

   • Private corporations (like NBC, the network) also have reputational and commercial incentives; even if regulation pressures intensify, NBC has to balance its business and public relations risks.

3. Risk of backlash

   • If Fallon were targeted, there would likely be legal challenges, media outcry, and political pushback from those who see it as censorship. The public reaction to Kimmel’s suspension is already strong, especially among free-speech advocates. That acts as a counter-force.

---

Key Legal / Free Speech Considerations

• Core political speech gets the highest protection under the First Amendment. Criticism of political actors, satire, commentary — so long as it doesn’t cross into incitement, defamation, or knowing false statements — are very difficult to legally suppress.

• FCC’s regulatory powers are limited:

  • They can regulate indecency (especially during hours when children are likely to be watching), but that doesn’t seem relevant here.

  • They can in principle act against “distortion” or misleading statements, but enforcement of that is rare, controversial, and legally risky.

  • Threats of license revocation or fines over political commentary are novel and likely to be challenged under constitutional safeguards (due process, vagueness doctrine, viewpoint discrimination, etc.).

• The chilling effect is a big factor: even without legal sanction, the fear of being targeted is enough to make hosts, networks, and advertisers more cautious. Much suppression of speech historically happens through this soft pressure rather than overt bans.

---

My Take / Prediction

Given all of the above:

• It is plausible that Fallon could find himself under pressure — especially if he says something that draws similar regulatory or political criticism.

• However, unless he crosses a line that is more clearly forbidden under FCC rules (e.g. knowingly false statement, defamation, or extreme indecency), it seems less likely that NBC would suspend him in the same way or that regulators would successfully force the network to do so.

So: Fallon is at risk, but there’s probably more buffer — more “wiggle room” — for him than there was for Kimmel in this particular moment.

Finally, My Food For Thought:  ABC decision over Kimmel comments about Charlie Kirk’s killing comes hours after Trump-appointed chair of US media regulator threatened broadcaster’s license.

Japanese Lifestyle Promotes Longevity

Japan has now reached an impressive milestone of having over 95,000 people aged 100 years or older. This reflects a profound success in healthcare, diet, and lifestyle choices that promote longevity. The emphasis on physical activity, mental wellness, and community engagement plays a major role in maintaining good health and well-being.

These centenarians often participate in activities like the traditional exercises shown in the image, a reflection of Japan's deeply rooted cultural values of staying active and connected. People in these communities don’t just live longer but enjoy healthier and more fulfilling lives. Their way of living is an inspiration for many across the globe.

The regular participation in community activities has a positive impact on not only physical health but also mental health. By coming together in group settings and forming close-knit social circles, individuals can remain mentally sharp and emotionally supported as they age. It’s a holistic approach to life that contributes to longevity.

One of the most significant factors contributing to this longevity is the balanced diet typical in Japan, which is rich in fish, vegetables, and traditional foods that support heart health and brain function. The diet, coupled with active living, helps to keep the elderly population free from common age-related diseases, making Japan one of the leading nations in life expectancy.

This combination of healthcare, diet, community, and lifestyle can undoubtedly be considered a powerful formula for living longer, healthier, and happier lives. Japan’s success in this area is a testament to the impact that societal structure and healthy habits can have on individual longevity

Meanwhile, 

In a breakthrough that could change medicine forever, French scientists have developed an artificial heart that never stops beating—removing the need for human donors.

The device, created by the French company Carmat, is powered by advanced sensors and biocompatible materials that mimic the natural functions of a real human heart. It pumps blood continuously and adjusts automatically to the patient’s activity level—whether they’re resting or exercising. Unlike traditional transplants, there’s no risk of rejection, no waiting lists, and no reliance on finding a matching donor.

This innovation could save the lives of tens of thousands of people worldwide who suffer from end-stage heart failure but never receive a transplant in time. Patients who have tested Carmat’s heart have been able to return to daily life with a level of freedom and confidence once thought impossible.

If successful on a wide scale, this invention could mark the beginning of a future where “forever hearts” replace fragile transplants, giving countless people a second chance at life.

Lastly, My Photo of the Day- My 4 D's- Ditas, Dodie, David E ( RIP) and Dinah

Trumps Adversarial Actions Against Law Firms and Universities

This posting is inspired from my recent meal-time conversations with several new THD residents who were previously active in University Teaching and Research as their Profession prior to their retirement.      

Following his 2024 election, Donald Trump took unprecedented adversarial actions against specific law firms and universities, primarily through executive orders and funding threats

. The policies, which began in early 2025, have been widely condemned by legal and academic organizations and are facing challenges in court. Some of the organizations targeted have capitulated to the administration's demands, while others have resisted. 

Actions targeting law firms

Since February 2025, the Trump administration has issued a series of executive orders (EOs) and memorandums targeting major law firms. The orders are seen as retribution for the firms' representation of political opponents, past government service by their attorneys, and involvement in cases that drew the administration's disapproval. 

Key adversarial actions include:

• Targeting of specific firms: EOs specifically targeted firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, citing their past work related to matters such as the Russia investigation and the January 6th Capitol attack.
• Punitive sanctions: The EOs included punitive measures, such as terminating government contracts, restricting firms' access to federal buildings, and suspending the security clearances of some lawyers.
• Pressuring firms into deals: In exchange for lifting the sanctions, the administration has pressured some firms to make concessions. Paul Weiss, for instance, agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes aligned with the administration. Other firms, including Skadden and Kirkland & Ellis, have made similar deals.
• A "chilling effect" on the legal profession: Critics, including the American Bar Association, argue these tactics have a "chilling effect," intimidating firms from representing clients the administration disfavors and undermining the rule of law. Some firms have reportedly scaled back their pro bono work in controversial areas. 

Actions targeting universities

The Trump administration has launched a broad campaign to reshape higher education, using funding threats and legal investigations to compel universities to adopt policies aligned with the administration's agenda. 

Key adversarial actions include:

• Targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs: A January 2025 executive order instructed federal agencies to terminate DEI programs at universities receiving federal funding. Institutions that do not comply face the loss of federal money.
• Weaponizing civil rights investigations: The administration has used the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to investigate dozens of universities for alleged antisemitism and DEI-related practices. In March 2025, it cut $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University and froze billions from Harvard, alleging violations of federal law.
• Influencing academic policy: The administration's demands extend beyond funding to influence university operations, admissions, and curricula. Some universities have entered agreements with the White House to resolve investigations, while others, like Harvard, have sued.
• Restricting international students: The administration has revoked student visas for foreign nationals involved in protests and attempted to ban international students from attending certain institutions, though some of these efforts have been challenged in court.
• Accreditation reform: In April 2025, an EO directed the overhaul of the higher education accreditation system, empowering the Education Secretary to hold accreditors accountable for schools that do not meet the administration's standards. 

Responses to the policies

• Legal challenges: Several law firms and universities, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Harvard, have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's executive actions. In several cases, federal judges have temporarily blocked the EOs. The American Bar Association has also sued the administration over its actions targeting law firms.
• Concessions and concerns: Some targeted institutions have made concessions to the administration, fearing the financial and operational consequences of further adversarial action. This has raised concerns about academic freedom and due process.
• Widespread condemnation: The policies have faced broad condemnation from various groups, including academic organizations, legal scholars, and civil rights advocates, who argue the actions undermine core constitutional principles and academic freedom. 
• Personal Note: I came to the US in 1960 as a Graduate Student from 
• the Philippines. After My Ph.D. graduation in Pharmaceutical Chemistry,
•  I decided to stay/live here in the US.     
• Finally, Did you know that..... 
  
  
  
• The Philippines’ national dish, adobo, isn’t really Spanish at all?
  
  While the word adobo comes from the Spanish adobar (“to marinate”), the technique of stewing meat in vinegar and salt was already being practiced by Filipinos long before colonization. This method wasn’t just for flavor—it was a natural way to preserve food in the tropical climate.
  Historians also note that Chinese traders influenced its development by introducing soy sauce, which later blended with vinegar to create the adobo we know today. So while Spain gave the dish its name, the recipe is a true Filipino original with deep pre-colonial and Asian roots.

The Tiny Heroes Eating Our Plastic Problem

This posting is inspired from the scheduled talk of Dr. Ed Church💚 at 11AM today at our Cinema(see brochure above).  I hope you attend.  

The Tiny Heroes Eating Away at Our Plastic Problem

For decades, plastic has been hailed as one of humanity’s greatest inventions. Lightweight, durable, and inexpensive—it reshaped the modern world. Yet its very durability became its curse. Today, plastic waste is choking oceans, filling landfills, and breaking down into microplastics that enter the food chain. Scientists estimate that it takes hundreds of years for most plastics to degrade naturally. But what if nature already had a solution hidden in the tiniest of life forms?

The Famous Plastic-Eater: Ideonella sakaiensis

In 2016, Japanese researchers stumbled upon a remarkable bacterium in a PET bottle recycling plant: Ideonella sakaiensis. This microbe doesn’t just tolerate plastic—it thrives on it. It produces special enzymes, PETase and MHETase, which can break down PET (polyethylene terephthalate), one of the most common plastics, into its building blocks.

Instead of lingering in the environment for centuries, plastic in the presence of these microbes can degrade in weeks under controlled conditions. Scientists have even engineered “super enzymes” based on I. sakaiensis, making them faster and more efficient.

Plastic-Degrading Fungi

But I. sakaiensis isn’t alone. Fungi, with their powerful digestive enzymes, have also been recruited into the war against plastics.

• Aspergillus tubingensis – A soil fungus discovered in a Pakistani dump site that can break down polyurethane plastics (commonly used in foams, furniture, and adhesives). Its enzymes essentially “chew” through the plastic’s bonds.

• Pestalotiopsis microspora – Found in the Amazon rainforest, this fungus can survive solely on polyurethane, even in oxygen-free environments. That makes it especially promising for landfills where oxygen is scarce.

Marine Bacteria on the Frontlines

Since so much of our plastic ends up in the ocean, it’s no surprise that marine microbes have adapted to tackle the problem:

• Alcanivorax borkumensis – Known for breaking down oil spills, this ocean-dwelling bacterium has also shown potential in degrading certain plastics.

• Other salt-loving bacteria and microbes found on “plastisphere” communities (biofilms that form on floating plastic debris) are slowly evolving to digest the very material they colonize.

Why This Matters

These discoveries hint at a future where biological solutions complement recycling. Instead of burying plastics in landfills or burning them, we could deploy enzymes or microbes in specialized facilities to turn waste into reusable raw materials.

The Challenges Ahead

But there are hurdles. Microbes work slowly in nature, and scaling them for industrial use requires careful engineering. There are also ecological risks—releasing engineered organisms into the wild could disrupt delicate ecosystems.

Still, the progress is promising. In 2020, researchers combined enzymes from I. sakaiensis to create a “super enzyme” six times faster at digesting PET. Other labs are investigating fungal cocktails to speed up breakdown of mixed plastics.

A Lesson in Humility

To me, there’s something poetic here. For all our technological sophistication, the answers to some of our most pressing crises may lie in the quiet persistence of bacteria and fungi. While humans created the plastic age, nature may guide us through its cleanup.

The fight against plastic pollution is far from over. But with the help of these microscopic allies—from recycling plant bacteria to rainforest fungi and ocean microbes—we may yet turn the tide.

💚Meanwhile, here's what I found on the Internet on Edward Church, Ph.D 

Institute for Environmental Entrepreneurship

Over the past 30 years, Edward Church has had wide-ranging experience in government, nonprofits and private business. Ed has served as the Executive Director of the Institute for Environmental Entrepreneurship since 2007, during which time he also had a part-time appointment with the Green MBA program of Dominican University in San Rafael. He won an award for innovation from the San Francisco Business Times as well as awards from the State of California, the County of Alameda and the City of Oakland. Ed was the Chief of Staff for the Mayor of Berkeley. He also served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, and the Mentoring Center and the Workforce Collaborative, both in Oakland. Ed was the founding Executive Director of the Berkeley Community Fund and for 20 years was a consultant and program executive for the Trio Foundation. Adding to his experience in the field of philanthropy, Ed directed the Livable Communities Initiative at the East Bay Community Foundation, a unique project that promoted smart growth and transit-oriented development. This led to his spending a sabbatical year as a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Urban and Regional Development at UC Berkeley before coming to IEE. Previously, Ed was Program Director at Urban Strategies Council, an anti-poverty think-tank based in Oakland, California. He was the Founding Executive Director of Brighter Beginnings, a maternal and child health organization, going strong since 1984. Ed Church received his Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at Berkeley in 1977.  

Lastly, here's a discussion on Problem of Plastic Disposal Today:

The problem with plastic disposal is that plastics don't naturally decompose and instead break down into microplastics, leading to pollution of land, water, and air, which harms wildlife and human health. Poor waste management results in vast amounts of plastic accumulating in landfills, oceans, and the environment, with only a small fraction being recycled.Disposal via incineration releases greenhouse gases, and even recycling can spread microplastics and harmful chemicals into ecosystems. This cycle of production, disposal, and the widespread nature of plastic pollution poses risks to biodiversity, food safety, and economic stability. 

Microplastics are small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life.

People also ask

Is microplastic harmful?

Regarding the effects on the respiratory system, microplastics may cause oxidative stress in the airways and lungs when inhaled, leading to respiratory symptoms such as coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath due to inflammation and damage, as well as fatigue and dizziness due to a low blood oxygen concentration.

Environmental Impacts

• Pollution: 

  Plastic waste pollutes soil, rivers, lakes, and oceans, forming massive amounts of trash, such as the garbage truck equivalent dumped into oceans every minute. 
• Biodiversity Loss: 

  Plastic debris can entangle and be ingested by animals, leading to injury or death and disrupting habitats. 
• Microplastic Contamination: 

  Plastics break into tiny microplastics that persist for centuries and can be found in soil, water, and air. 
• Chemical Leakage: 

  Chemicals can leach from plastics in landfills, contaminating soil and groundwater, and from plastics in the ocean. 

Human Health Impacts 

• Food and Water Safety: 

  Microplastics and the chemicals they carry can enter the human food chain and drinking water, posing potential health risks.
• Health Hazards: 

  Toxic chemicals in plastics can disrupt endocrine systems, increase cancer risks, and cause other health problems.

Economic & Social Impacts

• Damaged Economies: 

  Fishing and tourism are negatively impacted in coastal communities and small island nations by plastic pollution. 
• Disproportionate Impact: 

  Communities that contribute minimally to plastic pollution often suffer the most from its effects, including the marginalized communities of waste pickers who work in poor conditions to manage the waste. 

Challenges with Current Solutions

• Limited Recycling: 

  The global recycling rate for plastic is very low, with most plastic waste accumulating in landfills, being incinerated, or leaking into the environment. 
• Incineration Issues: 

  Burning plastic releases greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change, and can also emit other toxic pollutants. 
• Recycling's Limitations: 

  Even when plastic is recycled, the process can release microplastics and expose workers and recycled products to harmful chemicals. 

  
  
  
  
  

  Microplastics are small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life.

  People also ask

  Is microplastic harmful?

  Regarding the effects on the respiratory system, microplastics may cause oxidative stress in the airways and lungs when inhaled, leading to respiratory symptoms such as coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath due to inflammation and damage, as well as fatigue and dizziness due to a low blood oxygen concentration.