In the United States, a SWAT (special weapons and tactics) team is a generic term for a police tactical unit that uses specialized or military equipment and tactics.

SWAT units are generally trained, equipped, and deployed to resolve "high-risk situations", often those regular police units are not trained or equipped to handle, such as shootouts, standoffs, raids, hostage-takings, and terrorism. SWAT units are equipped with specialized weapons and equipment not normally issued to regular police units, such as automatic firearms, high-caliber sniper rifles, stun grenades, body armor, ballistic shields, night-vision devices, and armored vehicles, among others. SWAT units are often trained in special tactics such as close-quarters combat, door breaching, crisis negotiation, and de-escalation.

The first SWAT units were formed in the 1960s to handle riot control and violent confrontations with criminals. The number and usage of SWAT units increased in the 1980s during the War on Drugs and the 1990s following incidents such as the North Hollywood shootout and Columbine High School massacre, with further increases in the 2000s for counterterrorism interests in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In the United States by 2005, SWAT teams were deployed 50,000 times every year, almost 80% of the time to serve search warrants, most often for narcotics. By 2015, the number of annual SWAT deployments had increased to nearly 80,000 times a year.

Definition
The United States National Tactical Officers Association's definition of SWAT is:

SWAT: A designated law enforcement team whose members are recruited, selected, trained, equipped and assigned to resolve critical incidents involving a threat to public safety which would otherwise exceed the capabilities of traditional law enforcement first responders and/or investigative units.

History

Riots and political conflicts of the 1960s

According to the Historical Dictionary of Law Enforcement, the term "SWAT" was used as an acronym for the "Special Weapons and Tactics" established as a 100-man specialized unit in 1964 by the Philadelphia Police Department in response to an alarming increase in bank robberies. The purpose of this unit was to react quickly and decisively to bank robberies while they were in progress, using a large number of specially trained officers who had a great amount of firepower at their disposal. The tactic worked and was used to resolve other types of incidents involving heavily armed criminals. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Special Weapons and Tactics was established in 1967. LAPD inspector Daryl Gates envisioned the "SWAT" acronym to be "Special Weapons Attack Team" but this was not accepted by deputy chief Edward M. Davis who instead approved Special Weapons and Tactics.

The LAPD promoted what became known as SWAT teams for a variety of reasons. After the racially-charged Watts riots in Los Angeles in August 1965, the LAPD began considering tactics it could use when faced with urban unrest, rioting, or widespread violence. Daryl Gates, who led the LAPD response to the riots, would later write that police at the time did not face a single mob, but rather "people attacking from all directions". New York University professor Christian Parenti has written that SWAT teams were originally conceived of as an "urban counterinsurgency bulwark".

Another reason for the creation of SWAT teams was the fear of lone or barricaded gunmen who might outperform police in a shootout, as happened in Austin with Charles Whitman.

After the LAPD's establishment of its own SWAT team, many law enforcement agencies in United States established their own specialized units under various names. Gates explained in his autobiography Chief: My Life in the LAPD that he neither developed SWAT tactics nor the associated and often distinctive equipment; but that he supported the underlying concept, tried to empower his people to develop it, and generally lent them moral support.

SWAT-type operations were conducted north of Los Angeles in the farming community of Delano, California on the border between Kern and Tulare Counties in the San Joaquin Valley. At the time, the United Farm Workers union led by César Chavez was staging numerous protests in Delano in a strike that would last over five years. Though the strike never turned violent, the Delano Police Department responded by forming ad-hoc SWAT-type units involving crowd and riot control, sniper skills, and surveillance. Television news stations and print media carried live and delayed reportage of these events across the United States. Personnel from the LAPD, having seen these broadcasts, contacted Delano and inquired about the program. One officer then obtained permission to observe the Delano Police Department's special weapons and tactics units in action, and afterwards, he took what he had learned back to Los Angeles, where his knowledge was used and expanded on to form the LAPD's own first SWAT unit.

John Nelson was the officer who conceived the idea to form a specially trained and equipped unit in the LAPD, intended to respond to and manage critical situations involving shootings while minimizing police casualties. Inspector Gates approved this idea, and he formed a small select group of volunteer officers. This first SWAT unit initially consisted of fifteen teams of four men each, making a total staff of sixty. These officers were given special status and benefits, and were required to attend special monthly training sessions. The unit also served as a security unit for police facilities during civil unrest. The LAPD SWAT units were organized as "D Platoon" in the Metro division.

Early police powers and tactics used by SWAT teams were aided by legislation passed in 1967-8 with the help of Republican House representative Donald Santarelli. The legislation was promoted within the context of fears over the civil rights movement, race riots, the Black Panther Party, and the emerging War on Drugs.

The first significant deployment of the LAPD SWAT was on December 9, 1969, when an attempt by the LAPD to serve arrest warrants against the Black Panthers led to a four-hour standoff at their Los Angeles headquarters at 41st and Central, during which over 5,000 rounds were exchanged between police and the Panthers. During the shootout, Daryl Gates called the Department of Defense, requesting and receiving permission to use a grenade launcher; however, it was never actually used. The Panthers eventually surrendered, with four Panthers and four officers being injured. All six arrested Panthers were acquitted of the most serious charges brought against them, including conspiracy to murder police officers, because it was ruled that they acted in self-defense.

By 1974, there was a general acceptance of SWAT as a police resource in Los Angeles.

1974 Symbionese Liberation Army shootout
On the afternoon of May 17, 1974, elements of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), a group of heavily armed left-wing guerrillas, barricaded themselves in a residence on East 54th Street at Compton Avenue in Los Angeles. Coverage of the siege was broadcast to millions via television and radio and featured in the world press for days afterwards. SWAT teams engaged in a several-hour gun battle with the SLA; no police were wounded, but the six SLA members died in the conflict, which ended when the house caught fire and burned to the ground.

By the time of the SLA shootout, SWAT teams had reorganized into six 10-man teams, each team being divided further into two five-man units, called elements. An element consisted of an element leader, two assaulters, a scout, and a rear-guard. The normal complement of weapons was a sniper rifle (a .243-caliber bolt-action, based on the ordnance expended by officers at the shootout), two .223-caliber semi-automatic rifles, and two shotguns. SWAT officers also carried their service revolvers in shoulder holsters. Standard gear included a first aid kit, gloves, and a military gas mask. At a time when officers were usually issued six-shot revolvers and shotguns, it was a significant change to have police armed with semi-automatic rifles. The encounter with the heavily armed Symbionese Liberation Army, however, sparked a trend towards SWAT teams being issued body armor and automatic weapons of various types.

A report issued by the LAPD after the SLA shootout offers one of the few firsthand accounts by the department regarding SWAT history, operations, and organization. On page 100 of the report, the Department cites four trends which prompted the development of SWAT. These included riots such as the Watts riots, which in the 1960s forced the LAPD and other police departments into tactical situations for which they were ill-prepared; the emergence of snipers as a challenge to civil order; political assassinations; and the threat of urban guerrilla warfare by militant groups. "The unpredictability of the sniper and his anticipation of normal police response increase the chances of death or injury to officers. To commit conventionally trained officers to a confrontation with a guerrilla-trained militant group would likely result in a high number of casualties among the officers and the escape of the guerrillas." To deal with these under conditions of urban violence, the LAPD formed SWAT, notes the report. The report states on page 109, "The purpose of SWAT is to provide protection, support, security, firepower, and rescue to police operations in high personal risk situations where specialized tactics are necessary to minimize casualties."

The War on Drugs: 1980s and 1990s

In 1981 U.S. Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, giving police access to military intelligence, infrastructure, and weaponry in the fight against drugs. Reagan subsequently declared drugs to be a threat to U.S. national security. In 1988 the Reagan administration encouraged Congress to create the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Program. The program modified existing federal aid structures to local police, making it easier to transfer money and equipment to fight the War on Drugs. Police forces also received increased assistance from the DEA. The money resulted in the creation of many narcotics task forces, and SWAT teams became an important part of these forces.

In 1972, paramilitary police units launched a few hundred drug raids annually within the United States. In the early 1980s, SWAT drug raid numbers increased to 3000 annually, and by 1996, 30,000 raids annually. During the 1990s, according to The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin, weapons donations from the Department of Defense greatly bolstered the number of SWAT teams and the extent of their operations. The paper reported that the military transferred nearly 100,000 pieces of military equipment to Wisconsin police departments in the 1990s.

Criminal justice professors Peter Kraska and Victor Kappeler, in their study Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units, surveyed police departments nationwide and found that their deployment of paramilitary units had grown tenfold between the early 1980s and late 1990s.

Columbine shooting

The Columbine High School massacre in Colorado on April 20, 1999 was another seminal event in SWAT tactics and police response. As perpetrators Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were shooting students and staff inside the school, officers did not intervene in the shooting, but instead set a perimeter as they were trained to do. By the time they did enter the school, 12 people were killed and Harris and Klebold had committed suicide. They were also heavily criticized for not saving teacher Dave Sanders, who had died from blood loss, three hours after the SWAT first entered the school. As noted in an article in the Christian Science Monitor, "Instead of being taught to wait for the SWAT team to arrive, street officers are receiving the training and weaponry to take immediate action during incidents that clearly involve suspects' use of deadly force." The article further reported that street officers were increasingly being armed with rifles, and issued heavy body armor and ballistic helmets, items traditionally associated with SWAT units. The idea was to train and equip street officers to make a rapid response to so-called active shooter situations. In these situations, it was no longer acceptable to simply set up a perimeter and wait for SWAT. As an example, in the policy and procedure manual of the Minneapolis Police Department, it is stated, "MPD personnel shall remain cognizant of the fact that in many active shooter incidents, innocent lives are lost within the first few minutes of the incident. In some situations, this dictates the need to rapidly assess the situation and act quickly in order to save lives."

Post-9/11 and the War on Terror
According to criminal justice professor Cyndi Banks, the War on Terror, like the War on Drugs, became the context of a significant expansion of SWAT policing. Whereas some have attributed this expansion to "mission creep" and the militarization of police, other scholars argue that increased SWAT policing is a response to real or perceived moral panics associated with fear of crime and terrorism. Banks writes that SWAT team employment of military veterans has influenced their tactics and perspective.

Countering the view that post-9/11 SWAT policing represents the militarization of police forces, scholar den Heyer writes that SWAT policing is part of a natural progression towards police professionalization. Den Heyer also argues that while SWAT teams continue to be deployed to execute large numbers of drug warrants, this is a rational use of available police resources. Other defenders of SWAT deployments state that police have every reason to minimize risks to themselves during raids.

By 2005, the number of yearly SWAT deployments in the United States had increased to 50,000, most often to serve drug-related warrants in private homes. According to a study by the ACLU, just under 80% of SWAT deployments were used to serve arrest warrants.

Officers have cited safety as the main reason for use of SWAT teams, stating that SWAT units would frequently be called if there were a possibility a suspect might be armed. For instance, in 2006, only two police officers were killed in the arrest of 2 million drug suspects, a low casualty rate possibly stemming from the military equipment and tactics used in the raids.

On February 7, 2008, a siege and subsequent firefight with a shooter in the Winnetka neighborhood of Los Angeles led to the first line-of-duty death of a member of the LAPD's SWAT team in its 41 years of existence.

Radley Balko, an analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, argued in his book Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America that increased SWAT raids have made no-knock raids, and danger to innocents and suspects, far greater. Another study, Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments by Diane Cecilia Weber, also of the Cato Institute, raised concern about the increasing use of SWAT teams for ordinary policing tasks.

Organization

The relative infrequency of SWAT call-outs means these expensively trained and equipped officers cannot be left to sit around, waiting for an emergency. In many departments the officers are normally deployed to regular duties, but are available for SWAT calls via pagers, mobile phones, or radio transceivers. Even in larger police agencies, SWAT personnel will normally be seen in crime suppression roles—specialized and more dangerous than regular patrol, but the officers would not be carrying their distinctive armor and weapons.

Since officers have to be on call-out most of the day, they may be assigned to regular patrol duties. To decrease response times to situations that require a SWAT team, it is now a common practice to place SWAT equipment and weaponry in secured lockers in the trunks of specialized police cruisers instead of forcing officers to travel to gather their equipment or only use a single dedicated SWAT vehicle.

By illustration, the LAPD's website shows that in 2003, their SWAT units were activated 255 times for 133 SWAT calls and 122 times to serve high-risk warrants. The NYPD's Emergency Service Unit is one of the few police special-response units that operate autonomously 24 hours a day. However, this unit also provides a wide range of services in addition to SWAT functions, including search and rescue, and car accident vehicle extrication, normally handled by fire departments or other agencies.

The need to summon widely dispersed personnel, then equip and brief them, makes for a long lag between the initial emergency and actual SWAT deployment on the ground. The problems of delayed police response at Columbine led to changes in police response, mainly rapid deployment of line officers to deal with an active shooter, rather than setting up a perimeter and waiting for SWAT to arrive.

SWAT equipment
SWAT teams use equipment designed for a variety of specialist situations including close-quarters combat (CQC) in an urban environment. The particular pieces of equipment vary from unit to unit, but there are some consistent trends in what they wear and use. Much of their equipment is indistinguishable from that supplied to the military, not least because much of it is military surplus.

Clothing

SWAT personnel wear similar uniforms to those worn by military personnel. Traditional SWAT uniforms are usually solid tones of dark blue, black, grey, tan, or olive green, though uniforms with military camouflage have become popular with some SWAT units since the 2000s.

Early SWAT units were equipped with a variety of headgear such as M1 helmets, motorcycle helmets, bump helmets, or even soft patrol caps. Modern SWAT units use helmets similar to those issued by the U.S. military, such as the PASGT helmet or Future Assault Shell Technology helmet, though they may also use riot helmets or soft headgear such as caps. Balaclavas and goggles are often used to protect the face and protect the identities of team members. Ballistic vests, sometimes including rigid plate inserts, are standard-issue. These vests are labelled with "POLICE", "SHERIFF", "SWAT", or similar, to allow for easy identification.

Weapons and equipment
SWAT units are equipped with special weapons that are not normally used by regular police units, typically military firearms such as assault rifles, submachine guns, riot shotguns, sniper rifles, riot control agents, smoke grenades, stun grenades, and stinger grenades. Though these armaments make SWAT teams resemble military infantry squads, they are still law enforcement units tasked with arrest, and are thus often also equipped with less-lethal weapons such as tasers, pepper spray, pepperballs, baton rounds, bean bag rounds, and rubber bullets to incapacitate suspects. Many SWAT units also have access to specialized equipment such as ballistic shields, entry tools, battering rams, armored vehicles, thermal and night-vision devices, fiberscope cameras, and motion detectors.

Canine units may also be incorporated within SWAT teams, or may be used on an ad hoc basis.

Vehicles

SWAT units often employ SWAT vehicles, also called "armored rescue vehicles" (ARV), for insertion, maneuvering, and during operations such as the rescue of personnel and civilians who may be in danger of receiving fire from suspects if extracted through other methods. Common armored SWAT vehicles include the Lenco BearCat, Lenco BEAR, BAE Caiman, Cadillac Gage Ranger, Cadillac Gage Commando, and similar vehicles. Some departments use decommissioned, disarmed military vehicles acquired from the Law Enforcement Support Office. Alternatively, SWAT teams may use unmarked police cars to respond faster, provide better mobility when splitting up, or avoid detection.

Police aircraft, commonly helicopters, are used to provide aerial reconnaissance or insertion via rappelling or fast-roping.

The use of armored vehicles by SWAT teams is controversial, and it has been alleged that police armored vehicles escalate situations that could otherwise be resolved peacefully. Some smaller police departments and sheriff's departments also acquire armored vehicles despite few incidents occurring in their jurisdictions that would necessitate their use.

Notable incidents

United States

 1973 Brooklyn hostage crisis
 Shannon Street massacre
 1985 MOVE bombing
 North Hollywood shootout
 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers
 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers
 Killing of Aiyana Jones
 Jose Guerena shooting
 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers
 Killing of Duncan Lemp
 Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer

See also
 List of police tactical units
 Emergency Service Unit
 Special reaction team (U.S. military police)
 SWAT World Challenge
 Militarization of police
 Riot police

References

External links

 NTOA.org The National Tactical Officers Association, a national organization of tactical professionals.
 ITOTA.net The International Tactical Officers Training Association, an international organization of tactical professionals

1968 establishments in California
History of Los Angeles
Law enforcement in the United States
Organizations established in 1968

SWAT


Westcote is a historic house in Cranston, Rhode Island.  This -story Greek Revival cottage was built c. 1843, and was originally located on Oaklawn Avenue before being moved to its present location.  It was built by a member of the locally prominent Westcott family as a farmhouse, and is a well-preserved and little-altered example of vernacular Greek Revival style.

The house was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1988.

See also
National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence County, Rhode Island

References

Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Rhode Island
Houses in Cranston, Rhode Island
National Register of Historic Places in Providence County, Rhode Island

Westcote (Cranston, Rhode Island)


FictionBook is an open XML-based e-book format which originated and gained popularity in Russia. FictionBook files have the  filename extension. Some readers also support ZIP-compressed FictionBook files ( or )

The FictionBook format does not specify the appearance of a document; instead, it describes its structure. For example, there are special tags for epigraphs, verses and quotations. All ebook metadata, such as author name, title, and publisher are also present in the ebook file. This makes the format convenient for automatic processing, indexing, ebook collection management and allows automatic conversion into other formats.

Software and hardware support

The format is supported by e-book readers such as FBReader, AlReader, Haali Reader, STDU Viewer, CoolReader, Fly Reader, Okular, Ectaco jetBooks, HedgehogReader, Documents for iOS, and some others. Firefox can read FictionBook by installing the FB2 Reader extension. Many hardware vendors support FictionBook in their firmware: BeBook One, BeBook Mini and BeBook Club in Europe (and other Hanlin V3 and V5 based devices), all PocketBook Readers, COOL-ER devices, Cybook Opus and Cybook Gen3, and ASUS Eee Reader DR900. Devices based on the Hanvon N516 design can read FictionBook if custom OpenInkpot firmware is installed; it is factory default for Azbooka 516. Amazon's Kindle, Barnes & Noble's Nook, and Sony devices do not support FictionBook directly.

Conversion to and from FictionBook2 files ( and ) is possible via the cross-platform ebook management software Calibre.  Conversion to and from FictionBook2 format is also available via Pandoc.

See also
 List of e-book readers

References

External links
 FictionBook 2.0 Specification

XML-based standards
Open formats
Office document file formats
Ebooks

FictionBook


Prostitution in Azerbaijan is illegal but common. Prostitution is an administrative offence and punishable by a fine. Keeping a brothel is a criminal offence and punishable by up to 6 years' imprisonment. In 2017 a draft law proposing to add heavy fines to the punishment for keeping a brothel was before the National Assembly. It has been estimated that there are 25,054 prostitutes in Azerbaijan, some of which are aged 15 to 18.

During the Soviet era prostitution was uncommon except for those under the control of the KGB, many of whom were informants.

In the Badamdar district of the capital, Baku, there are many cafes where prostitutes solicit clients. In 2011, over 300 local residents held a protest against the situation. Prostitutes can also be found in cafes in Nizami Street (known locally as "Torgovaya" – Trade Street) in downtown Baku.

The country is a sex tourism destination, particularly with men from  Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

Sex trafficking

Human traffickers exploit domestic and foreign victims in Azerbaijan, and traffickers exploit victims from Azerbaijan abroad. Women and children from Azerbaijan are subjected to sex trafficking within the country and in Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, and the UAE. Azerbaijan is a destination country for sex trafficking victims from China, Russia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. In previous years, Azerbaijan has been used as a transit country for victims of sex trafficking from Central Asia to Iran, Turkey, and the UAE.

The 2005 Law on the Fight against Trafficking in Persons and article 144 of the criminal code prohibit sex and lobar trafficking and prescribe penalties of five to ten years' imprisonment. The government investigated twenty-six cases of sexual exploitation in 2018, and convicted 21 sex traffickers, compared to 25 sex traffickers in 2017.

In 2019, the United States Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons downgraded Azerbaijan to a 'Tier 2 watch list' country.

See also
 Prostitution in the Soviet Union

References

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Women's rights in Azerbaijan
Human rights in Azerbaijan
Social issues in Azerbaijan

Prostitution in Azerbaijan


Homework is an album of previously unreleased demos by John Du Cann, with drum programming by Paul Hammond. It is considered Atomic Rooster's eighth and final studio album.

In 1981, the recently reformed Atomic Rooster signed to Polydor Records to release two singles, with the option of an album to follow, should the singles prove successful. Although the singles, "Play It Again" (1981) and  "End Of The Day" (1982), performed well in rock clubs and on specialist rock charts, they failed to make an impression on the national charts. Consequently, Polydor dropped the band. Shortly afterwards, owing to resurfacing internal tensions, Du Cann left Atomic Rooster for the second and final time.

Du Cann's demos, recorded between 1979 and 1981 for the projected album, were never completed and remained unreleased for several decades. In 2008, Du Cann licensed them for release by Angel Air Records, under the Atomic Rooster moniker. The album was rounded out by the inclusion of the six A and B-sides of the two Polydor singles. The two Polydor singles, issued on both 7" and 12", featured Gillan bassist John McCoy.

The CD was compiled and annotated by Record Collector's Joe Geesin, and featured quotes from John Du Cann.

Track listing
All songs written by Du Cann except where noted.

"The Dukes Theme" 3:24
"Make Me Strong" 2:50
"The Devil in Me" 4:13
"Fool" 3:13
"It Can Wait Another Day" 2:48
"C.O.D" 3:08
"Mind Over Matter" 3:29
"A Matter of Time" 3:18
"Cut the Wire" 6:31
"X-MASS" 2:00
"Open up the Sky" 3:22
"City Boy" 2:49
"The Band Played On" 2:20
"Different Words" 2:31
"Leopard's Skin" 2:32
"The Buck Stops Here" 1:42
"Somebody's Looking After You?" 4:31
"Play it Again" (Du Cann/Crane) 3:12 - single A-side (1981)
"Rebel with a Clause" aka "Start to Live" 2:58 - single B-side
"Devil's Answer" 4:11 - live in Milan 1981; 12" B-side
"End of the Day" 3:28 - single A-side (1982)
"Night Living" aka "Living Underground" 3:39 - single B-side
"Tomorrow Night" (Crane) 4:51 - live studio version 1981; 12" B-side

Tracks 18-20, 22 and 23 were with Vincent Crane.

Atomic Rooster compilation albums
2008 compilation albums

Homework (Atomic Rooster album)


The Palmer-Perkins House is a historic home in Monticello, Florida. It is located at 625 West Palmer Mill Road. On July 10, 1979, it was added to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

On March 18, 1986, there was a boundary increase to this site, also referred to as the Palmer-Perkins House and Palmer Family Graveyard. It extended the listing to 185 West Washington Street.

References

Gallery

Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Florida
National Register of Historic Places in Jefferson County, Florida
Houses in Jefferson County, Florida
Monticello, Florida
1836 establishments in Florida Territory

Palmer-Perkins House


Danish Sign Language (, DTS) is the sign language used in Denmark.

Classification
Henri Wittmann (1991)
assigned DSL to the French Sign Language family because of similarities in vocabulary. Peter Atke Castberg studied deaf education in Europe for two years (1803–1805), including at l'Épée's school in Paris, and founded the first deaf school in Denmark in 1807, where Danish Sign Language (DTS) developed.
The exact relationship between DTS and Old French Sign Language (VLSF) is not known; Castberg was critical of l'Épée's 'methodical signs' and also receptive to local sign language in 1807, and may thus have introduced signs from VLSF to a pre-existing local language (or home sign(s)) rather than derived DTS from VLSF itself. In any case, Castberg introduced a one-handed manual alphabet in 1808 that was based on the Spanish manual alphabet. In 1977, the Danish Deaf Association adopted 'the international manual alphabet', which was an almost exact copy of the American manual alphabet, with minor differences and additional signs for the æ, ø and å.

Norwegian Sign Language is generally thought to be a descendant of DSL. However, it may well be a mixture of DSL and indigenous sign, parallel to the situation between Swedish Sign Language and Finnish Sign Language.

Icelandic Sign Language is closer; 37% of a set of analyzed signs (Aldersson 2006) were completely different in structure and a further 16% were similar but not the same. Faroese Sign Language and Greenlandic Sign Language are more clearly dialects of DSL.

See also
 Deafness in Denmark

References

External links
 Ordbog over Dansk Tegnsprog A free online DSL dictionary.
 Aldersson, Russell R. and Lisa J. McEntee-Atalianis. 2007. A Lexical Comparison of Icelandic Sign Language and Danish Sign Language. Birkbeck Studies in Applied Linguistics Vol 2. A Lexical Comparison of Icelandic Sign Language and Danish Sign Language

Sign Language Studies | October 1, 2008 | Aldersson, Russell R; McEntee-Atalianis, Lisa J | 700+ words

French Sign Language family
Danish Sign Language family
Languages of Denmark
Languages of the Faroe Islands
Languages of Greenland

Danish Sign Language


Microplastics are fragments of any type of plastic less than  in length, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the European Chemicals Agency. They cause pollution by entering natural ecosystems from a variety of sources, including cosmetics, clothing, food packaging, and industrial processes.

The term macroplastics is used to differentiate microplastics from larger plastic waste, such as plastic bottles or bigger pieces of plastics. Two classifications of microplastics are currently recognized. Primary microplastics include any plastic fragments or particles that are already 5.0 mm in size or less before entering the environment. These include microfibers from clothing, microbeads, plastic glitter and plastic pellets (also known as nurdles). Secondary microplastics arise from the degradation (breakdown) of larger plastic products through natural weathering processes after entering the environment. Such sources of secondary microplastics include water and soda bottles, fishing nets, plastic bags, microwave containers, tea bags and tire wear. Both types are recognized to persist in the environment at high levels, particularly in aquatic and marine ecosystems, where they cause water pollution. 35% of all ocean microplastics come from textiles/clothing, primarily due to the erosion of polyester, acrylic, or nylon-based clothing, often during the washing process. However, microplastics also accumulate in the air and terrestrial ecosystems.

Because plastics degrade slowly (often over hundreds to thousands of years), microplastics have a high probability of ingestion, incorporation into, and accumulation in the bodies and tissues of many organisms. The toxic chemicals that come from both the ocean and runoff can also biomagnify up the food chain. In terrestrial ecosystems, microplastics have been demonstrated to reduce the viability of soil ecosystems and reduce weight of earthworms. The cycle and movement of microplastics in the environment are not fully known, but research is currently underway to investigate the phenomenon. Deep layer ocean sediment surveys in China (2020) show the presence of plastics in deposition layers far older than the invention of plastics, leading to suspected underestimation of microplastics in surface sample ocean surveys. Microplastics have also been found in the high mountains, at great distances from their source.

Microplastics have also been found in human blood, though their effects are largely unknown.

Classification

The term "microplastics" was introduced in 2004 by Professor Richard Thompson, a marine biologist at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom.

Microplastics are common in our world today. In 2014, it was estimated that there are between 15 and 51 trillion individual pieces of microplastic in the world's oceans, which was estimated to weigh between 93,000 and 236,000 metric tons.

Primary microplastics

Primary microplastics are small pieces of plastic that are purposefully manufactured. They are usually used in facial cleansers and cosmetics, or in air blasting technology. In some cases, their use in medicine as vectors for drugs was reported. Microplastic "scrubbers", used in exfoliating hand cleansers and facial scrubs, have replaced traditionally used natural ingredients, including ground almond shells, oatmeal, and pumice. Primary microplastics have also been produced for use in air blasting technology. This process involves blasting acrylic, melamine, or polyester microplastic scrubbers at machinery, engines, and boat hulls to remove rust and paint. As these scrubbers are used repeatedly until they diminish in size and their cutting power is lost, they often become contaminated with heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium, and lead. Although many companies have committed to reducing the production of microbeads, there are still many bioplastic microbeads that also have a long degradation life cycle similar to normal plastic. After the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, the use of microbeads in toothpaste and other rinse-off cosmetic products has been discontinued in the US, however since 2015 many industries have instead shifted toward using FDA-approved "rinse-off" metallized-plastic glitter as their primary abrasive agent.

Secondary microplastics
Secondary plastics are small pieces of plastic derived from the breakdown of larger plastic debris, both at sea and on land. Over time, a culmination of physical, biological, and chemphotodegradation, including photo-oxidation caused by sunlight exposure, can reduce the structural integrity of plastic debris to a size that is eventually undetectable to the naked eye. This process of breaking down large plastic material into much smaller pieces is known as fragmentation. It is considered that microplastics might further degrade to be smaller in size, although the smallest microplastic reportedly detected in the oceans at present is 1.6 micrometres (6.3×10−5 in) in diameter. The prevalence of microplastics with uneven shapes suggests that fragmentation is a key source. It was observed that more microplastics might be formed from biodegradable polymer than from non-biodegradable polymer in both seawater and fresh water.

Other sources: as a by-product/dust emission during wear and tear
There are countless sources of both primary and secondary microplastics. Microplastic fibers enter the environment from the washing of synthetic clothing. Tires, composed partly of synthetic styrene-butadiene rubber, will erode into tiny plastic and rubber particles as they are used. Furthermore, 2.0-5.0 mm plastic pellets, used to create other plastic products, often enter ecosystems due to spillages and other accidents.
A Norwegian Environment Agency review report about microplastics published in early 2015 states it would be beneficial to classify these sources as primary, as long as microplastics from these sources are added from human society since the "start of the pipe", and their emissions are inherently a result of human material and product use and not secondary defragmentation in the nature.

Nanoplastics
Depending on the definition used, nanoplastics are less than 1 μm (i.e. 1000 nm) or less than 100 nm in size. Speculations over nanoplastics in the environment range from it being a temporary byproduct during the fragmentation of microplastics to it being an invisible environmental threat at potentially high and continuously rising concentrations. The presence of nanoplastics in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre has been confirmed and recent developments in Raman spectroscopy coupled with optical tweezers (Raman Tweezers) as well as nano-fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (nano-FTIR) or atomic force infrared (AFM-IR) are promising answers in the near future regarding the nanoplastic quantity in the environment. Fluorescence could represent a unique tool for the identification and quantification of nanoplastics, since it allows the development of fast, easy, cheap, and sensitive methods.

Nanoplastics are thought to be a risk to environmental and human health. Due to their small size, nanoplastics can cross cellular membranes and affect the functioning of cells. Nanoplastics are lipophilic and models show that polyethylene nanoplastics can be incorporated into the hydrophobic core of lipid bilayers. Nanoplastics are also shown to cross the epithelial membrane of fish accumulating in various organs including the gallbladder, pancreas, and the brain. Little is known on adverse health effects of nanoplastics in organisms including humans. In zebrafish, polystyrene nanoplastics can induce a stress response pathway altering glucose and cortisol levels, which is potentially tied to behavioral changes in stress phases. In Daphnia, polystyrene nanoplastic can be ingested by the freshwater cladoceran Daphnia pulex and affect its growth and reproduction as well as induce stress defense, including the ROS production and MAPK-HIF-1/NF-κB-mediated antioxidant system. Nanoplastics can also adsorb toxic chemical pollutants, such as antibiotics, which enable the selective association with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, resulting in the dissemination of nanoplastics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria by bacterivorous nematode Caenorhabditis elegans across the soil.

Sources
Most microplastic pollution comes from textiles, tires and city dust  which account for over 80% of all microplastic in the environment. The existence of microplastics in the environment is often established through aquatic studies. These include taking plankton samples, analyzing sandy and muddy sediments, observing vertebrate and invertebrate consumption, and evaluating chemical pollutant interactions. Through such methods, it has been shown that there are microplastics from multiple sources in the environment.

Microplastics could contribute up to 30% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch polluting the world's oceans and, in many developed countries, are a bigger source of marine plastic pollution than the visible larger pieces of marine litter, according to a 2017 IUCN report.

Car and truck tires

Wear and tear from tires significantly contributes to the flow of (micro-)plastics into the environment. Estimates of emissions of microplastics to the environment in Denmark are between  per year. Secondary microplastics (e.g. from car and truck tires or footwear) are more important than primary microplastics by two orders of magnitude. The formation of microplastics from the degradation of larger plastics in the environment is not accounted for in the study.

The estimated per capita emission ranges from 0.23 to 4.7 kg/year, with a global average of 0.81 kg/year. The emissions from car tires (wear reaching 100%) are substantially higher than those of other sources of microplastics, e.g., airplane tires (2%), artificial turf (wear 12–50%), brakes (wear 8%), and road markings (wear 5%). In the case of road markings, recent field study indicated that they were protected by a layer of glass beads and their contribution was only between 0.1 and 4.3 g/person/year, which would constitute approximately 0.7% of all of the secondary microplastics emissions; this value agrees with some emissions estimates. Emissions and pathways depend on local factors like road type or sewage systems. The relative contribution of tire wear and tear to the total global amount of plastics ending up in our oceans is estimated to be 5–10%. In air, 3–7% of the particulate matter (PM2.5) is estimated to consist of tire wear and tear, indicating that it may contribute to the global health burden of air pollution which has been projected by the World Health Organization (WHO) at 3 million deaths in 2012. Pollution from tire wear and tear also enters the food chain, but further research is needed to assess human health risks.

Clothing

Studies have shown that many synthetic fibers, such as polyester, nylon, acrylics, and spandex, can be shed from clothing and persist in the environment. Each garment in a load of laundry can shed more than 1,900 fibers of microplastics, with fleeces releasing the highest percentage of fibers, over 170% more than other garments. For an average wash load of , over 700,000 fibers could be released per wash.

Washing machine manufacturers have also reviewed research into whether washing machine filters can reduce the amount of microfiber fibers that need to be treated by sewage treatment facilities.

These microfibers have been found to persist throughout the food chain from zooplankton to larger animals such as whales. The primary fiber that persist throughout the textile industry is polyester which is a cheap cotton alternative that can be easily manufactured. However, these types of fibers contribute greatly to the persistence to microplastics in terrestrial, aerial, and marine ecosystems. The process of washing clothes causes garments to lose an average of over 100 fibers per liter of water. This has been linked with health effects possibly caused by the release of monomers, dispersive dyes, mordants, and plasticizers from manufacturing. The occurrence of these types of fibers in households has been shown to represent 33% of all fibers in indoor environments.

Textile fibers have been studied in both indoor and outdoor environments to determine the average human exposure. The indoor concentration was found to be 1.0–60.0 fibers/m3, whereas the outdoor concentration was much lower at 0.3–1.5 fibers/m3. The deposition rate indoors was 1586–11,130 fibers per day/m3 which accumulates to around 190-670 fibers/mg of dust. The largest concern with these concentrations is that it increases exposure to children and the elderly, which can cause adverse health effects.

Cosmetics industry
Some companies have replaced natural exfoliating ingredients with microplastics, usually in the form of "microbeads" or "micro-exfoliates". These products are typically composed of polyethylene, a common component of plastics, but they can also be manufactured from polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and nylon. They are often found in face washes, hand soaps, and other personal care products; the beads are usually washed into the sewage system immediately after use. Their small size prevents them from fully being retained by preliminary treatment screens at wastewater plants, thereby allowing some to enter rivers and oceans. In fact, wastewater treatment plants only remove an average of 95–99.9% of microbeads because of their small design. This leaves an average of 0–7 microbeads per litre being discharged. Considering that the treatment plants of the world discharge 160 trillion liters of water per day, around 8 trillion microbeads are released into waterways every day. This number does not account for the sewage sludge that is reused as fertilizer after the waste water treatment that has been known to still contain these microbeads.

Although many companies have committed to phasing out the use of microbeads in their products, according to research, there are at least 80 different facial scrub products that are still being sold with microbeads as a main component. This contributes to the 80 metric tons of microbead discharge per year by the United Kingdom alone, which not only has a negative impact upon the wildlife and food chain, but also upon levels of toxicity, as microbeads have been proven to absorb dangerous chemicals such as pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The restriction proposal by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and reports by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and TAUW suggest that there are more than 500 microplastic ingredients that are widely used in cosmetics and personal care products.

Even when microbeads are removed from cosmetic products, there are still harmful products being sold with plastics in them. For example, acrylate copolymers cause toxic effects for waterways and animals if they are polluted. Acrylate copolymers also can emit styrene monomers when used in body products which increases a person's chances of cancer. Countries like New Zealand which have banned microbeads often pass over other polymers such as acrylate copolymers, which can be just as toxic to people and the environment.

After the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, the use of microbeads in toothpaste and other rinse-off cosmetic products has been discontinued in the US, however since 2015 many industries have instead shifted toward using FDA-approved "rinse-off" metallized-plastic glitter as their primary abrasive agent.

Fishing industry
Recreational and commercial fishing, marine vessels, and marine industries are all sources of plastic that can directly enter the marine environment, posing a risk to biota both as macroplastics, and as secondary microplastics following long-term degradation. Marine debris observed on beaches also arises from beaching of materials carried on inshore and ocean currents. Fishing gear is a form of plastic debris with a marine source. Discarded or lost fishing gear, including plastic monofilament line and nylon netting (sometimes called ghost nets), is typically neutrally buoyant and can, therefore, drift at variable depths within the oceans. Various countries have reported that microplastics from the industry and other sources have been accumulating in different types of seafood. In Indonesia, 55% of all fish species had evidence of manufactured debris similar to America which reported 67%. However, the majority of debris in Indonesia was plastic, while in North America the majority was synthetic fibers found in clothing and some types of nets. The implication from the fact that fish are being contaminated with microplastic is that those plastics and their chemicals will bioaccumulate in the food chain.

One study analyzed the plastic-derived chemical called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in the stomachs of short-tailed shearwaters. It found that one-fourth of the birds had higher-brominated congeners that are not naturally found in their prey. However, the PBDE got into the birds' systems through plastic that was found in the stomachs of the birds. It is therefore not just the plastics that are being transferred through the food chain but the chemicals from the plastics as well.

Manufacturing
The manufacture of plastic products uses granules and small resin pellets as their raw material. In the United States, production increased from 2.9 million pellets in 1960 to 21.7 million pellets in 1987. In 2019, plastic world production was 368 million tonnes; 51% were produced in Asia.  China, the world's largest producer, created 31% of the world total.  Through accidental spillage during land or sea transport, inappropriate use as packing materials, and direct outflow from processing plants, these raw materials can enter aquatic ecosystems. In an assessment of Swedish waters using an 80 µm mesh, KIMO Sweden found typical microplastic concentrations of 150–2,400 microplastics per m3; in a harbor adjacent to a plastic production facility, the concentration was 102,000 per m3.

Many industrial sites in which convenient raw plastics are frequently used are located near bodies of water. If spilled during production, these materials may enter the surrounding environment, polluting waterways. "More recently, Operation Cleansweep, a joint initiative of the American Chemistry Council and Society of the Plastics Industry, is aiming for industries to commit to zero pellet loss during their operations". Overall, there is a significant lack of research aimed at specific industries and companies that contribute to microplastics pollution.

Packaging and shipping
Shipping has significantly contributed to marine pollution. Some statistics indicate that in 1970, commercial shipping fleets around the world dumped over 23,000 tons of plastic waste into the marine environment. In 1988, an international agreement (MARPOL 73/78, Annex V) prohibited the dumping of waste from ships into the marine environment. In the United States, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 prohibits discharge of plastics in the sea, including from naval vessels. However, shipping remains a dominant source of plastic pollution, having contributed around 6.5 million tons of plastic in the early 1990s. Research has shown that approximately 10% of the plastic found on the beaches in Hawaii are nurdles. In one incident on July 24, 2012, 150 tonnes of nurdles and other raw plastic material spilled from a shipping vessel off the coast near Hong Kong after a major storm. This waste from the Chinese company Sinopec was reported to have piled up in large quantities on beaches. While this is a large incident of spillage, researchers speculate that smaller accidents also occur and further contribute to marine microplastic pollution.

Personal protective equipment

Face masks
Since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the usage of medical face masks has sharply increased to reach approximately 89 million masks each. Single use face masks are made from polymers, such as polypropylene, polyurethane, polyacrylonitrile, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester. The increase in production, consumption, and littering of face masks was added to the list of environmental challenges, due to the addition of plastic particles waste in the environment. After degrading, disposable face masks could break down into smaller size particles (under 5mm) emerging a new source of microplastic.

A report made in February 2020 by Oceans Asia, an organization committed to advocacy and research on marine pollution, confirms "the presence of face masks of different types and colors in an ocean in Hong Kong".

Plastics

Bottled water
In one study, 93% of the bottled water from 11 different brands showed microplastic contamination. Per liter, researchers found an average of 325 microplastic particles. Of the tested brands, Nestlé Pure Life and Gerolsteiner bottles contained the most microplastic with 930 and 807 microplastic particles per liter (MPP/L), respectively. San Pellegrino products showed the least quantity of microplastic densities. Compared to water from taps, water from plastic bottles contained twice as much microplastic. Some of the contamination likely comes from the process of bottling and packaging the water.

Baby bottles

In 2020 researchers reported that polypropylene infant feeding bottles with contemporary preparation procedures were found to cause microplastics exposure to infants ranging from 14,600 to 4,550,000 particles per capita per day in 48 regions. Microplastics release is higher with warmer liquids and similar with other polypropylene products such as lunchboxes. Unexpectedly, silicone rubber baby bottle nipples degrade over time from repeated steam sterilization, shedding micro- and nano-sized particles of silicone rubber, researchers found in 2021. They estimated that, using such heat-degraded nipples for a year, a baby will ingest more than 660,000 particles.

Single-use plastic products

Common single-use plastic products – such as paper coffee cups that are lined with a thin plastic film inside – release trillions of microplastic-nanoparticles per liter into water during normal use. Single-use plastic products enter aquatic environments and "[l]ocal and statewide policies that reduce single-use plastics were identified as effective legislative actions that
communities can take to address plastic pollution".

Sewage treatment plants
Sewage treatment plants, also known as wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), remove contaminants from wastewater, primarily from household sewage, using various physical, chemical, and biological processes. Most plants in developed countries have both primary and secondary treatment stages. In the primary stage of treatment, physical processes are employed to remove oils, sand, and other large solids using conventional filters, clarifiers, and settling tanks. Secondary treatment uses biological processes involving bacteria and protozoa to break down organic matter. Common secondary technologies are activated sludge systems, trickling filters, and constructed wetlands. The optional tertiary treatment stage may include processes for nutrient removal (nitrogen and phosphorus) and disinfection.

Microplastics have been detected in both the primary and secondary treatment stages of the plants. A groundbreaking 1998 study suggested that microplastic fibers would be a persistent indicator of sewage sludges and wastewater treatment plant outfalls. A study estimated that about one particle per liter of microplastics are being released back into the environment, with a removal efficiency of about 99.9%. A 2016 study showed that most microplastics are actually removed during the primary treatment stage where solid skimming and sludge settling are used. When these treatment facilities are functioning properly, the contribution of microplastics into oceans and surface water environments from WWTPs is not disproportionately large. Many studies show that while wastewater treatment plants certainly reduce the microplastic load on waterways, with current technological developments they are not able to clean the waters fully of this pollutant.

Sewage sludge is used for soil fertilizer in some countries, which exposes plastics in the sludge to the weather, sunlight, and other biological factors, causing fragmentation. As a result, microplastics from these biosolids often end up in storm drains and eventually into bodies of water. In addition, some studies show that microplastics do pass through filtration processes at some WWTPs. According to a study from the UK, samples taken from sewage sludge disposal sites on the coasts of six continents contained an average one particle of microplastic per liter. A significant amount of these particles was of clothing fibers from washing machine effluent.

Effects on the environment
According to a comprehensive review of scientific evidence published by the European Union's Scientific Advice Mechanism in 2019, microplastics are now present in every part of the environment. While there is no evidence of widespread ecological risk from microplastic pollution yet, risks are likely to become widespread within a century if pollution continues at its current rate.

There is rapid growth of microplastic pollution research that may influence the growth of understanding of the problem, with marine and estuarine environments most frequently studied. Researchers have called for better sharing of research data that might lead to effective solutions.

Participants at the 2008 International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris at the University of Washington at Tacoma concluded that microplastics are a problem in the marine environment, based on:
 the documented occurrence of microplastics in the marine environment,
 the long residence times of these particles (and, therefore, their likely buildup in the future), and
 their demonstrated ingestion by marine organisms.

So far, research has mainly focused on larger plastic items. Widely recognized problems facing marine life are entanglement, ingestion, suffocation and general debilitation often leading to death and/or strandings. This causes serious public concern. In contrast, microplastics are not as conspicuous, being less than 5 mm, and are usually invisible to the naked eye. Particles of this size are available to a much broader range of species, enter the food chain at the bottom, become embedded in animal tissue, and are then undetectable by unaided visual inspection.

Furthermore, consequences of plastic degradation and pollution release over long term have mostly been overlooked. The large amounts of plastic currently in the environment, exposed to degradation, but that has many more years of decay and release of toxic compounds to follow is referred to as toxicity debt.

Microplastics have been detected not just in marine but also in freshwater systems including marshes, streams, ponds, lakes, and rivers in (Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Australia). Samples collected across 29 Great Lakes tributaries from six states in the United States were found to contain plastic particles, 98% of which were microplastics ranging in size from 0.355mm to 4.75mm.

Biological integration into organisms
Microplastics can become embedded in animals' tissue through ingestion or respiration. Various annelid species, such as deposit-feeding lugworms (Arenicola marina), have been shown to have microplastics embedded in their gastrointestinal tracts. Many crustaceans, like the shore crab Carcinus maenas, have been seen to integrate microplastics into both their respiratory and digestive tracts. Plastic particles are often mistaken by fish for food which can block their digestive tracts sending incorrect feeding signals to the brains of the animals. New research revealed, however, that fish ingest microplastics inadvertently rather than intentionally.

Some coral such as Pocillopora verrucosa have also been found to ingest microplastics.
It can take up to 14 days for microplastics to pass through an animal (as compared to a normal digestion period of 2 days), but enmeshment of the particles in animals' gills can prevent elimination entirely. When microplastic-laden animals are consumed by predators, the microplastics are then incorporated into the bodies of higher trophic-level feeders. For example, scientists have reported plastic accumulation in the stomachs of lantern fish which are small filter feeders and are the main prey for commercial fish like tuna and swordfish. Microplastics also absorb chemical pollutants that can be transferred into the organism's tissues. Small animals are at risk of reduced food intake due to false satiation and resulting starvation or other physical harm from the microplastics.

A study done at the Argentinean coastline of the Rio de la Plata estuary, found the presence of microplastics in the guts of 11 species of coastal freshwater fish. These 11 species of fish represented four different feeding habits: detritivore, planktivore, omnivore and ichthyophagous. This study is one of the few so far to show the ingestion of microplastics by freshwater organisms.

Bottom feeders, such as benthic sea cucumbers, who are non-selective scavengers that feed on debris on the ocean floor, ingest large amounts of sediment. It has been shown that four species of sea cucumber (Thyonella gemmate, Holothuria floridana, H. grisea and Cucumaria frondosa) ingested between 2- and 20-fold more PVC fragments and between 2- and 138-fold more nylon line fragments (as much as 517 fibers per organism) based on plastic-to-sand grain ratios from each sediment treatment. These results suggest that individuals may be selectively ingesting plastic particles. This contradicts the accepted indiscriminate feeding strategy of sea cucumbers, and may occur in all presumed non-selective feeders when presented with microplastics.

Bivalves, important aquatic filter feeders, have also been shown to ingest microplastics and nanoplastics. Upon exposure to microplastics, bivalve filtration ability decreases. Multiple cascading effects occur as a result, such as immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity. Decreased immune function occurs due to reduced phagocytosis and NF-κB gene activity. Impaired neurological function is a result of the inhibition of ChE and suppression of neurotransmitter regulatory enzymes. When exposed to microplastics, bivalves also experience oxidative stress, indicating an impaired ability to detoxify compounds within the body, which can ultimately damage DNA. Bivalve gametes and larvae are also impaired when exposed to microplastics. Rates of developmental arrest, and developmental malformities increase, while rates of fertilization decrease. When bivalves have been exposed to microplastics as well as other pollutants such as POPs, mercury or hydrocarbons in lab settings, toxic effects were shown to be aggravated.

Not only fish and free-living organisms can ingest microplastics. Scleractinian corals, which are primary reef-builders, have been shown to ingest microplastics under laboratory conditions. While the effects of ingestion on these corals has not been studied, corals can easily become stressed and bleach. Microplastics have been shown to stick to the exterior of the corals after exposure in the laboratory. The adherence to the outside of corals can potentially be harmful, because corals cannot handle sediment or any particulate matter on their exterior and slough it off by secreting mucus, expending energy in the process, increasing the likelihood of mortality.

Marine biologists in 2017 discovered that three-quarters of the underwater seagrass in the Turneffe Atoll off the coast of Belize had microplastic fibers, shards, and beads stuck to it. The plastic pieces had been overgrown by epibionts (organisms that naturally stick themselves to seagrass). Seagrass is part of the barrier reef ecosystem and is fed on by parrotfish, which in turn are eaten by humans. These findings, published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, may be "the first discovery of microplastics on aquatic vascular plants... [and] only the second discovery of microplastics on marine plant life anywhere in the world."

Research published in 2023 demonstrated that microplastic exposure impaired the cognitive performance of hermit crabs, which could potentially impact their survivability.

It is not just aquatic animals which may be harmed. Microplastics can stunt the growth of terrestrial plants due to the increased uptake of toxic metals such as cadmium.

In 2019, the first European records of microplastic items in amphibians' stomach content was reported in specimens of the common European newt (Triturus carnifex). This also represented the first evidence for Caudata worldwide, highlighting that the emerging issue of plastics is a threat even in remote high-altitude environments. The microplastic has also been found in Common Blackbirds (Turdus merula) and Song Thrushes (Turdus philomelos) which shows a ubiquity of microplastics in terrestrial environments.

Zooplankton ingest microplastics beads (1.7–30.6 μm) and excrete fecal matter contaminated with microplastics. Along with ingestion, the microplastics stick to the appendages and exoskeleton of the zooplankton. Zooplankton, among other marine organisms, consume microplastics because they emit similar infochemicals, notably dimethyl sulfide, just as phytoplankton do. Plastics such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and polypropylene (PP) produce dimethyl sulfide odors. These types of plastics are commonly found in plastic bags, food storage containers, and bottle caps. Green and red filaments of plastics are found in the planktonic organisms and in seaweeds.

Not only do animals and plants ingest microplastics, some microbes also live on the surface of microplastics. This community of microbes form a slimy biofilm which, according to a 2019 study, has a unique structure and possesses a special risk, because microplastic biofilms have been proven to provide a novel habitat for colonization that increases overlap between different species, thus spreading pathogens and antibiotic resistant genes through horizontal gene transfer. Then, due to rapid movement through waterways, these pathogens can be moved very quickly from their origin to another location where a specific pathogen may not be naturally present, spreading the potential disease.

Humans
According to a comprehensive review of scientific evidence published by the European Union's Scientific Advice Mechanism in 2019, "little is known with respect to the human health risks of nano- and microplastics, and what is known is surrounded by considerable uncertainty". The authors of the review identify the main limitations as the quality or methodology of the research to date. Since "the poison is in the dose", the review concludes that "there is a need to understand the potential modes of toxicity for different size-shape-type NMP [nano- (< 0.1 mm) and microplastic] combinations in carefully selected human models, before robust conclusions about 'real' human risks can be made".

Mean/median intake of microplastics in humans are at levels considered to be safe in humans; however, some individuals may sometimes exceed these limits; the effects, if any, of this is unknown. It is unknown whether and to what degree microplastics bioaccumulate in humans. Research reported in 2022 identified, for the first time, the presence of polymers in human blood in 17 of 22 healthy volunteers. The mean of the sum quantifiable concentration of plastic particles was 1.6 µg/L. The stated purpose of the study was to develop a sampling and analytic method that could be used to detect plastics in human blood.

A recent sub-chronic study investigated methacrylate-based polymer beads (> 10 μm) in food for therapeutic purposes and it found no sign of polymer beads' bioaccumulation in mice organs apart from gastrointestinal tract. The microplastics ingested by fish and crustaceans can be subsequently consumed by humans as the end of the food chain. Microplastics are found in air, water, and food that humans eat, especially seafood; however, the degree of absorption and retention is unclear. However, ingestion of microplastics via food may be relatively minor; for example, while mussels are known to accumulate microplastics, humans are predicted to be exposed to more microplastics in household dust than by consuming mussels.

There are three main areas of potential concern with microplastics: the plastics themselves may have some effect on human physiology, microplastics might complex with heavy metals or other chemical compounds in the environment and act as a vector for bringing them into the body, and it is possible that microplastics might serve as vectors for pathogens. It is as yet unknown if exposure to microplastics at the levels found in the environment represent a "real" risk to humans; research into the subject is ongoing.

Persistent organic pollutants and Emerging organic contaminants
Plastic particles may highly concentrate and transport synthetic organic compounds (e.g. persistent organic pollutants and emerging organic contaminants), commonly present in the environment and ambient seawater, on their surface through adsorption. Microplastics can act as carriers for the transfer of POPs from the environment to organisms. Recent articles have also shown that microplastics can sorb emerging organic chemicals such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products. The sorption potential is affected by water matrix, pH, ionic strength and aging of microparticles.

Additives added to plastics during manufacture may leach out upon ingestion, potentially causing serious harm to the organism. Endocrine disruption by plastic additives may affect the reproductive health of humans and wildlife alike.

Plastics, polymers derived from mineral oils, are virtually non-biodegradable. However, renewable natural polymers are now in development which can be used for the production of biodegradable materials similar to those derived from oil-based polymers.

Disease
In 2023, plasticosis, a new disease caused solely by plastics, was discovered in seabirds.
The birds identified as having the disease have scarred digestive tracts from ingesting plastic waste.  "When birds ingest small pieces of plastic, they found, it inflames the digestive tract. Over time, the persistent inflammation causes tissues to become scarred and disfigured, affecting digestion, growth and survival."

Where microplastics can be found

Air
Airborne microplastics have been detected in the atmosphere, as well as indoors and outdoors. In 2019 a study found microplastic to be atmospherically transported to remote areas on the wind. A 2017 study found indoor airborne microfiber concentrations between 1.0 and 60.0 microfibers per cubic meter (33% of which were found to be microplastics). Another study looked at microplastic in the street dust of Tehran and found 2,649 particles of microplastic within 10 samples of street dust, with ranging samples concentrations from 83 particle – 605 particles (±10) per 30.0 g of street dust. Microplastics and microfibers were also found in snow samples, and high up in "clean" air in high mountains at vast distances from their source. However, much like freshwater ecosystems and soil, more studies are needed to understand the full impact and significance of airborne microplastics.

Water

Oceans

Ice cores
Kelly et al. found 96 microplastic particles from 14 different types of polymers in an ice core sampled in 2009 from east Antarctica. Plastic pollution has previously been recorded in Antarctic surface waters and sediments as well as in Arctic sea ice, but this is thought to be the first time plastic has been found in Antarctic sea ice. Relatively large particle sizes suggest local pollution sources.

Freshwater
Microplastics have been widely detected in the world's aquatic environments. The first study on microplastics in freshwater ecosystems was published in 2011 that found an average of 37.8 fragments per square meter of Lake Huron sediment samples. Additionally, studies have found MP (microplastic) to be present in all of the Great Lakes with an average concentration of 43,000 MP particle km−2. Microplastics have also been detected in freshwater ecosystems outside of the United States, for example in 2019 study conducted in Poland showed that microplastic was present in all 30 studied lakes of the Masurian Lakeland with density from 0.27 to 1.57 particles per liter. In Canada, a three-year study found a mean microplastic concentration of 193,420 particles km−2 in Lake Winnipeg. None of the microplastics detected were micro-pellets or beads and most were fibers resulting from the breakdown of larger particles, synthetic textiles, or atmospheric fallout. The highest concentration of microplastic ever discovered in a studied freshwater ecosystem was recorded in the Rhine river at 4000 MP particles kg−1.

Soil
A substantial portion of microplastics are expected to end up in the world's soil, yet very little research has been conducted on microplastics in soil outside of aquatic environments. In wetland environments microplastic concentrations have been found to exhibit a negative correlation with vegetation cover and stem density. There exists some speculation that fibrous secondary microplastics from washing machines could end up in soil through the failure of water treatment plants to completely filter out all of the microplastic fibers. Furthermore, geophagous soil fauna, such as earthworms, mites, and collembolans could contribute to the amount of secondary microplastic present in soil by converting consumed plastic debris into microplastic via digestive processes. Further research, however, is needed. There is concrete data linking the use of organic waste materials to synthetic fibers being found in the soil; but most studies on plastics in soil merely report its presence and do not mention origin or quantity. Controlled studies on fiber-containing land-applied wastewater sludges (biosolids) applied to soil reported semiquantitative recoveries of the fibers a number of years after application.

Human body

Microplastics find their way into the food we eat, the water we drink and even the air we breathe. By some estimates, people consume more than 50,000 plastic particles per year – and many more if inhalation is considered. Microplastics were found in every human tissue studied by graduate students at Arizona State University. A study published in March 2022 revealed that microplastics have also been found in 80% of 22 anonymous blood samples, meaning they can be transported around the human body and raising the question of whether they can be transported to the brain. In December 2020, microplastic particles were found in the placentas of unborn babies for the first time. In June 2022, microplastic particles were found in breastmilk for the first time. In July 2022, scientists found microplastic particles in the lungs of 11 of 13 samples, supporting the hypothesis that we can inhale microplastics as well as swallow them.

A 2019 analysis by Dalberg asserted that a person could ingest around 5 grams of microplastics per week. Such a statement originated from a report (funded by WWF) published in 2019 and authored by two researches of the Newcastle University. In a journal version published two years later, the authors scaled back the estimate provided in the preliminary report to 0.7 grams per week, with an uncertainty interval ranging from 0.1 to 5 grams per week. In turn, such a study was later debunked by other works, which resized such an estimate to the order of micrograms (that is a milion times lower).

According to research conducted by the Medical University of Vienna, five grams of plastic particles enter each person's gastrointestinal stream on average per week. This is approximately the weight of a credit card. According to a 2017 estimate, a person who consumes seafood will ingest 11,000 bits of microplastics per year. Even very minute microplastics have been discovered in human blood. Microplastics have been discovered in food in recent investigations. A 2019 study found a kilo of sugar had 440 microplastic particles, a kilo of salt contained 110 particles, and a litre of bottled water contained 94 particles.

Prevention

Treatment
Some researchers have proposed incinerating plastics to use as energy, which is known as energy recovery. As opposed to losing the energy from plastics into the atmosphere in landfills, this process turns some of the plastics back into energy that can be used. However, as opposed to recycling, this method does not diminish the amount of plastic material that is produced. Therefore, recycling plastics is considered a more efficient solution.

Biodegradation is another possible solution to large amounts of microplastic waste. In this process, microorganisms consume and decompose synthetic polymers by means of enzymes. These plastics can then be used in the form of energy and as a source of carbon once broken down. The microbes could potentially be used to treat sewage wastewater, which would decrease the amount of microplastics that pass through into the surrounding environments.

Filtering
Efficient removal of microplastics via waste water treatment plants is critical to prevent the transfer of microplastics from society to natural water systems. The captured microplastics in the treatment plants become part of the sludge produced by the plants. The problem is that this sludge is often used as farm fertilizer meaning the plastics enter waterways through runoff.

Fionn Ferreira, winner of the 2019 Google Science Fair, is developing a device for the removal of microplastic particles from water using a ferrofluid.

Collection devices
Computer modelling done by The Ocean Cleanup, a Dutch foundation, has suggested that collection devices placed nearer to the coasts could remove about 31% of the microplastics in the area. On September 9, 2018, The Ocean Cleanup launched the world's first ocean cleanup system, 001 aka "Wilson", which is being deployed to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. System 001 is 600 meters long that acts as a U-shaped skiff that uses natural oceanic currents to concentrate plastic and other debris on the ocean's surface into a confined area for extraction by vessels. The project has been met with criticism from oceanographers and plastic pollution experts, though it has seen wide public support.

In addition, some bacteria have adapted to eat plastic, and some bacteria species have been genetically modified to eat (certain types of) plastics.
Other than degrading microplastics, microbes had been engineered in a novel way to capture microplastics in their biofilm matrix from polluted samples for easier removal of such pollutants. The microplastics in the biofilms can then be released with an engineered 'release' mechanism via biofilm dispersal to facilitate with microplastics recovery.

Education and recycling
Increasing education through recycling campaigns is another proposed solution for microplastic contamination. While this would be a smaller-scale solution, education has been shown to reduce littering, especially in urban environments where there are often large concentrations of plastic waste. If recycling efforts are increased, a cycle of plastic use and reuse would be created to decrease our waste output and production of new raw materials. In order to achieve this, states would need to employ stronger infrastructure and investment around recycling. Some advocate for improving recycling technology to be able to recycle smaller plastics to reduce the need for production of new plastics.

Action for creating awareness

On April 11, 2013, in order to create awareness, Italian artist Maria Cristina Finucci founded The Garbage Patch State under the patronage of UNESCO and the Italian Ministry of the Environment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched its "Trash-Free Waters" initiative in 2013 to prevent single-use plastic wastes from ending up in waterways and ultimately the ocean. EPA collaborates with the United Nations Environment Programme–Caribbean Environment Programme (UNEP-CEP) and the Peace Corps to reduce and also remove trash in the Caribbean Sea. EPA has also funded various projects in the San Francisco Bay Area including one that is aimed at reducing the use of single-use plastics such as disposable cups, spoons and straws, from three University of California campuses.

Additionally, there are many organizations advocating action to counter microplastics and that is spreading microplastic awareness. One such group is the Florida Microplastic Awareness Project (FMAP), a group of volunteers who search for microplastics in coastal water samples. There is also increased global advocacy aimed at achieving the target of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 which hopes to prevent and significantly reduce all forms of marine pollution by 2025.

Funding
The Clean Oceans Initiative is a project launched in 2018 by the public institutions European Investment Bank, Agence Française de Développement and KfW Entwicklungsbank. The goal of the organisations was to provide up to €2 billion in lending, grants and technical assistance until 2023 to develop projects that remove pollution from waterways (with a focus on macroplastics and microplastics) before it reaches the oceans. The effort focuses on initiatives that demonstrate efficient methods of minimising plastic waste and microplastics output, emphasising on riverine and coastal areas. Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP), the Italian national promotional institution and financial institution for development cooperation, and the Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO), the Spanish promotional bank, became new partners in October 2020.

In February 2022, the initiative stated that it would increase its financing aim to €4 billion by the end of 2025. At the same time, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) became the Clean Oceans Initiative's sixth member. By February 2023, the program had met 65% of its goal, with €2.6 billion spent in 60 projects benefiting more than 20 million people across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe.

By the beginning of 2022, more than 80% of this target has been achieved, with €1.6 billion being used in long-term financing for public and private sector initiatives that minimise the discharge of plastics, microplastics, and other pollutants through enhanced solid waste, wastewater, and storm water management.

The European Investment Bank and the Asian Development Bank formed the Clean and Sustainable Ocean Partnership in January 2021 to promote cooperative projects for a clean and sustainable ocean and blue economy in the Asia-Pacific region.

Policy and legislation
With increasing awareness of the detrimental effects of microplastics on the environment, groups are now advocating for the removal and ban of microplastics from various products. One such campaign is "Beat the Microbead", which focuses on removing plastics from personal care products. The Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation run the Global Microplastics Initiative, a project to collect water samples to provide scientists with better data about microplastic dispersion in the environment. UNESCO has sponsored research and global assessment programs due to the trans-boundary issue that microplastic pollution constitutes. These environmental groups will keep pressuring companies to remove plastics from their products in order to maintain healthy ecosystems.

China
In 2018, China banned the import of recyclables from other countries, forcing those other countries to re-examine their recycling schemes. The Yangtze River in China contributes 55% of all plastic waste going to the seas. Including microplastics, the Yangtze bears an average of 500,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometer. Scientific American reported that China dumps 30% of all plastics in the ocean.

United States
In the US, some states have taken action to mitigate the negative environmental effects of microplastics. Illinois was the first US state to ban cosmetics containing microplastics. On the national level, the Microbead-Free Waters Act 2015 was enacted after being signed by President Barack Obama on December 28, 2015. The law bans "rinse-off" cosmetic products that perform an exfoliating function, such as toothpaste or face wash. It does not apply to other products such as household cleaners. The act took effect on July 1, 2017, with respect to manufacturing, and July 1, 2018, with respect to introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. On June 16, 2020, California adopted a definition of 'microplastics in drinking water', setting the foundation for a long-term approach to studying their contamination and human health effects.

On July 25, 2018, a microplastic reduction amendment was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation, as part of the Save Our Seas Act designed to combat marine pollution, aims to support the NOAA's Marine Debris Program. In particular, the amendment is geared towards promoting NOAA's Great Lakes Land-Based Marine Debris Action Plan to increase testing, cleanup, and education around plastic pollution in the Great Lakes. President Donald Trump signed the re-authorization and amendment bill into effect on October 11, 2018.

Japan
On June 15, 2018, the Japanese government passed a bill with the goal of reducing microplastic production and pollution, especially in aquatic environments. Proposed by the Environment Ministry and passed unanimously by the Upper House, this is also the first bill to pass in Japan that is specifically targeted at reducing microplastic production, specifically in the personal care industry with products such as face wash and toothpaste. This law is revised from previous legislation, which focused on removing plastic marine debris. It also focuses on increasing education and public awareness surrounding recycling and plastic waste. The Environment Ministry has also proposed a number of recommendations for methods to monitor microplastic quantities in the ocean (Recommendations, 2018). However, the legislation does not specify any penalties for those who continue manufacturing products with microplastics.

European Union
The European Commission has noted the increased concern about the impact of microplastics on the environment. In April 2018, the European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors commissioned a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence on microplastic pollution through the EU's Scientific Advice Mechanism. The evidence review was conducted by a working group nominated by European academies and delivered in January 2019. A Scientific Opinion based on the SAPEA report was presented to the Commission in 2019, on the basis of which the commission will consider whether policy changes should be proposed at a European level to curb microplastic pollution.

In January 2019, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) proposed to restrict intentionally added microplastics.

The European Union participates with 10% of the global total, around 150 000 tonnes of microplastics each year. This is 200 grams per person per year, with significant regional variance in per-capita microplastic creation.

The European Commission's Circular Economy Action Plan sets out mandatory requirements for the recycling and waste reduction of key products e.g. plastic packaging. The plan starts the process to restrict addition of microplastics in products. It mandates measures for capturing more microplastics at all stages of the lifecycle of a product. E.g. the plan would examine different policies which aim to reduce release of secondary microplastics from tires and textiles. The European Commission plans to update the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive to further address microplastic waste and other pollution. They aim to protect the environment from industrial and urban waste water discharge. A revision to the EU Drinking Water Directive was provisionally approved to ensure microplastics are regularly monitored in drinking water. It would require countries must propose solutions if a problem is found.

United Kingdom
The Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017 ban the production of any rinse-off personal care products (such as exfoliants) containing microbeads. This particular law denotes specific penalties when it is not obeyed. Those who do not comply are required to pay a fine. In the event that a fine is not paid, product manufacturers may receive a stop notice, which prevents the manufacturer from continuing production until they have followed regulation preventing the use of microbeads. Criminal proceedings may occur if the stop notice is ignored.

See also
 Citizen Science, cleanup projects that people can take part in.
 Microbead (research)
 Microspheres
 Tea bag plastics
Plastic bans
Plastic pollution in the Mediterranean sea

References

Sources

External links
 Evidence for microplastics in human lungs
 NOAA Marine Debris Program

Plastics and the environment
Environmental impact of products
Water pollution
Clothing and the environment

Microplastics


Gorki (Russian and Tatar: Горки) is a station of the Kazan Metro. Opened as part of the first stage on 27 August 2005 it was (until December 2008) the southeastern terminus of the system. Located in the southeastern Gorki-1 microraion, the station presents a typical single-vault subsurface design.

Developed by architects A.Mustafin, R.Khisamov and T.Mukhametzyonov, the station's theme is a two-tone high-tech industrial design that blends with the surrounding Soviet-time Panel buildings. The station features a monolithic vault that is split into segments, and along its central axis run a set of lighting elements that create the steam effect.

The walls of the station are faced with dark green (Indiana grin) marble and behind their niches are additional lighting elements which illuminate the white vault. The floor of the station is covered by Mansurovsky and Starobabansky granite plates arranged in a geometrical pattern.

The station has two vestibules, located along the Rikhard Zorge street. The northern one has one exit towards the intersection of Zorge with Tankovaya and Malyurina streets, whilst the southern one, which was opened slightly later on 29 September 2005, is located under the intersection of Zorge with the Rodina (motherland) street.

External links
Description @ KazanMetro.by.ru

Kazan Metro
Railway stations in Russia opened in 2005
Railway stations located underground in Russia

Gorki (Kazan Metro)


The Ford Taunus G93A is a small family car that was produced by Ford Germany between 1939 and 1942 in succession to the Ford Eifel.  It was the first car developed at Cologne by Ford Germany which previously had built cars originated by Ford businesses in the US or the UK.   Production began on 30 April 1939, with the first car exhibited to the public in June 1939, less than six months before the outbreak of war in Europe.

In 1948 the car reappeared as the Ford Taunus G73A, and remained in production until 1952.  This was the first (and until the 1970s the last) Ford Taunus to feature a fastback shape: in this application the rather severe slopes enforced by squeezing North-American style fast-back styling onto a relatively short wheelbase was not universally admired:  the car became known as the "Buckeltaunus" (Hunchback Taunus).

Ford Taunus G93A (1939–1942)
On 30 April 1939 Ford Cologne began to manufacture the Taunus, a mid-size car intended to slot into the range between the little Ford Eifel and the company's big V8 models. The car was presented to the public in June 1939.   Although the structure of the car did not follow the revolutionary monocoque structure heralded by the Opel Olympia, the Taunus did have its body welded to the chassis rather than having the two elements simply bolted together. Essentially, the platform was a stretched floorpan and frame inherited from its predecessor Eifel. The advertised price at launch was 2870 Marks, but customers had the option of paying an extra 22 Marks for a shatterproof windscreen.

The body

Stylistically the new car followed the 1930s fashion for streamlining, but with a North American flavour inspired by the Lincoln-Zephyr of the time. Design work was carried out at the Ford headquarters in Detroit mainly between the then recently appointed chief of design E.T. "Bob" Gregorie and Lincoln-Mercury division manager Edsel Ford, the son of Henry Ford. The bodyshell was supplied from the Berlin plant of pressed steel experts, Ambi Budd.  Like the Eifel, the Ford Taunus came with rigid axles, but with the innovation of hydraulic brakes.

The engine
The Taunus was designed to take a  1.5-litre side-valve engine developed from the 1.2-litre unit used in the Eifel. However, in March 1939 the government, anticipating war, introduced restrictions whereby Ford were permitted to produce only a single standardised engine in the class of cars covered by engine sizes between 1.2 and 2.0 litres, and so the Taunus used the smaller 1,172 cc engine (a k a known as English Sidevalve) carried over from the Eifel model.  This was essentially the same unit that Ford would fit in the Ford Taunus P1 (and, at their Dagenham plant the Ford Anglia) until 1959.

In the 1939 Ford Taunus the car's 1,172 cc unit delivered a claimed , married up to a three-speed transmission controlled with a centrally mounted lever.   Drive was transmitted to the rear wheels.

The war
The German auto industry did not undergo the same very rapid switch-over to war production as that experienced in Britain, but passenger car production in Germany was nevertheless restricted by government policy, and there was never more than a single prototype to represent the company's original intention to offer a cabriolet version of the Taunus G93A.  The pre-war car was produced only as a two-door saloon/sedan with rear-hinged doors.

As the war continued, Ford became increasingly important as a producer of light trucks to support the war effort, and in February 1942 passenger car production came to an end at the Ford plant. Only 42 of the cars were assembled at the Cologne plant in 1942, but production had held up well through much of 1940 and by the time passenger car production ended 7,100 Taunus G93As had been produced.

Ford Taunus G73A (1948–1952)

After the war, with other German auto-plants destroyed by bombing or crated up and shipped to the Soviet Union, the priority for the occupying powers at Ford's plant was for the continued production of light trucks. However, even in 1946 various detailed improvements had been built into the prewar Taunus design. Two years later, in May 1948, the new Ford Taunus G73A was exhibited at the Hanover Export Fair.

The tooling for the pressed-steel bodywork had during the war remained in Berlin with the US owned body builders Ambi Budd, and after lengthy negotiations with the Soviet military authorities was eventually released.   Due to lack of available space at Ford's Cologne plant, production of the first 1948 cars was subcontracted to Volkswagen in Wolfsburg and Karmann in Osnabrück, but in November 1948 the entire production process was taken in house by Ford. At this stage, as in 1942, only a single body style was available. The 1948 Ford Taunus was a small fast-back saloon with two rear hinged doors, and available only in "night shadow grey", presumably reflecting paint availability in the aftermath of war.

Broadening the range
In  1949 Ford added a Taunus version with body panels fitted only as far back as the A-pillars, and several alternative body shapes became available, added by traditional  coach-builders such as Karmann of Osnabrück, Drauz of Heilbronn and  Plasswilm in Cologne. Coach-built Ford Taunus versions include two- and four-seater cabriolets with two doors, a special four-door cabriolet for use by police forces, small three-door station wagons and even four-door taxis.

Upgrades in 1950 and 1951

In May 1950 Ford introduced the Taunus Special, which featured a four-speed gear change controlled with a column-mounted lever. Externally the "Special" made extensive use of chrome, notably on an enlarged front grill and on the bumpers. The rear window was enlarged and flashing-light direction indicators replaced semaphore-style flippers.

January 1951 saw the introduced of a Taunus de Luxe, with a one-piece windscreen and many extras.

Technical
Technically the Taunus G73A was little changed from the 1939 G93A, retaining the familiar 1,172 cc side-valve engine first seen in the 1935 Ford Eifel.   With gasoline/petrol availability in Europe restricted to low-octane fuels, the   maximum power output was also unchanged, supporting a claimed top speed of . It was not possible to adjust valve clearances and engines typically lasted for .

Until 1950 all the cars came with a three-speed transmission incorporating synchromesh on the top two ratios. The gear boxes were prone to problems, especially regarding the second gear, and in order to rebuild the gearbox it was necessary first to remove the engine or, better still, the back axle.

Rigid axles front and back were suspended using leaf springs. The drive shaft was enclosed in a steel tube and featured only a single universal joint, positioned just behind the gearbox. The rear wheel bearings were positioned directly on the rear axle. The overall rear axle assembly seems to have been unusually simple, but the resulting stresses gave rise to a shortened axle life.

The hydraulically operated simplex brakes were operated via a single circuit, which was usual at the time. The handbrake cable was prone to rust.

The 6-volt electrical system was normal for small cars of the time, as was the requirement for an oil change every 1,500 km (roughly 1,000 miles) and a larger inspection every 4,500 km (very roughly 3,000 miles).

Replacement
In January 1952 the successor model, Ford's ponton format Taunus P1 went on sale, although availability of the old G73A model continued until autumn: by this time 76,590  had been produced.

See also
 1940 Ford

References

Sources

 Rosellen, Hanns-Peter: "… und trotzdem vorwärts", 1. Auflage, Zyklam-Verlag, Frankfurt / M. (1986),
 Rosellen, Hanns-Peter: Ford-Schritte, 1. Auflage, Zyklam-Verlag, Frankfurt / M. (1987/88),
 Oswald, Werner: Deutsche Autos 1945 – 1975, 2. Auflage, Motorbuchverlag Stuttgart (1967)

G93A
Mid-size cars
Cars introduced in 1939
1940s cars
1950s cars

Ford Taunus G93A


HNoMS Valkyrjen was a torpedo boat destroyer of the Royal Norwegian Navy, built at F. Schichau shipyard in Elbing, Germany. The funds for the ship had been raised by the women of Norway and the ship was named Valkyrien in their honour. She was also nicknamed Damernes krigsskib ("The Ladies Warship"). The ship had its first sea trial on 11 May 1896 and was swiftly approved. She was completed in Horten, Norway, and delivered to the minister of defence in Christiania (Oslo), on 17 May 1896. The ship was opened to the public for two days before sailing back to Horten.

Valkyrjen had a displacement of 415 tons. Her dimensions were 59.4 × 7.4 × 2.6 metres and she had a top speed of . She had a crew complement of 59. Her armament included two 76 mm and four 37 mm guns in addition to two torpedo launchers.

In August 1920 the Valkyrien carried out exercises on the west coast with the  and , and after returning to Bergen, she was decommissioned on 27 September 1920. In 1922 Valkyrien was stripped of all reusable materials, and then sold for scrap in 1923.

References

External links
RNoN article about the ship

1896 ships
Destroyers of the Royal Norwegian Navy
Ships built in Elbing
Ships built by Schichau

HNoMS Valkyrjen