What Is Glitter? | Hacker News Reader

What Is Glitter?

nytimes.com

203 pointslaurex107 comments

Glitter can apparently be used to help solve crimes, according to Wikipedia's "glitter" article [1]:

> Due to its unique characteristics, glitter has also proven to be useful forensic evidence. Because of the tens of thousands of different commercial glitters, identical glitter particles can be compelling evidence that a suspect has been at a crime scene.

It links to this review article on glitter from a forensic point of view [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitter

[2] https://projects.nfstc.org/trace/docs/final/Blackledge_Glitt...

Here's a huge thread on Reddit trying to figure out which mystery industry is the largest buyer of glitter: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/a8hrk0...

No conclusive results yet, but I believe Reddit will deliver.

I thought the answer was right in the article: Automotive paint. They've got a lot of surface area to cover, and car companies want their vehicles to shine.

Makes sense and could be it, but somewhere in that reddit thread there's a car paint guy who claims they use pure aluminium particles and not just aluminium painter polymer.

I don't think automotive manufacturers would be worried about people knowing that their shiny paint contains glitter. Also, there are a lot of cars in the world, but most just get painted once.

My first guess would be a consumable. Maybe food-related, where we don't expect (or want) glitter. The "toothpaste" guess sounds like it's on the right track. "Fast food" wouldn't entirely surprise me, either.

It's still probably under NDA and the glitter suppliers are contractually forbidden from revealing their customers. It'd be up to the customer to reveal it.

I thought the answer was given in the article as Revlon. Nail polish, eyeshadow, lipstick, blush... all can contain micro glitter particles. I wonder, what is the total surface area painted by cosmetics each year?

That's hardly secretive or unexpected, though - everyone knows cosmetics contain glitter

I don't think most consumers know that their lipstic or eyeshadow contains microplastics.

I'd wager that they either know or don't want to know...

I didn’t. Had I considered it I would have assumed that at least in the US regulations would prohibit its inclusion.

Whatever the product may be, it sparkles, so it can’t be much of a secret.

Does this product contain glitter? https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-djINoSKP6FQ/T_2q9sPNqZI/AAAAAAAAA...

Probably, no. My guess is it contains small metal particles. But if I wanted to determine that, I wouldn’t look at a photo. I would read the ingredients.

A lot of cosmetics straight up contain phthalates as an intentionally added ingredient.

I thought that too but I think that line was just worded awkwardly. It was meant as a change of topic to end the writer's insistence.

For reference:

> I asked if she would tell me off the record. She would not. I asked if she would tell me off the record after this piece was published. She would not. I told her I couldn’t die without knowing. She guided me to the automotive grade pigments.

This is the answer, the article isn’t being particularly subtle about it.

I like the Apple products theory. All those metallic MacBooks, iPhones, and iPads would certainly add up to a massive demand.

The ones I’m looking at are straight metal or anodised metal. It isn’t Apple.

I too have faith.

If not to that sub, then the peeps over at /r/rbi and /r/whatisthisthing has achieved incredible findings

I'm guessing the cosmetics industry, and they want to keep it quiet because microplastics is a hot-topic at the moment.

Lush is pretty good with this stuff. It seems that they have switched recently to synthetic mica due to child labor concerns: https://www.lushusa.com/story?cid=article_all-that-glitters

yeah i think this the most likely one as well, people wont like finding out theyre rubbing glitter into their hair/skin

Currency is my favorite theory from this (and would explain the extreme secrecy). Take a look inside your wallet, it's probably a little glittery.

(Related: For those who enjoyed the photos in this article, make sure to follow the photographer's Instagram, it's incredible. https://www.instagram.com/chrismaggio/)

I thought defense would be another likely user. Chaff would use huge quantities of it.

Chaff is a little different. For instance, most glitter is plastic, and plastic wouldn't do any good against radar. Here's what it really looks like:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Usnchaff...

But but metallized plastic!

Yup, wiki says it can be metallized plastic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

Doesn't chaff work by being an aerial? And so it needs to be a certain length?

http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/fil...

> Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers (also referred to as dipoles) ranging in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm.

> Figure 1. Radio frequency chaff cartridges (Air Force version RR-188/AL, top; Navy version RR-144/AL, bottom) and chaff fibers (right). Fibers of different lengths can be seen in the Navy operational version (clear cylinder). These lengths correspond to the frequency modes of the radar spectrum

It's probably the jewelery industry to help make their precious and rare rocks sparkle and shine.

I'm sure knowing that glitter is used in a diamond ring would turn a lot of people away.

I love how one of the most up voted answers boiled down to "the military"

https://old.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/a8hrk0...

>defense department would be extremely secretive

>And they very much wouldn't care about the environmental impact

>A few hundred tons of glitter is significantly less bad than thousands of tons of agent orange and dioxin.

>And depleted uranium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

I guess it's possible chaff is made by Glitterex.

PSA: Depleted uranium is so-called because it has less radioactivity than the dangerous stuff (U-235).

It's a toxic heavy metal, but it doesn't present any serious radioactivity danger.

yep, depleted uranium bars are used within helicopter blades to equalize the momentum along their length. it's a very heavy metal

I'm guessing floor tiles/fake stone benchtops. Huge market that would require a lot of glitter and it's not something you initially think would contain glitter. The expensive fake stone benchtops would feel "cheaper" if you knew that it was just glitter making them look good.

I was thinking asphalt and concrete - it seems that New York uses a specific percentage of mica flakes in their sidewalks, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that roadways would use something to aid reflectivity as well.

Why would a local government be secretive about what they put in roads?

I looked road markings up earlier because it was also my first guess, but everything I've seen indicates they just use plain glass microspheres in reflective paint and such.

For the roads themselves, more reflective might be a bad thing anywhere that sees heavy snowfall. Less sunlight absorbed=colder roads=more snow buildup and many other related problems.

None of these uses would need to be kept secret though.

Yeah, the microspheres have the property of being very retroreflective (shine headlamp light directly back toward a driver efficiently) and so get used in lots of automotive visibility scenarios.

Many people are mentioning chaff, and heck, literally the first sentence of the Wikipedia article says:

"metallized glass fibre(fiber) or plastic" [1]

Metallized pastic sounding a lot like... glitter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

I thought that chaff couldn't be very much. If you believe this source it's about 500 tons per year, which is very much more than I thought. http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/fil...

For sure I think it is toothpaste.

my guess was large denomination US dollars

The makers of "Passion Dust" are pretty upfront about the benefits of putting "magically delicious" glitter in your vagina, so it's probably not them. But I wonder what flavoring they're using?

https://www.self.com/story/do-not-put-glitter-in-your-vagina

>Passion Dust is billed as an "adult novelty item" and its sole purpose is to "add a sparkle and flavor to your natural vaginal fluids to make the experience of lovemaking that much more fun and enjoyable for you and your partner." Um, ok. The flavor is apparently "sweet like candy but not overly sweet," the website says, just enough to make your partner think that your unicorn vagina is "what all vaginas are supposed to look, feel and taste like; soft, sweet and magical!"

https://www.prettywomaninc.com/q-a

"The sparkling effect can last for up to 5 days."

"When he looks down at his 'magic stick' and sees it shining like it's 'God's gift'. It will be weird, but he won't be mad!...He'll either be really impressed with himself or really impressed by you! You can tell him or don't."

Wow, yuck.

But all the more horrifying in light of talc conferring asbestos into cavities in ways that provoke cervical cancer.

> I have no idea how humans figured out how to do that, or why it occurred to them to even try, but it sounds expensive.

I had to check this wasn't Dave Barry writing.

Anyway, this seems to have genuinely been a space age invetion, aluminised mylar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoPET

(There is no item of "futuristic clothing" that pins a piece of visual SF to a particular point in history in the 1960s quite like this material. Especially when used for miniskirts.)

This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum go from being not on the film to being on the film without at least some Scotch tape? “They evaporate aluminum and deposit it on it,” said Mr. Shetty. This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum be evaporated? “It’s a very, very thin layer. They put it in a vacuum chamber, then evaporate the aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. “With heat,” his son added. “What are they evaporating out of it?” I asked. “Aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. I have no idea how humans figured out how to do that, or why it occurred to them to even try, but it sounds expensive.

What's worse, the lack of understanding of high school science among journalists (Boyle's law and elements changing state are very basic chemistry) or the the lack of communication skills among scientists?

Is this a lack of understanding, or a narrative written with a supposed lack of understanding to effectively communicate to a general audience? The type of person reading this is probably not trying to relive a high school science class.

Neither possibility is good. I like science writers that know how to explain things, not ones that pretend to be stupid to pander to the reader.

Evaporating metals for surface deposition is a well-known materials technique, but I guess it's mostly us nerds who care. Like, I literally go to TAP Plastic and stare at the various aluminized mylars and think about maker projects that could use it, but I know I'm a rarity. That said most people who took photos of the solar eclipse this year were using aluminized mylar filters.

A highly effective tactical weapon in our long standing battle against the sea and everything that lives there. That damn sea, one of our oldest enemies and yet it still persists. We'll get the better of it yet though, the big wet bastard. Glitter production will help enormously and I am delighted to say it has almost doubled since our recent glitter marketing through social media and that article in the New York Times.

edit - Some people actually like the sea and dare to speak against our mighty and patriotic glitter industry - https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/glitter-plastics...

I love the author's humorous descriptions

> Metalization, he explained, is the process by which aluminum is deposited on both sides of the film. This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum go from being not on the film to being on the film without at least some Scotch tape? “They evaporate aluminum and deposit it on it,” said Mr. Shetty. This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum be evaporated? “It’s a very, very thin layer. They put it in a vacuum chamber, then evaporate the aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. “With heat,” his son added. “What are they evaporating out of it?” I asked. “Aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. I have no idea how humans figured out how to do that, or why it occurred to them to even try, but it sounds expensive.

“A way to make long winter nights slightly brighter, despite the offshore presence of Germans.”

Well that came out of nowhere.

It's referring to this, from earlier in the article:

> A December 1942 article in The Times — possibly the first mention in this newspaper of the stuff — advised New York City residents that pitchers of evergreen boughs, placed in their windows for the winter holidays, would offer “additional scintillation” if “sprinkled with dime-store ‘glitter’ or mica.” The pitchers were to replace Christmas candles, which the wartime Army had banned after sunset — along with neon signs in Times Square and the light from the Statue of Liberty’s torch — after determining that the nighttime glow threw offshore Allied vessels into silhouette, transforming them into floating U-boat targets.

If you enjoyed that article, you might appreciate an episode of Forensic Files titled "All That Glitters is Gold" where an crime was solved by forensic analysis of glitter.

Apparently, glitter is not as generic as one might think! And, there are glitter collectors.

For those unaware, phthalates are linked to decreased testosterone and potentially other health effects. 1

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate#Endocrine_disruption

Not the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate#Identification_in_pl...

Mildly different, but still a pthalate. Guilty until proven innocent when it comes to endocrine disrupters imho.

Commentary published in Environmental Health Perspectives in April 2010 suggested that PET might yield endocrine disruptors under conditions of common use and recommended research on this topic.[26]

I'll say it-

The US Military

And not because its particularly useful, but as a method to funnel money from taxpayers into a few glitter companies. They play along and everyone makes money.

This passes the- "Why is it a Secret", "Why it can be a secret", and "Why they buy so much".

...ah yes the military glitter industrial complex

I would not necessarily make that assumption. See: https://cyberarms.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/the-weapon-that-d...

Something simple like chaff could have all sorts of interesting properties depending on shape, size, method of manufacturing, etc.

This only further reinforces the idea though.

They have a legitimate reason to buy it. Why not cronyism at the same time?

This would explain the industry leading quantities as well.

Whatever it may be, it's likely not safe for living things to breathe-in or to eat.

I was wondering about that too: the safety considering how secretive manufacturers were.

Intuitively, I'd think the particles are just too large to be a considerable risk. The photo of the man wearing a mask is because they're around it all day every day (+ OSHA I'm sure), but I'm sure people have though the same thing about asbestos or pink fibreglass insulation.

Previously they used pulverized mica. Mylar is cheaper and more manageable.

"Previously"? Mica powder is still used in a lot of glitter products. For example, glitter make-up is almost always made with mica powder. 3D printing filament with "glitter flake" is mica powder.

Easy answer: Pollution.

What an ample time to post such an article. Some context: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/18/man-ca...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that video was faked.

Source?

https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/21/youtuber-a...

Google for "glitter package video fake".

> "I was presented with information that caused me to doubt the veracity of 2 of the 5 reactions in the video [...] It appears (and I've since confirmed) in these two cases, the 'thieves' were actually acquaintances of the person helping me."

https://twitter.com/MarkRober/status/1075767629703372800

It wasn't faked. The incidents where the pickups happened at his place were real. However he paid people to place it on their doorstep and those people had an accomplice pick it up.

Faked and discovered to include fake reactions that were then removed, are different situations. Mark has been producing high quality educational and entertaining videos that encourage kids to get into science. I have personally watched kids go nuts over his Fluidized air bed experiments, and convince their parents to try it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My4RA5I0FKs

It sucks there was fake content in there, but the device was real and the fake actions removed.

I'm a bit more miffed that he didn't make it very clear he didn't create the device. I enjoyed watching the video of the guy who did, but I only got to watch that video because somebody in the last HN thread recommended it.

> ... didn't make it very clear ...

Until I saw this subthread, I had no clue that he didn't design and build it. I don't recall any reference, even to a partner.

He states in the video that he built it with someone else.

OK, thanks. Missed that.

2 of the 5 thefts weren't genuine, but the creator was unaware of that. That's not the same thing as faking a video.

Here's the full explanation: https://twitter.com/MarkRober/status/1075767629703372800

He was caught using two fake reactions, and he owned up to those. But we can’t say if the others are real or not with any certainty. Personally, I thought the parking garage reaction looked like bad acting as soon as I saw it, so I’m still skeptical.

He also initially claimed the package was placed in Illinois, but he edited the video after people called him out on it.

And he presents the device as something he engineered himself, only briefly mentioning that someone helped him. Another video shows that the other guy, Sean Hodgins, actually built it (find the link in jtokoph's comment below).

So who really knows? It wouldn’t be the first time something on the Internet was staged.

Link to the other video: https://youtu.be/IpMxOmUcfOI

Its disappointing that Sean is getting absolutely zero credit. Mark Rober just keeps saying “I built”. There’s a link in the description but just suggests Sean has more build details.

He could have at least brought Sean into the original video for some credit. Who knows, maybe this was the deal and Mark is giving Sean all of the ad revenue in exchange for the views/subs/credit...shrug

You are being over-dramatic.

He clearly mentions Sean and even includes a couple of frames in the video of Sean working on the device's PCB.

Start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo&t=70

Relevant HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734421

I guess "ample" is a typo? Also this isn't a coincidence. This has been posted because someone saw that video and wondered what exactly glitter is. I also looked it up after watching that video.

Nope. Not a typo. Here's the Wiktionary entry for it: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ample

I fail to see how any of those definitions make sense in your original post.

    fully sufficient; abundant

Yes you have ample time, but it cannot be "an ample time". I'm a native speaker so I can't explain why, but trust me!

You probably want to say something like "What an apt time.." or "What a fitting time..."

I wouldn't be too surprised to find out the fast food industry uses some form of glitter to make things look tasty. If you imagine that for example most burgers are usually precooked frozen meat that's then reheated, getting it to look like freshly made can be quite a challenge.

Unicorn Meat has a lot of glitter in it.

https://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e5a7/

Getting the plastic-based glitter to not melt or burn on the grill might also be quite a challenge.

There are edible types of plastic and having it melt once on the food product during reheating might be beneficial. I'm not saying this as a conspiracy theory or anything of the like, but rather pointing out that this could very well be one application.

Glitter is terrible for the environment, and easy to avoid by not using it.

> and easy to avoid by not using it

Judging from this thread and all of the guesses re: the mystery industry that uses glitter perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement. How can we easily avoid something when we aren't aware of all the ways it's used?

It is allegedly mixed with bleach and used by the coal industry to make the smoke look white. People don't like seeing black smoke.

Are you trying to start an urban legend or something? There are a million ways that doesn't make sense, but hey, at least you're being creative... :)

Why would you burn glitter of all things?

Glitter is plastic and aluminum. You could just burn those separately if that's what you wanted. What's the purpose in making them into glitter first?

And in any case they wouldn't turn the smoke white. And there are better ways to get rid of black smoke (easier is add some air into the fire).

> allegedly

Who alleges this?

This question reminds me of an interesting exchange in an episode of Daria:

Ashley-Amber - How do you think they make glitter?

Brittany - Hmm. I don't think we've learned that yet in science.

Salesman - Can I help you, ladies?

Ashley-Amber - Yes. How do they make glitter?

Salesman - Why, they capture a moonbeam and crumble it up into tiny little specks of magic.

Ashley-Amber (to Brittany) - Then we can save a bunch of money by doing it ourselves.

It's something that should be illegal. It's a health hazard.

You mean like almost every other popular art supply?

Eh, yeah, unfortunately... the arts have a long history of using some very toxic substances. In their defense it wasn't always known at the time.

I wonder how many common art and cosmetic materials would be approved if they came on the market today.

I'm curious what the answer to the title is but "aluminum metalized polyethylene terephthalate" doesn't exactly help me. Aluminium, okay, but what is the rest? The article goes on and on and on, rambling about how everyone likes it just like we once hunted for honey, what company it originated at, what kind of word it even is... thousands of words for a couple of interesting bits of information. This either needs a summary or some more concise writing.

i felt like the article describes a whole bunch of the details – e.g. covering the plastic with vaporized aluminum (i believe this is what "aluminum-metalized polyethylene terephthalate" means); making plastic iridescent by etching microscopic patterns into the plastic and exploiting the way light refracts off of those; maybe others that i can't remember now.

but to me that wasn't as interesting as the part where the glitter industry turned out to be weirdly secretive about the whole process.

* aluminum - obvious I hope

* metalized - take a non metal material and cover it in metal

* polyethylene terephthalate - this is simply PET plastic, also called Polyester, and is used to make fabric and bottles.

Think "potato chip bag" (the kind that's shiny on the inside). It's a thin layer of metal sandwiched between two layers of mylar. The aluminum would be prone to tearing by itself, and the mylar would let too much oxygen through, thus spoiling the potato chips.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com