4 ms·
It's hard to believe that. The cancer rates in wildlife have been increasing for a reason, and it can only be explained by pollution in general (not micro-plast
by vfc1 7y ago
It's hard to believe that. The cancer rates in wildlife have been increasing for a reason, and it can only be explained by pollution in general (not micro-plastics in particular).
The problem is not the microplastics themselves, but the fact that plastic is a very effective sponge for absorbing all sorts of persistent pollutants.
It's even used to collect pollutant samples, due to its huge absorption properties. It can't be good that's for sure, and in many cases, it's being overused.
I'm all for forbidding the use of plastic in many common use cases. My local supermarket sells packs of 4 peaches in a plastic container, wrapped in a plastic sheet.
I always have to take the trash out after grocery shopping, due to all the discarded packages, come on it's ridiculous.
- gus_massa 7y ago> The cancer rates in wildlife have been increasing Do you have a source for that? It looks difficult to measure, and also most wild species are shortlive so the incidence of cancer is smaller.
- vfc1 7y agoHave a look here for wildlife - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cancer-wildlife-environmental-contaminant/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cancer-wildlife-e... If I remember well the same is happening to urban animals.
- gus_massa 7y agoIt's a very interesting article. I found the research article that has more details: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240769/ (I hope it's the correct one.) They study belugas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beluga_whale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beluga_whale that have a long life so cancer is a threat. They found that they got more cancer that other cetacean. I don't understand the comparison in table 3, because IIUC spotted dolphins have even more cancer, but not the same kind of cancer. They don't compare to the rate of the same animal in other places or before the smelter plants were created. It looks convincing, but it seams to be a case where there is a contaminated area and an animal that has a long life. I'm not convinced that this is a general trend for all wildlife.
- pvaldes 7y agoBelugas are a well known handbook case for contamination accumulating in life beings. Not because they live long (Pines live much longer than Belugas, but do not store the same amount of metals and pesticides). Is because, they are coastal and have a fat layer of blubber. Contaminants are often lipophilic and accumulate in the fat layer. The body of belugas act as a garbage trap.
- nemosaltat 7y agoYes, some packaging seems ridiculous but so is food waste. People typically won’t consume good that doesn’t look appealing, such as bruised peaches in your example. My wife and I started using Imperfect Produce, and we’ve been fairly pleased with it as it seems to address both problems.
- tomatocracy 7y agoFruit that doesn't look appealing can be (and is) made into juice which people are perfectly happy to drink (and other products like that). Isn't that a better solution?
- leetcrew 7y agodepends what stage of distribution you catch "unappealing" fruit. if a peach gets bruised on the last mile of shipment to Walmart, it's probably not economic to juice it in the store or ship it back it. also the supply of unattractive fruit probably exceeds demand for most kinds of fruit juice. most people I know only buy orange, apple, grape, or cranberry juice.
- gus_massa 7y agoAdd marmalade and other typed of conserves and deserts.
- anonthrowaway2 7y agoImperfect Produce: "if you can believe that folks throw out worse-looking produce rather than sell it at stores _you_ would never frequent, make other products from it, feed livestock with it, etc, boy howdy have we got a feel-good story for you!"