3 ms·
Currently, I don't like the comparison to asbestos. Asbestos was known early to be bad. Early mining towns lives were shorter[0]. Information was slow to commu
by irjustin 6y ago
Currently, I don't like the comparison to asbestos.
Asbestos was known early to be bad. Early mining towns lives were shorter[0]. Information was slow to communicate and I 100% agree there was a lot of money to keep the dangers from being known by the general public.
But asbestos, has a long and clear history of being bad.
Plastics are no where near as bad and are pretty much ubiquitous.
I think the opioid crisis or even sugar is more closely related to asbestos's style of danger combined with misinformation.
As this whole thread is discussing, the jury is still out, but there seems to be hardly the study that can point to an asbestos level problem.
If we all start developing cancer in about 20 years, I'll be the first to raise my hand admitting I didn't see that coming.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Discovery_of_toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Discovery_of_toxicity
- headmelted 6y agoI actually agree with you in part - if this were anything like as bad as asbestos per capita surely we would know that by now. The point I was trying to make was that so very many people, essentially everyone, are being exposed to micro-plastics that even if this were several orders of magnitude less toxic than asbestos that's still a major health crisis. That and as you've said we just don't know what we don't know really.