4 ms·

Low effort article, possibly even just blogspam. Says plastic waste contains a diverse list of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Doesn't say how much of each or w

Low effort article, possibly even just blogspam. Says plastic waste contains a diverse list of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Doesn't say how much of each or which ones have been found to be medically significant. No evidence presented that the chemicals are actually making their way into our bodies in clinically significant quantities.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
They should have included links to the study and to the conference that they referred to. > Doesn't say how much of each or which ones have been found to be medically significant. Plastic waste is probably not uniform enough to make those measurements and have them be correct for other collections of platsic waste. > No evidence presented that the chemicals are actually making their way into our bodies in clinically significant quantities. Its probably not wise to wait until the water supply is contaminated with medically significant amounts of endocrine disruptors to tell people there’s a problem.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  To be clear. Blogspam can reference true facts and events and still be blogspam. I think something should be done about plastic waste and contamination. But I don't want to reward the entity that created this article with clicks.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    It's kinda ironic how a serious topic like environmental pollution is itself beset by information pollution.
    - 6510 6y ago
      Search engines [positively] judge content by how poorly it links to other materials. The rest is obvious.
      - tehjoker 6y ago
        It's funny back in 2000 PageRank was all the rage and it worked by figuring out some kind of eigenvalue based on how well pages linked to each other... Maybe that's still true so long as other people link to you but you don't link to anyone else...
        6510 6y ago
        It tries to be one of my favorite topics but its rather sad. There are to many entities with a vested interest in preserving their tenured position. I could write a fantastic article about this topic but why bother exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics If you go here and examine the article extremely carefully (unrealistically carefully) you would find in the section "Persistent organic pollutants" a link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor Which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen
        pcdoodle 6y ago
        And this is where the gay frogs came from. Our humble water filter salesman was actually right.
        tandr 6y ago
        Does you filter allow to filter that stuff out, tested and all? What is this filter made of - food grade steel, aluminum, or have some plastic parts/tubing too?
forgotmypw17 6y ago
Low effort comment, possibly just confused and in denial poster, or maybe a shell. Says because the article is blogspam, it is questionable that plastic pollution is harming humans at all. No evidence presented that they have sought out any information on the matter, just nitpicking apart the original article.
- criley2 6y ago
  Ironically, the person you are commenting to is not making a low effort comment and is expressing a pretty basic case of skepticism. Scientific mysticism and "metaphysics" are very popular, just see the unfounded paranoia over "GMO". Turning a skeptical eye to scary sounding articles that have very little research underpinning them shouldn't be controversial. However that appears to have emotionally triggered you as you've launched into a mocking trollish reply where you've respoken their comment, except turned it into one big condescending insult towards the OP. Shame on you. Shame on lowering the level of discourse here. This is beneath you and this community.
userbinator 6y ago
Moreover, it's hard to take articles like this at face value when a lot of other statistics regarding quality of life, such as infant mortality and life expectancy, have been constantly improving for at least a century.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ironmagma 6y ago
  By that mode of thinking, there can’t be any problems in the world, because things are improving by most metrics.
  - AuthorizedCust 6y ago
    No, but it does suggest a step back could be acceptable if it is needed for five steps forward. Progress on the net.
    - objektif 6y ago
      Why can't all 5 steps be forward or even just 4 steps only forward instead.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    this doesn't make sense logically. If there were 5000 problems, and 4000 of them got solved in the last decade, that would mean everything is demonstrably getting better, yet still leave 1000 problems to be solved. Just because everything isn't perfect, doesn't mean it's not better than it was, and improving.
    - ironmagma 6y ago
      We are in agreement; I was saying that the fact 4000 of them got solved does not mean that the remaining 1000 don't matter or aren't worth thinking or talking about, or aren't serious problems.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

They should have included links to the study and to the conference that they referred to. > Doesn't say how much of each or which ones have been found to be medically significant. Plastic waste is probably not uniform enough to make those measurements and have them be correct for other collections of platsic waste. > No evidence presented that the chemicals are actually making their way into our bodies in clinically significant quantities. Its probably not wise to wait until the water supply is contaminated with medically significant amounts of endocrine disruptors to tell people there’s a problem.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
To be clear. Blogspam can reference true facts and events and still be blogspam. I think something should be done about plastic waste and contamination. But I don't want to reward the entity that created this article with clicks.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  It's kinda ironic how a serious topic like environmental pollution is itself beset by information pollution.
  - 6510 6y ago
    Search engines [positively] judge content by how poorly it links to other materials. The rest is obvious.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      It's funny back in 2000 PageRank was all the rage and it worked by figuring out some kind of eigenvalue based on how well pages linked to each other... Maybe that's still true so long as other people link to you but you don't link to anyone else...
      - 6510 6y ago
        It tries to be one of my favorite topics but its rather sad. There are to many entities with a vested interest in preserving their tenured position. I could write a fantastic article about this topic but why bother exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics If you go here and examine the article extremely carefully (unrealistically carefully) you would find in the section "Persistent organic pollutants" a link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor Which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen
        pcdoodle 6y ago
        And this is where the gay frogs came from. Our humble water filter salesman was actually right.
        tandr 6y ago
        Does you filter allow to filter that stuff out, tested and all? What is this filter made of - food grade steel, aluminum, or have some plastic parts/tubing too?

forgotmypw17 6y ago

Low effort comment, possibly just confused and in denial poster, or maybe a shell. Says because the article is blogspam, it is questionable that plastic pollution is harming humans at all. No evidence presented that they have sought out any information on the matter, just nitpicking apart the original article.

criley2 6y ago
Ironically, the person you are commenting to is not making a low effort comment and is expressing a pretty basic case of skepticism. Scientific mysticism and "metaphysics" are very popular, just see the unfounded paranoia over "GMO". Turning a skeptical eye to scary sounding articles that have very little research underpinning them shouldn't be controversial. However that appears to have emotionally triggered you as you've launched into a mocking trollish reply where you've respoken their comment, except turned it into one big condescending insult towards the OP. Shame on you. Shame on lowering the level of discourse here. This is beneath you and this community.

userbinator 6y ago

Moreover, it's hard to take articles like this at face value when a lot of other statistics regarding quality of life, such as infant mortality and life expectancy, have been constantly improving for at least a century.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ironmagma 6y ago
By that mode of thinking, there can’t be any problems in the world, because things are improving by most metrics.
- AuthorizedCust 6y ago
  No, but it does suggest a step back could be acceptable if it is needed for five steps forward. Progress on the net.
  - objektif 6y ago
    Why can't all 5 steps be forward or even just 4 steps only forward instead.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  this doesn't make sense logically. If there were 5000 problems, and 4000 of them got solved in the last decade, that would mean everything is demonstrably getting better, yet still leave 1000 problems to be solved. Just because everything isn't perfect, doesn't mean it's not better than it was, and improving.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    We are in agreement; I was saying that the fact 4000 of them got solved does not mean that the remaining 1000 don't matter or aren't worth thinking or talking about, or aren't serious problems.