3 ms·

Plastic Is Far More Toxic than We Thought

36 points by sizzle 5y ago

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Helene Wiesinger, lead author of the study and a doctoral student at ETH Zurich, says that at least 1,000 of the chemicals identified as substances of concern can be harmful even in small doses. “If something is a carcinogen, it is agreed upon in the scientific community that there is no safe level of exposure,” This zero-tolerance reasoning is how we end up with "Known to The State Of California to Cause Cancer" labels so widespread that they've become meaningless. With all of the news articles about cancer-causing chemicals, the general public tends to believe that somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2 of all cancers come from exposure to toxic chemicals. Meanwhile, the WHO puts the estimate closer to 1 in 50 at most (Source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520474/#:~:text=General%20estimates%20from%20a%20recent,environment%20around%201.5%E2%80%932%25 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520474/#:~:tex.... ). The number is higher for occupational exposure, which IMO is where we need to do the most work. People using plastic containers at home doesn't even register on this scale. I think we'd have more success reducing that number if we could focus on leveling reasonable objections to particularly bad cancer-causing chemicals that are present in higher quantities, rather than making unreasonable assertions that all chemicals that might potential cause cancer are unacceptable in any quantity anywhere.
- IntrepidWorm 5y ago
  Since the cats are all out of their bags, let's focus our attentions on the hunting party of lioness' rampaging through the orphanage before worrying about the fat tabby sunning on my porch.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Currently, there is no regulatory oversight for new chemicals in consumer plastic products, afaik. If someone develops a new plastic additive, do they have to do any health testing with it before using it in commercial products? Do they have to do any analysis of the final product to see how that additive may have reacted with the other ingredients during manufacturing to make further novel chemicals? We could take the approach where it's illegal to sell plastics where the final manufactured product is not analyzed for constituents and rejected if novel untested constituents are found. This would certainly make plastic products more expensive, and take longer to bring new plastics to market, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing.
- xg15 5y ago
  Would you use the same approach for food additives? "Any manufacturer can put anything they want into their food, but if some substance turns out to be one of the top causes of food poisoning or addiction and this can be proven without doubt and the manufacturer chooses to disclose all the necessary information, then we can think about introducing regulation for that substance..."

36 points by sizzle 5y ago

> Helene Wiesinger, lead author of the study and a doctoral student at ETH Zurich, says that at least 1,000 of the chemicals identified as substances of concern can be harmful even in small doses. “If something is a carcinogen, it is agreed upon in the scientific community that there is no safe level of exposure,” This zero-tolerance reasoning is how we end up with "Known to The State Of California to Cause Cancer" labels so widespread that they've become meaningless. With all of the news articles about cancer-causing chemicals, the general public tends to believe that somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2 of all cancers come from exposure to toxic chemicals. Meanwhile, the WHO puts the estimate closer to 1 in 50 at most (Source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520474/#:~:text=General%20estimates%20from%20a%20recent,environment%20around%201.5%E2%80%932%25 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520474/#:~:tex.... ). The number is higher for occupational exposure, which IMO is where we need to do the most work. People using plastic containers at home doesn't even register on this scale. I think we'd have more success reducing that number if we could focus on leveling reasonable objections to particularly bad cancer-causing chemicals that are present in higher quantities, rather than making unreasonable assertions that all chemicals that might potential cause cancer are unacceptable in any quantity anywhere.

IntrepidWorm 5y ago
Since the cats are all out of their bags, let's focus our attentions on the hunting party of lioness' rampaging through the orphanage before worrying about the fat tabby sunning on my porch.
cwkoss 5y ago
Currently, there is no regulatory oversight for new chemicals in consumer plastic products, afaik. If someone develops a new plastic additive, do they have to do any health testing with it before using it in commercial products? Do they have to do any analysis of the final product to see how that additive may have reacted with the other ingredients during manufacturing to make further novel chemicals? We could take the approach where it's illegal to sell plastics where the final manufactured product is not analyzed for constituents and rejected if novel untested constituents are found. This would certainly make plastic products more expensive, and take longer to bring new plastics to market, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing.
xg15 5y ago
Would you use the same approach for food additives? "Any manufacturer can put anything they want into their food, but if some substance turns out to be one of the top causes of food poisoning or addiction and this can be proven without doubt and the manufacturer chooses to disclose all the necessary information, then we can think about introducing regulation for that substance..."