2 ms·

But it's not just about emissions. Throw glass in a hedge, and it's pretty inert: a shiny rock. Throw plastic in a hedge, and it'll drift and get stuck around s

But it's not just about emissions. Throw glass in a hedge, and it's pretty inert: a shiny rock. Throw plastic in a hedge, and it'll drift and get stuck around something, or get eaten by something that really shouldn't be eating it, or break up into tiny pieces and poison the entire food chain… likely all three, and more.

formerly_proven 5y ago
The biggest issue with plastic stuff in the wild is that things get stuck in it, especially marine wildlife, and birds and some other animals getting digestive problems when tearing it apart and eating it. On the flip side, most plastic packaging (mainly PE and PP) is non-toxic and biology doesn't really interact with it at all, even if you reduce it to microplastics. Yeah, that stuff is pretty much everywhere - but it's not really doing anything.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > On the flip side, most plastic packaging (mainly PE and PP) is non-toxic and biology doesn't really interact with it at all, even if you reduce it to microplastics. Yeah, that stuff is pretty much everywhere - but it's not really doing anything. We're just starting to understand the harms plastics are causing to our health as we increasingly find plastics in places like our blood, our stool, and in our unborn children. There are already plenty of concerns about plastics resulting in hazardous exposure to endocrine disruptors. It's pervasive across the food chain as well. The idea that "it's not really doing anything" requires a dismal of all the harms we know about already and a remarkable level of optimism about what we will or wont find out in the future. for more info see: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/22/microplastics-revealed-in-placentas-unborn-babies https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/22/micropla... https://web.uri.edu/gemsnet/files/article_gemsnet.pdf https://web.uri.edu/gemsnet/files/article_gemsnet.pdf https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2020/plastics-pose-threat-to-human-health https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2020/p...
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    No. Like I said, PE and PP - which are the vast majority of plastic packaging, especially for foods, because the materials you are referring to are not food-safe in the first place - are biologically inert. In fact, the monomers of PE and PP (ethylene and propene) are also not toxic, which is uncommon (compare with e.g. PVC: vinylchloride is toxic in all sorts of ways, polystyrol: styrene is also toxic in a few ways and damages DNA, teflon: it's monomer is also a carcinogen). This is important, because making plastics generally leaves precursors in the finished product: the more the worse the process control is, which costs money and requires know-how. See e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23862761/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23862761/ for a study looking at whether these are EDC; they're not: "There were no significant differences between test and control groups in vagina or uterine weight. Data suggest that effluents from plastic food containers do not appear to produce significant adverse effects according to Hershberger and uterotrophic assays." The single most problematic plastic for health purposes is PVC. PVC in its chemically pure form (difficult to do) isn't bad, either. But pure PVC is a hard, brittle plastic, which is not that useful. So most PVC products consist of a large portion of plasticizer; some products (e.g. cables and other types of very soft PVC) are actually more plasticizer than PVC both by weight and volume. Both PVC and toxic paints are a popular choice for all kinds of toys.
    - autoexec 5y ago
      It's true that not all plastics are EDC, but that doesn't mean that accumulation of those non-toxic plastics in our bodies is harmless either. There is very little research on this at this time, but studies done in animals (mostly sea critters) suggest that plastics accumulating in their bodies could lead to problems such as metabolic disorders, reduced feeding, energy deficiency, infertility, immune responses and inflammation, oxidative stress, etc. "It is not always necessarily the chemistry that harms us. Sometimes it's the shape and the presence of foreign particles in our bodies," (https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-autopsies-microplastics-major-human.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-autopsies-microplasti...) It's too soon to say what health impacts these plastics in our own bodies are having which makes it far far too early to have any confidence that there are none.
Tagbert 5y ago
You've obviously never stepped on broken glass from a bottle carelessly tossed away.

formerly_proven 5y ago

The biggest issue with plastic stuff in the wild is that things get stuck in it, especially marine wildlife, and birds and some other animals getting digestive problems when tearing it apart and eating it. On the flip side, most plastic packaging (mainly PE and PP) is non-toxic and biology doesn't really interact with it at all, even if you reduce it to microplastics. Yeah, that stuff is pretty much everywhere - but it's not really doing anything.

autoexec 5y ago
> On the flip side, most plastic packaging (mainly PE and PP) is non-toxic and biology doesn't really interact with it at all, even if you reduce it to microplastics. Yeah, that stuff is pretty much everywhere - but it's not really doing anything. We're just starting to understand the harms plastics are causing to our health as we increasingly find plastics in places like our blood, our stool, and in our unborn children. There are already plenty of concerns about plastics resulting in hazardous exposure to endocrine disruptors. It's pervasive across the food chain as well. The idea that "it's not really doing anything" requires a dismal of all the harms we know about already and a remarkable level of optimism about what we will or wont find out in the future. for more info see: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/22/microplastics-revealed-in-placentas-unborn-babies https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/22/micropla... https://web.uri.edu/gemsnet/files/article_gemsnet.pdf https://web.uri.edu/gemsnet/files/article_gemsnet.pdf https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2020/plastics-pose-threat-to-human-health https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2020/p...
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  No. Like I said, PE and PP - which are the vast majority of plastic packaging, especially for foods, because the materials you are referring to are not food-safe in the first place - are biologically inert. In fact, the monomers of PE and PP (ethylene and propene) are also not toxic, which is uncommon (compare with e.g. PVC: vinylchloride is toxic in all sorts of ways, polystyrol: styrene is also toxic in a few ways and damages DNA, teflon: it's monomer is also a carcinogen). This is important, because making plastics generally leaves precursors in the finished product: the more the worse the process control is, which costs money and requires know-how. See e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23862761/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23862761/ for a study looking at whether these are EDC; they're not: "There were no significant differences between test and control groups in vagina or uterine weight. Data suggest that effluents from plastic food containers do not appear to produce significant adverse effects according to Hershberger and uterotrophic assays." The single most problematic plastic for health purposes is PVC. PVC in its chemically pure form (difficult to do) isn't bad, either. But pure PVC is a hard, brittle plastic, which is not that useful. So most PVC products consist of a large portion of plasticizer; some products (e.g. cables and other types of very soft PVC) are actually more plasticizer than PVC both by weight and volume. Both PVC and toxic paints are a popular choice for all kinds of toys.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    It's true that not all plastics are EDC, but that doesn't mean that accumulation of those non-toxic plastics in our bodies is harmless either. There is very little research on this at this time, but studies done in animals (mostly sea critters) suggest that plastics accumulating in their bodies could lead to problems such as metabolic disorders, reduced feeding, energy deficiency, infertility, immune responses and inflammation, oxidative stress, etc. "It is not always necessarily the chemistry that harms us. Sometimes it's the shape and the presence of foreign particles in our bodies," (https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-autopsies-microplastics-major-human.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-autopsies-microplasti...) It's too soon to say what health impacts these plastics in our own bodies are having which makes it far far too early to have any confidence that there are none.

Tagbert 5y ago

You've obviously never stepped on broken glass from a bottle carelessly tossed away.