4 ms·

I don’t need to wait for the science to know that having plastic in our body and blood is bad for our health. The limited science we do have unsurprisingly ind

I don’t need to wait for the science to know that having plastic in our body and blood is bad for our health. The limited science we do have unsurprisingly indicates that it is. It’s weird to me that a lot of HNers, like I see with western doctors, believe that until something is conclusively proven in peer reviewed research it should be treated as if it doesn’t exist at all. IMHO that’s irrational and robotic, there are such things as safe assumptions and educated guesses.

SoftTalker 4y ago
I think we do need science. We just went through three years of divisive public debate about science vs. "knowing" what is good or bad for our health. Plastic is pretty chemically inert. We've been using it widely for decades to great benefit and there is no strong evidence that it's harmful. I would not be surprised to find that in the body it's basically benign. Or maybe not, but I don't see how you can "know" either way, without scientific research.
- dieselgate 4y ago
  I don’t disagree with you but Research cannot even directly conclude whether drinking any amount of alcohol is good or bad for human health - such is the case for any study which tries to link Behavior with Health Outcome.
  - ddol 4y ago
    > No studies have shown that the potential existence of a protective effect for cardiovascular diseases or type 2 diabetes also reduces the risk of cancer for an individual consumer. Evidence does not indicate the existence of a particular threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol start to manifest in the human body. As such, no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00317-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
    - dieselgate 4y ago
      Indeed but it's complicated. I only mean to suggest one article/publication isn't enough to support or prove a point definitively - rather than get caught in the weeds about "if alcohol really does/n't effect health". Researching health outcomes is very complicated and nuanced but we should certainly continue to do it. > These findings seemingly contradict a previous GBD estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasised that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01288-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        One study isn't enough for anything in any field but we have a lot more evidence than that that alcohol consumption causes cancer
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- pohl 4y ago
  > I think we do need science. I don’t understand how one could read user3939382’s comment and conclude that the expressed position is that we don’t need science. That’s not at all what they said. Rather, they were advocating for the application of the Precautionary Principle while waiting for science.
  - flarg 4y ago
    The precautionary principle seems like it's often misapplied and dumb and never really applied properly. We shouldn't discard a wonder material for lack of science.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      what makes you personally believe it seems like that?
- MagicMoonlight 4y ago
  We've been using it widely for decades and in that time fertility has dropped to the point that almost all humans will be infertile within 20 years. And that's without going into all the other stuff like the mental illnesses. You're very much fighting the "healthy lead" fight
  - bennettnate5 4y ago
    Seems like you're conflating (in)fertility levels with fertility rate. Fertility rate has been dropping steadily, particularly in developed countries; however, this doesn't mean individuals are slowly all becoming infertile. In fact, studies have shown infertility rates have plateaued in recent decades, at least among women [1]. Fertility rates are dropping for different reasons--fewer individuals choosing to enter into long-term relationships and have kids, and families choosing to have fewer children on average than previous generations. [1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/us-infertility-rate-plateaus https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/...
  - travisporter 4y ago
    Find the most fertile region right now and I can assure you cheap plastics are abundant
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Inertness doesn't matter a whole lot when it comes to biological systems. There might not be any reactions where electrons are moving around but what really matters are the noncovalent intermolecular interactions when they get near proteins. Things that don't react can still act as ligands
chmod600 4y ago
It's about the burden of proof. If you try to place the burdenof proof on anything that changes the status quo, it causes two problems: 1. You can't prove a negative. 2. What constitutes a change from the status quo? The status quo is a vague concept in a dynamic world. So you have to use some judgement. Plastic is really, really safe in small amounts. Same with CO2 emissions. It's only in huge quantities that they are a problem.
- brookst 4y ago
  > It's only in huge quantities that they are a problem. This is the critical thing. People are really really bad at nuances like “harmless in small quantities, harmful in large”. People tend to want to argue whether X is good or bad in a totally contextless abstract, like sports fans taking fandom too far. HN doesn’t seem better than reddit or fox news in this respect. It seems to be fundamental to human nature. And yes, I know I do it as well. Such a frustrating bug in human cognition.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
We don't really know that it's bad or just another thing our body can handle but I don't think we should conduct an experiment on such a grand scale without the slightest idea what it's effect will be on the human species. I definitely only drink filtered everything these days, but I knwo nothing will get it all (it's in food, the air, dust, etc etc.

SoftTalker 4y ago

I think we do need science. We just went through three years of divisive public debate about science vs. "knowing" what is good or bad for our health. Plastic is pretty chemically inert. We've been using it widely for decades to great benefit and there is no strong evidence that it's harmful. I would not be surprised to find that in the body it's basically benign. Or maybe not, but I don't see how you can "know" either way, without scientific research.

dieselgate 4y ago
I don’t disagree with you but Research cannot even directly conclude whether drinking any amount of alcohol is good or bad for human health - such is the case for any study which tries to link Behavior with Health Outcome.
- ddol 4y ago
  > No studies have shown that the potential existence of a protective effect for cardiovascular diseases or type 2 diabetes also reduces the risk of cancer for an individual consumer. Evidence does not indicate the existence of a particular threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol start to manifest in the human body. As such, no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00317-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
  - dieselgate 4y ago
    Indeed but it's complicated. I only mean to suggest one article/publication isn't enough to support or prove a point definitively - rather than get caught in the weeds about "if alcohol really does/n't effect health". Researching health outcomes is very complicated and nuanced but we should certainly continue to do it. > These findings seemingly contradict a previous GBD estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasised that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01288-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      One study isn't enough for anything in any field but we have a lot more evidence than that that alcohol consumption causes cancer
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
pohl 4y ago
> I think we do need science. I don’t understand how one could read user3939382’s comment and conclude that the expressed position is that we don’t need science. That’s not at all what they said. Rather, they were advocating for the application of the Precautionary Principle while waiting for science.
- flarg 4y ago
  The precautionary principle seems like it's often misapplied and dumb and never really applied properly. We shouldn't discard a wonder material for lack of science.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    what makes you personally believe it seems like that?
MagicMoonlight 4y ago
We've been using it widely for decades and in that time fertility has dropped to the point that almost all humans will be infertile within 20 years. And that's without going into all the other stuff like the mental illnesses. You're very much fighting the "healthy lead" fight
- bennettnate5 4y ago
  Seems like you're conflating (in)fertility levels with fertility rate. Fertility rate has been dropping steadily, particularly in developed countries; however, this doesn't mean individuals are slowly all becoming infertile. In fact, studies have shown infertility rates have plateaued in recent decades, at least among women [1]. Fertility rates are dropping for different reasons--fewer individuals choosing to enter into long-term relationships and have kids, and families choosing to have fewer children on average than previous generations. [1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/us-infertility-rate-plateaus https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/...
- travisporter 4y ago
  Find the most fertile region right now and I can assure you cheap plastics are abundant
kevviiinn 4y ago
Inertness doesn't matter a whole lot when it comes to biological systems. There might not be any reactions where electrons are moving around but what really matters are the noncovalent intermolecular interactions when they get near proteins. Things that don't react can still act as ligands

chmod600 4y ago

It's about the burden of proof. If you try to place the burdenof proof on anything that changes the status quo, it causes two problems: 1. You can't prove a negative. 2. What constitutes a change from the status quo? The status quo is a vague concept in a dynamic world. So you have to use some judgement. Plastic is really, really safe in small amounts. Same with CO2 emissions. It's only in huge quantities that they are a problem.

brookst 4y ago
> It's only in huge quantities that they are a problem. This is the critical thing. People are really really bad at nuances like “harmless in small quantities, harmful in large”. People tend to want to argue whether X is good or bad in a totally contextless abstract, like sports fans taking fandom too far. HN doesn’t seem better than reddit or fox news in this respect. It seems to be fundamental to human nature. And yes, I know I do it as well. Such a frustrating bug in human cognition.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

We don't really know that it's bad or just another thing our body can handle but I don't think we should conduct an experiment on such a grand scale without the slightest idea what it's effect will be on the human species. I definitely only drink filtered everything these days, but I knwo nothing will get it all (it's in food, the air, dust, etc etc.