4 ms·

So don’t try and minimize it altogether because you’re getting some elsewhere? This isn’t good logic.

by jjallen 3y ago

gotoeleven 3y ago
It's important that the titanic's deck chairs be nicely arranged.
olalonde 3y ago
When the risk is small enough, it seems rational to ignore it.
- haswell 3y ago
  The more we learn, the less reasonable it seems to dismiss the risk as small enough to ignore.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    in many cases it's the opposite: the more we've learned, the more we recognize that the body is able to tolerate small doses of many things in a way where the effects at larger doses don't scale down (IE, the linear no-threshold model is probably wrong in many cases, beyond radiation)
    - haswell 3y ago
      I'm not making claims about a specific harmful threshold, just pointing to the rationality of concern given the ubiquity of plastic and our increasing understanding of its harm. Unless you're saying we understand the specific threshold for plastic and the risk of reaching that threshold can be reasonably extrapolated from typical levels of exposure, I think we're getting at different points.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    When the risk is significant but there's no viable solution, it's also reasonable to ignore it. There's no way to fix the microplastic problem at the individual level so the best thing to do is to ignore it. Actively avoiding plastics will only cause hardships without any significant results in exposure.
- wkearney99 3y ago
  Emphasis on /seems/. It all adds up, small or not.
coldtea 3y ago
If minimizing it wont make any real dent, it's a sound logic. You know, if it just ends up as wasted, feel-good busy-work.
- haswell 3y ago
  I don't think this is the right way to frame this. To me, this is a problem that needs broad solutions and some of those solutions are available immediately and some require broader changes, i.e. there are some things I can control and some things I can't. Living your life in a way that is conscious of these risks and minimizes them when possible makes the avoidance of plastic an ongoing concern, and increases awareness of the issue in public consciousness. I don't see how broader changes are possible without growing awareness, and often the best place to start is in one's own life. If you were to examine the decision in a vacuum and discard all downstream effects, I think it's rational not to invest effort if it won't make a difference. But I think this overly constrains the possible effects of making the changes that we can, and underestimates the value of instilling ideas in public consciousness.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
Sure, minimise if you want. But yes, my intuition says that whatever you might eliminate by not storing food in plastic and other types of avoidance is just gonna be a tiny drop in the constant dose of plastic you're getting from everything you ingest.
riskable 3y ago
Eating food out of a plastic container isn't going to increase your microplastics intake (by enough to matter). Those kinds of plastics are too stable to be a problem in that regards. Even if you left your food in them in the fridge for days. The microplastics problem is a pollution problem. When you're done with any given plastic thing you throw it out. Some tiny percentage gets recycled, sure but for the most part nearly all plastics get trashed. The trashed plastic breaks down into microplastics slowly over time and those microplastics are very mobile and easily wash or blow away if they're exposed to sun. This means they end up in rivers, lakes, streams, and large bodies of water (e.g. the ocean). From there they diffuse and get inadvertently eaten by sea creatures which are then eaten by larger sea creatures and ultimately end up concentrating inside the larger species that we eat. It's not just the fish though; it ends up in our water supplies which are used to wash our other foods and ourselves. Basically, microplastics are currently so pervasive in our water supplies that every product made for human consumption that exists has microplastics in it. The solution isn't to do away with plastics entirely it's to use different kinds of plastics that don't become long-lived microplastics. For example, polylactic acid (PLA). It's not suitable for all purposes but it's perfectly fine for something like a frozen food container or even the thin plastic film that seals it up. The only reason we're not using such plastics (in the places where they can be used) is they're not as cheap as the bad stuff. We need regulations that require single-use products use plastics that don't break down into long-lived microplastics.

So don’t try and minimize it altogether because you’re getting some elsewhere? This isn’t good logic.

gotoeleven 3y ago

It's important that the titanic's deck chairs be nicely arranged.

olalonde 3y ago

When the risk is small enough, it seems rational to ignore it.

haswell 3y ago
The more we learn, the less reasonable it seems to dismiss the risk as small enough to ignore.
- dekhn 3y ago
  in many cases it's the opposite: the more we've learned, the more we recognize that the body is able to tolerate small doses of many things in a way where the effects at larger doses don't scale down (IE, the linear no-threshold model is probably wrong in many cases, beyond radiation)
  - haswell 3y ago
    I'm not making claims about a specific harmful threshold, just pointing to the rationality of concern given the ubiquity of plastic and our increasing understanding of its harm. Unless you're saying we understand the specific threshold for plastic and the risk of reaching that threshold can be reasonably extrapolated from typical levels of exposure, I think we're getting at different points.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  When the risk is significant but there's no viable solution, it's also reasonable to ignore it. There's no way to fix the microplastic problem at the individual level so the best thing to do is to ignore it. Actively avoiding plastics will only cause hardships without any significant results in exposure.
wkearney99 3y ago
Emphasis on /seems/. It all adds up, small or not.

coldtea 3y ago

If minimizing it wont make any real dent, it's a sound logic. You know, if it just ends up as wasted, feel-good busy-work.

haswell 3y ago
I don't think this is the right way to frame this. To me, this is a problem that needs broad solutions and some of those solutions are available immediately and some require broader changes, i.e. there are some things I can control and some things I can't. Living your life in a way that is conscious of these risks and minimizes them when possible makes the avoidance of plastic an ongoing concern, and increases awareness of the issue in public consciousness. I don't see how broader changes are possible without growing awareness, and often the best place to start is in one's own life. If you were to examine the decision in a vacuum and discard all downstream effects, I think it's rational not to invest effort if it won't make a difference. But I think this overly constrains the possible effects of making the changes that we can, and underestimates the value of instilling ideas in public consciousness.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago

Sure, minimise if you want. But yes, my intuition says that whatever you might eliminate by not storing food in plastic and other types of avoidance is just gonna be a tiny drop in the constant dose of plastic you're getting from everything you ingest.

riskable 3y ago

Eating food out of a plastic container isn't going to increase your microplastics intake (by enough to matter). Those kinds of plastics are too stable to be a problem in that regards. Even if you left your food in them in the fridge for days. The microplastics problem is a pollution problem. When you're done with any given plastic thing you throw it out. Some tiny percentage gets recycled, sure but for the most part nearly all plastics get trashed. The trashed plastic breaks down into microplastics slowly over time and those microplastics are very mobile and easily wash or blow away if they're exposed to sun. This means they end up in rivers, lakes, streams, and large bodies of water (e.g. the ocean). From there they diffuse and get inadvertently eaten by sea creatures which are then eaten by larger sea creatures and ultimately end up concentrating inside the larger species that we eat. It's not just the fish though; it ends up in our water supplies which are used to wash our other foods and ourselves. Basically, microplastics are currently so pervasive in our water supplies that every product made for human consumption that exists has microplastics in it. The solution isn't to do away with plastics entirely it's to use different kinds of plastics that don't become long-lived microplastics. For example, polylactic acid (PLA). It's not suitable for all purposes but it's perfectly fine for something like a frozen food container or even the thin plastic film that seals it up. The only reason we're not using such plastics (in the places where they can be used) is they're not as cheap as the bad stuff. We need regulations that require single-use products use plastics that don't break down into long-lived microplastics.