4 ms·

Is there any real evidence that consuming these is a problem though? Last I checked the evidence was shaky that this is even problematic for humans and read li

by arsome 3y ago

Is there any real evidence that consuming these is a problem though? Last I checked the evidence was shaky that this is even problematic for humans and read like a who's who of sketchy medical claims, up there with seed oils killing your testosterone.

grugagag 3y ago
Why risk it when you could use a different container when microwaving? Convenience has a cost
- balder1991 3y ago
  It’s not just about the containers if you look at the big picture. Micro plastic is everywhere nowadays and if you set yourself to avoid it you’ll have a hard time. Even opening a plastic bottle releases micro plastic in the environment and now all supermarket food comes in plastic. Also the accumulated plastic seems to be reaching us already from the food chain, with marine food being full of micro plastic which goes to our bodies. But maybe it’s worth avoiding it at all cost? That’s the big question.
  - grugagag 3y ago
    Maybe at least avoid direct exposure when you can?
AlecSchueler 3y ago
I guess we'll all find out in 30 years from now.
tenpies 3y ago
The really annoying thing is that when you bring up the generational decline of testosterone in men no one really cares. Then RFK Jr brings it up - quite validly - and now you have the entire Democrat-pharma industrial complex lumping it under "far-right conspiracy theory, probably funded by Russia and MAGA white supremacists who hate women and Muslims". The irony is that it's a problem that is clearly already having consequences already. It's quite likely it's behind some of the current issues both at the fringes (rapid onset gender dysphoria) and broadly in politics (see the correlation between male testosterone levels and voting patterns). It potentially wipes out humanity way before anything with climate change, but since it affects men, the West just doesn't care.
- verall 3y ago
  > It's quite likely it's behind some of the current issues both at the fringes (rapid onset gender dysphoria) and broadly in politics (see the correlation between male testosterone levels and voting patterns). Can you expand on this? Are you attributing political movement to the left in young men to lower testosterone levels?
  - bavell 3y ago
    It would surprise me if it wasn't a factor. Probably not quite as clear-cut as "less T => more left" but I do view the left as more "nurturing" than the right. Not gonna die on this hill though, humans are complicated :)
    - guntars 3y ago
      If we are speculating, perhaps the extra testosterone is what makes the men on the right attracted to the strong-man daddy figures?
      - bavell 3y ago
        I think strength naturally begets respect in men, has nothing to do with T levels.
- justjoined2 3y ago
  If you're going to assert statements that wild you should provide valid sources for them, otherwise it should be fairly easy to dismiss them as paranoid and baseless conspiracy theories. Your own ideology should not inform how you interpret objective facts, although I know this is often difficult to achieve for people on the far-right end of the political spectrum.
- grondin 3y ago
  There's also a correlation between increasing levels of obesity and decreasing levels of testosterone. And a likely explanation, in that fat cells metabolize testosterone to oestrogen, plus, obesity is linked to lower levels of SHBG which binds to and carries testosterone in the blood. So it's probably that too. Also from what I've read, I think ROGD mostly affects young women and girls? It's not so much a male phenomenon. I don't think any of the research so far has linked it to plastics consumption, seems more to be a socially contagious, culture-bound syndrome, like anorexia is.
graeme 3y ago
Reproductive issues are real. Sperm counts have fallen massively, and the lead researcher thinks EDCs are to blame. She only drinks filtered water. https://www.ft.com/content/f14ab282-1dd3-46bf-be02-a59aff3a90ed https://www.ft.com/content/f14ab282-1dd3-46bf-be02-a59aff3a9...
- sprucevoid 3y ago
  There is no evidence in the linked text that possible "reproductive issues" from sperm count reduction would be something overall bad. One possibility is that the total number of humans born will decrease somewhat and that global population will be somewhat lower compared to an alternative scenario with less microplastics. Every human has needs that require energy and resources so a scenario with lower global population might be better in terms of making sure all born humans get what they need.
  - graeme 3y ago
    I imagine the individuals affected might care. It’s also unlikely a destructive buologically change will only affect a single system. And unlikely that this same cause would spare animals while only affecting humans. We do want animals to reproduce too…..
    - sprucevoid 3y ago
      True, possible, possible, depends. But on the other hand current levels of global resource and energy use have harmful effects on existing humans and animals. For example climate change increases the frequency and intensity of wildfires that kill billions of animals. Increasing the human population by billions more, which is the path we're on unless some factor or other decreases population growth, likely increases such effects. That matters if we want to investigate if the consequences of microplastics are overall bad or good.
  - bavell 3y ago
    > might be better in terms of making sure all born humans get what they need. Might be. Or might not be. Who knows? Let's leave it up to random chance and see what happens! No point in trying to understand this phenomenon right?

by arsome 3y ago

grugagag 3y ago

Why risk it when you could use a different container when microwaving? Convenience has a cost

balder1991 3y ago
It’s not just about the containers if you look at the big picture. Micro plastic is everywhere nowadays and if you set yourself to avoid it you’ll have a hard time. Even opening a plastic bottle releases micro plastic in the environment and now all supermarket food comes in plastic. Also the accumulated plastic seems to be reaching us already from the food chain, with marine food being full of micro plastic which goes to our bodies. But maybe it’s worth avoiding it at all cost? That’s the big question.
- grugagag 3y ago
  Maybe at least avoid direct exposure when you can?

AlecSchueler 3y ago

I guess we'll all find out in 30 years from now.

tenpies 3y ago

The really annoying thing is that when you bring up the generational decline of testosterone in men no one really cares. Then RFK Jr brings it up - quite validly - and now you have the entire Democrat-pharma industrial complex lumping it under "far-right conspiracy theory, probably funded by Russia and MAGA white supremacists who hate women and Muslims". The irony is that it's a problem that is clearly already having consequences already. It's quite likely it's behind some of the current issues both at the fringes (rapid onset gender dysphoria) and broadly in politics (see the correlation between male testosterone levels and voting patterns). It potentially wipes out humanity way before anything with climate change, but since it affects men, the West just doesn't care.

verall 3y ago
> It's quite likely it's behind some of the current issues both at the fringes (rapid onset gender dysphoria) and broadly in politics (see the correlation between male testosterone levels and voting patterns). Can you expand on this? Are you attributing political movement to the left in young men to lower testosterone levels?
- bavell 3y ago
  It would surprise me if it wasn't a factor. Probably not quite as clear-cut as "less T => more left" but I do view the left as more "nurturing" than the right. Not gonna die on this hill though, humans are complicated :)
  - guntars 3y ago
    If we are speculating, perhaps the extra testosterone is what makes the men on the right attracted to the strong-man daddy figures?
    - bavell 3y ago
      I think strength naturally begets respect in men, has nothing to do with T levels.
justjoined2 3y ago
If you're going to assert statements that wild you should provide valid sources for them, otherwise it should be fairly easy to dismiss them as paranoid and baseless conspiracy theories. Your own ideology should not inform how you interpret objective facts, although I know this is often difficult to achieve for people on the far-right end of the political spectrum.
grondin 3y ago
There's also a correlation between increasing levels of obesity and decreasing levels of testosterone. And a likely explanation, in that fat cells metabolize testosterone to oestrogen, plus, obesity is linked to lower levels of SHBG which binds to and carries testosterone in the blood. So it's probably that too. Also from what I've read, I think ROGD mostly affects young women and girls? It's not so much a male phenomenon. I don't think any of the research so far has linked it to plastics consumption, seems more to be a socially contagious, culture-bound syndrome, like anorexia is.

graeme 3y ago

Reproductive issues are real. Sperm counts have fallen massively, and the lead researcher thinks EDCs are to blame. She only drinks filtered water. https://www.ft.com/content/f14ab282-1dd3-46bf-be02-a59aff3a90ed https://www.ft.com/content/f14ab282-1dd3-46bf-be02-a59aff3a9...

sprucevoid 3y ago
There is no evidence in the linked text that possible "reproductive issues" from sperm count reduction would be something overall bad. One possibility is that the total number of humans born will decrease somewhat and that global population will be somewhat lower compared to an alternative scenario with less microplastics. Every human has needs that require energy and resources so a scenario with lower global population might be better in terms of making sure all born humans get what they need.
- graeme 3y ago
  I imagine the individuals affected might care. It’s also unlikely a destructive buologically change will only affect a single system. And unlikely that this same cause would spare animals while only affecting humans. We do want animals to reproduce too…..
  - sprucevoid 3y ago
    True, possible, possible, depends. But on the other hand current levels of global resource and energy use have harmful effects on existing humans and animals. For example climate change increases the frequency and intensity of wildfires that kill billions of animals. Increasing the human population by billions more, which is the path we're on unless some factor or other decreases population growth, likely increases such effects. That matters if we want to investigate if the consequences of microplastics are overall bad or good.
- bavell 3y ago
  > might be better in terms of making sure all born humans get what they need. Might be. Or might not be. Who knows? Let's leave it up to random chance and see what happens! No point in trying to understand this phenomenon right?