4 ms·

the article talks about how they compared cells in a very nano-plastic concentrated formula and a diluted one, and the concentrated one caused way more cell dea

by rieg3c 3y ago

the article talks about how they compared cells in a very nano-plastic concentrated formula and a diluted one, and the concentrated one caused way more cell deaths plus, it isn't just about cancer, microplastics are known to disrupt your hormones, so the danger is pretty clear why not just take it seriously instead of calling it "plastic alarmism"? we're polluting the entire world with these particles

_8j50 3y ago
Because I need evidence to believe stuff, not just claims. Everything causes cancer according to random scientists out to get published. There was even a front page post recently of a study about most foods having had a research claiming they cause cancer. Correlation is not causation. Be specific. Endocrine disruption claim is the only thing i see in that article not cellular harm. "These things are sneaky" is not good enough. It's like saying bananas are bad because they're radioactive. You can swim in the coolant water of a nuclear reactor and come out just fine. Plastics have been ubiqutous since around the time human life expectancy started skyrocketing. Where is the rise in mortality or cancer rates associated strictly with plastic microwaving people and how exactly is the harm caused? I do not have to accept lazy science or claims that have alarmism without specific evidence. This might be legit but it seems no one has learned from climate change, how making a lot of "trust me" claims has the opposite effect. Reasonable presumptions and speculations are not evidence. And if there is evidence, I would like to make this about FDA's incompetence not consumers' negligence.
- rieg3c 3y ago
  Look up Dr Shanna Swan work
Ferret7446 3y ago
That sounds disingenuous (the article as referenced). If you put cells in a very oxygen or salt concentrated formula it would also cause way more cell death, yet we would not label oxygen or salt as extremely dangerous. In fact, using that same experiment compared against oxygen, one can conclude that a slight amount of microplastics is necessary for health!

by rieg3c 3y ago

_8j50 3y ago

Because I need evidence to believe stuff, not just claims. Everything causes cancer according to random scientists out to get published. There was even a front page post recently of a study about most foods having had a research claiming they cause cancer. Correlation is not causation. Be specific. Endocrine disruption claim is the only thing i see in that article not cellular harm. "These things are sneaky" is not good enough. It's like saying bananas are bad because they're radioactive. You can swim in the coolant water of a nuclear reactor and come out just fine. Plastics have been ubiqutous since around the time human life expectancy started skyrocketing. Where is the rise in mortality or cancer rates associated strictly with plastic microwaving people and how exactly is the harm caused? I do not have to accept lazy science or claims that have alarmism without specific evidence. This might be legit but it seems no one has learned from climate change, how making a lot of "trust me" claims has the opposite effect. Reasonable presumptions and speculations are not evidence. And if there is evidence, I would like to make this about FDA's incompetence not consumers' negligence.

rieg3c 3y ago
Look up Dr Shanna Swan work

Ferret7446 3y ago

That sounds disingenuous (the article as referenced). If you put cells in a very oxygen or salt concentrated formula it would also cause way more cell death, yet we would not label oxygen or salt as extremely dangerous. In fact, using that same experiment compared against oxygen, one can conclude that a slight amount of microplastics is necessary for health!