4 ms·
Cool, so what concentration of microplastics would you accept in your food? Your drinking water? Your mother's breast milk (yes, microplastics are present there
by tadfisher 3y ago
Cool, so what concentration of microplastics would you accept in your food? Your drinking water? Your mother's breast milk (yes, microplastics are present there)?
- yieldcrv 3y agobelow the dangerous amount which concentration is that?
- flangola7 3y agoNot all substances have a threshold level.
- renewiltord 3y agoOne molecule will irreparably damage you?
- markdown 3y agoIn the right spot, yes.
- renewiltord 3y agoWhat does it do?
- ars 3y agoReally? What spot would that be? I challenge you to come up with a spot where a single molecule will irreparably damage a human.
- markdown 3y agoThis is a fun game. Do I get to place it anywhere?
- saberience 3y agoSingle molecules of plastic getting involved in the process of rna transcription in cells resulting in genetic mutations or cancers.
- BitsOfBeard 3y agoThat's the spot!
- renewiltord 3y agoWould a single molecule causing a single cancerous cell be sufficient to trigger a cancer? EDIT: Should have searched. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/what-is-cancer/how-cancer-starts https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/what-is-cancer... It checks out that a single unchecked self-reproducing cell could rapidly create a lot of them. I just thought there'd be control mechanisms to cause other cells to attack them. But it is realistic apparently! Welp!
- userbinator 3y agoOf course there are control mechanisms. The question is whether plastics are more or less carcinogenic than everything else we deliberately consume. All signs so far suggest less, far less.
- renewiltord 3y agoSure, sure. I was only interested in the no-minimum-threshold model and what were the causative things there. As always, I should have asked ChatGPT since it had a pretty good explanation.
- mongol 3y agoThe spot were it mutates a gene leading to cancer.
- yieldcrv 3y agoquantify it
- userbinator 3y agoIt doesn't matter as long as they're actually "micro"? May I remind you of the toxological properties of e.g. polyethylene, the world's most widely-used plastic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17365139/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17365139/
- manmal 3y agoThis applies to pure PET, but not chlorinated/fluorinated PET, which have been shown to contain PFAS.
- ars 3y agoI googled and fluorinated PET does not seem to exist. In fact one source said it's not even possible to do that. And just adding fluorine to something does NOT make it a PFAS! PFAS is a very specific chemical, not everything with chlorine or fluorine is a PFAS.
- manmal 3y agoSorry I meant polyethylene, without the terephtalate. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230307114431.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230307114431.h...
- ars 3y agoAccording to the FDA such containers are not permitted for food use, only for chemical storage, such as pesticides. Additionally they are very very rare (only used where the chemical can't be contained in simpler plastics), and are not really where your attention should be on the hazards of plastics.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hnhg 3y agoThe amounts of microplastics are ever-increasing and there could be a serious threat from their degradation into nanoplastics: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/nanoplastics https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/nanoplastics
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- boredhedgehog 3y ago> so what concentration of microplastics would you accept in your food? As a rule of thumb, a tenth of empirically demonstrable toxicity. That's a good basis for thresholds, both legal and medicinal.