6 ms·

Everything about micro/nano-plastic strikes me as another 'cell phones give you brain cancer' panic. There is no evidence that these things cause damage in mamm

Everything about micro/nano-plastic strikes me as another 'cell phones give you brain cancer' panic. There is no evidence that these things cause damage in mammals despite all the alarming research, and every headline leads to a 'more research is needed because this is scary' conclusion. Haven't we learned by now that if journalists are using scary headlines it is because they have nothing better to report, and if studies are concluded with 'we need to look into this more because data is scary' it means they didn't have anything better to conclude? Let's all calm down and wait for the other shoe to drop, if it does, and in the meantime communicate the message: 'these scares happen every decade, it is nothing new and we are still around, let's wait for some evidence before we panic'. And take this opportunity to say 'enough' to single use plastics when there are better options. It is absurd that we let it get this far. Let's go back to glass for liquids at least, and get rid of the 'wrap everything in a layer of plastic' tendencies that are completely unnecessary.

shortcake27 3y ago
> and get rid of the 'wrap everything in a layer of plastic' tendencies that are completely unnecessary. If only fruits and vegetables had robust, natural, bio-degradable packaging of their own. Some sort of peelable skin, perhaps.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "bio-degradable packaging" That is the thing: they rot. And if wrapped in plastic, they last longer ... so more fruit makes it to the markets. That being said, I strongly prefer fruits directly from trees that were not treated with 50+ different chemicals.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    less an issue if people eat locally and seasonally
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      But overwhelmingly they don't.
      - mandmandam 3y ago
        In our fucked-up society, yes. We eat sugar and corn, because that's whats subsidized and marketed. Food forests were very much a thing, for a very, very long time. Thousands of years.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        I think corn was eaten since thousands of years, too. And whether food forests were a big thing and not just common in some areas, is quite disputable.
        mandmandam 3y ago
        Do you want to compare the percentage of corn of people's diet between now and then? Do you want to compare the actual plant - size, nutrition profile? Do you want to compare the growing methods - monoculture pesticide gmo corn vs heirloom corn? Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people, that doesn't mean they didn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that we couldn't do the same thing but better if we made an effort to. It irks me when people use 'the way we do things now' to dismiss alternatives with great potential. What's the motivation there? Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?' It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people" Food forests being a BIG thing all around the world is something many people, myself dispute. So you make a claim against the common consensus, it is up to you to proof your point. "Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?'" And the logic is, now there are way more people to feed. And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others(usually cannot live off their huge land at all). You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food. And food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world.
  - quattrofan 3y ago
    [dead]
hammock 3y ago
>There is no evidence that these things cause damage in mammals despite all the alarming research There is no evidence despite all the research evidence? Or do you mean, there is more evidence that cell phones do not cause harm, than there is that they do cause harm?
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > There is no evidence despite all the research evidence? I am confused. Why are you talking about cell phones?
- shortcake27 3y ago
  There is no conclusive evidence. IE it has neither been proved in a lab nor observed in the population. Also, there is no known mechanism by which they could cause harm. I don’t know why the burden of proof is so difficult for people to understand. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it, not for others to disprove it.
scottLobster 3y ago
And the "scares" are often correct. See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc. You don't need a double blind study to look at smoking and say "inhaling smoke is probably bad for you". Likewise you can look at the evidence of microplastics being bad for human health and say "ingesting random synthetic chemicals that bio-accumulate and are hard to break down are probably bad for you". Obviously panic isn't helpful. But I've switched anything that has to touch hot food/liquid to some combination of glass/metal. I've also started buying milk in glass containers. All of this has had zero impact on my life beyond some upfront cost buying glass food storage containers and making milk more expensive. I'd recommend everyone else who can afford it do the same. Even in the 1950s when everyone smoked everywhere and you couldn't escape second hand smoke outside of the house, it was still a healthier choice to not smoke yourself.
- rajnathani 3y ago
  > Even in the 1950s when everyone smoked everywhere and you couldn't escape second hand smoke outside of the house, it was still a healthier choice to not smoke yourself. Side: Unfortunately in multi-family apartment buildings in tropical places like India where balconies are common, even escaping second hand smoke in your own home is difficult if you don’t keep your windows always closed to the neighbor below you.
- dennis_jeeves2 3y ago
  >See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc. Good observation, as a general rule any new substance must generally proven to be safe ( and there are reasonable ways to do it, without being overly cautious), it must not be a case of proving that something is harmful once in use.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > And the "scares" are often correct. See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc. Leaded gasoline: we knew that was bad and did it anyway because it was easy and cheap. Trans fats: was this ever a 'scare'? Various other food additives: which? I know of more that were demonized for no reason than additives that ended up being bad for people. I applaud your use of non-plastic and think more people should do it. I dislike our reliance on plastics and think the microplastic scare is useful. I just don't see any evidence and only see scare headlines and I think that rousing people's fears over something is generally a bad idea when we could do it rationally. > Likewise you can look at the evidence of microplastics being bad for human health and say "ingesting random synthetic chemicals that bio-accumulate and are hard to break down are probably bad for you". I'm not sure why it should be self-evident that inert, tiny things in your body would cause harm. It sounds bad, but there is no real reason why it would be.
userbinator 3y ago
Let's go back to glass for liquids at least Heavier, easily breakable, and far more expensive to process?
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  You forgot reusable.
  - userbinator 3y ago
    So are plastic and metal containers.

shortcake27 3y ago

> and get rid of the 'wrap everything in a layer of plastic' tendencies that are completely unnecessary. If only fruits and vegetables had robust, natural, bio-degradable packaging of their own. Some sort of peelable skin, perhaps.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"bio-degradable packaging" That is the thing: they rot. And if wrapped in plastic, they last longer ... so more fruit makes it to the markets. That being said, I strongly prefer fruits directly from trees that were not treated with 50+ different chemicals.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  less an issue if people eat locally and seasonally
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    But overwhelmingly they don't.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      In our fucked-up society, yes. We eat sugar and corn, because that's whats subsidized and marketed. Food forests were very much a thing, for a very, very long time. Thousands of years.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        I think corn was eaten since thousands of years, too. And whether food forests were a big thing and not just common in some areas, is quite disputable.
        mandmandam 3y ago
        Do you want to compare the percentage of corn of people's diet between now and then? Do you want to compare the actual plant - size, nutrition profile? Do you want to compare the growing methods - monoculture pesticide gmo corn vs heirloom corn? Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people, that doesn't mean they didn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that we couldn't do the same thing but better if we made an effort to. It irks me when people use 'the way we do things now' to dismiss alternatives with great potential. What's the motivation there? Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?' It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people" Food forests being a BIG thing all around the world is something many people, myself dispute. So you make a claim against the common consensus, it is up to you to proof your point. "Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?'" And the logic is, now there are way more people to feed. And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others(usually cannot live off their huge land at all). You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food. And food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world.
- quattrofan 3y ago
  [dead]

hammock 3y ago

>There is no evidence that these things cause damage in mammals despite all the alarming research There is no evidence despite all the research evidence? Or do you mean, there is more evidence that cell phones do not cause harm, than there is that they do cause harm?

Eisenstein 3y ago
> There is no evidence despite all the research evidence? I am confused. Why are you talking about cell phones?
shortcake27 3y ago
There is no conclusive evidence. IE it has neither been proved in a lab nor observed in the population. Also, there is no known mechanism by which they could cause harm. I don’t know why the burden of proof is so difficult for people to understand. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

scottLobster 3y ago

And the "scares" are often correct. See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc. You don't need a double blind study to look at smoking and say "inhaling smoke is probably bad for you". Likewise you can look at the evidence of microplastics being bad for human health and say "ingesting random synthetic chemicals that bio-accumulate and are hard to break down are probably bad for you". Obviously panic isn't helpful. But I've switched anything that has to touch hot food/liquid to some combination of glass/metal. I've also started buying milk in glass containers. All of this has had zero impact on my life beyond some upfront cost buying glass food storage containers and making milk more expensive. I'd recommend everyone else who can afford it do the same. Even in the 1950s when everyone smoked everywhere and you couldn't escape second hand smoke outside of the house, it was still a healthier choice to not smoke yourself.

rajnathani 3y ago
> Even in the 1950s when everyone smoked everywhere and you couldn't escape second hand smoke outside of the house, it was still a healthier choice to not smoke yourself. Side: Unfortunately in multi-family apartment buildings in tropical places like India where balconies are common, even escaping second hand smoke in your own home is difficult if you don’t keep your windows always closed to the neighbor below you.
dennis_jeeves2 3y ago
>See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc. Good observation, as a general rule any new substance must generally proven to be safe ( and there are reasonable ways to do it, without being overly cautious), it must not be a case of proving that something is harmful once in use.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Eisenstein 3y ago
> And the "scares" are often correct. See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc. Leaded gasoline: we knew that was bad and did it anyway because it was easy and cheap. Trans fats: was this ever a 'scare'? Various other food additives: which? I know of more that were demonized for no reason than additives that ended up being bad for people. I applaud your use of non-plastic and think more people should do it. I dislike our reliance on plastics and think the microplastic scare is useful. I just don't see any evidence and only see scare headlines and I think that rousing people's fears over something is generally a bad idea when we could do it rationally. > Likewise you can look at the evidence of microplastics being bad for human health and say "ingesting random synthetic chemicals that bio-accumulate and are hard to break down are probably bad for you". I'm not sure why it should be self-evident that inert, tiny things in your body would cause harm. It sounds bad, but there is no real reason why it would be.

userbinator 3y ago

Let's go back to glass for liquids at least Heavier, easily breakable, and far more expensive to process?

hutzlibu 3y ago
You forgot reusable.
- userbinator 3y ago
  So are plastic and metal containers.