31–40 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you strongly suspect this?
Well for one, bacteria already exists that eats plastic: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6278/1196 It's not too far fetched to assume this already-existent bacteria could continue to exist and possibly mutate into something more efficient or proliferate to encompass the entire ocean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's much more likely that the diabetes epidemic is linked to the insane levels of carb/sugar intake and obesity of so many adults.
We can keep running on the macronutrient treadmill, like we've been doing for 50 years, or we can find molecular evidence that jives with genetics. Check out this study, where they fed mice water, water+fructose, or water+fructose+BPA. At the end of the experiment, only the BPA containing solutions had elevated liver fat https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X1...
Yes, let's ignore 50+ years of established science that is parsimonious with everything we know about the molecular biology of insulin resistance, and dump it in favor of a fringe theory, based on a single paper about a mouse study, where there's not even a plausible explanatory mechanism.
Folks, stop downvoting simply because someone provides a link. The parent is spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense.
I strongly suspect that within about 50-100 years something will evolve that can digest all of this plastic. Which will probably cause us as a society to move back to glass and metal as storage components.
That's how bottlenecks work, but not evolution. No species is going to evolve in the next century which will be able to suddenly break down plastic and turn it into energy/nutrients.
The ones that do, mostly bacertium and fungi, were pre-disposed to doing so, and didn't suddenly X-men their way into consuming plastic.
As for organisms such as the Chinese mealworm that "eats" plastic bags, jury is still out about whether it's actually chemically converting the plastic or merely biting it into smaller bits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can keep running on the macronutrient treadmill, like we've been doing for 50 years, or we can find molecular evidence that jives with genetics. Check out this study, where they fed mice water, water+fructose, or water+fructose+BPA. At the end of the experiment, only the BPA containing solutions had elevated liver fat https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X1...
"We can keep running on the macronutrient treadmill, like we've been doing for 50 years, or we can find molecular evidence that jives with genetics." Yes, let's ignore 50+ years of established science that is parsimonious with everything we know about the molecular biology of insulin resistance, and dump it in favor of a fringe theory, based on a single paper about a mouse study, where there's not even a plausible ex…
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We can keep running on the macronutrient treadmill, like we've been doing for 50 years, or we can find molecular evidence that jives with genetics." Yes, let's ignore 50+ years of established science that is parsimonious with everything we know about the molecular biology of insulin resistance, and dump it in favor of a fringe theory, based on a single paper about a mouse study, where there's not even a plausible ex…
There are literally hundreds of papers on BPA and its links with diabetes. The only difference now is that we have the molecular culprit behind the trend. https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy...
There are literally not. The review you've linked to cites a handful of papers involving minor effects observed in mouse studies.
Moreover, the paper you originally cited proves nothing even approximating a mechanism. I'm not suggesting anything about the safety of BPA, but it's utter nonsense to claim that it is a more plausible explanation for the diabetes epidemic than sugar consumption.
A few mouse studies do not change 50+ years of established science on the relationship between sugar and diabetes.
Plastics should be taxed.
Given the higher cost of other materials, changing consumer behavior (which is not easy, but it's happening right now, and achievable through further exposure and education) may be the only way to change producers' behavior.
While a tax seems like an easy fix, it may also cause the government to come to rely on income from plastic acting as a deterrent to law-making which discourages the use of plastics.
With 15 minutes of effort typing commands into a large bioinformatics database, you too can convince yourself that these contaminants may be behind the Diabetes epidemic. https://medium.com/@InfinoMe/diabetes-time-to-resort-to-plas...
I think it's much more likely that the diabetes epidemic is linked to the insane levels of carb/sugar intake and obesity of so many adults.
The real tragedy here is the lack of the Oxford comma in the headline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We can keep running on the macronutrient treadmill, like we've been doing for 50 years, or we can find molecular evidence that jives with genetics." Yes, let's ignore 50+ years of established science that is parsimonious with everything we know about the molecular biology of insulin resistance, and dump it in favor of a fringe theory, based on a single paper about a mouse study, where there's not even a plausible ex…
There are literally hundreds of papers on BPA and its links with diabetes. The only difference now is that we have the molecular culprit behind the trend. https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy...