Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study • Hacker News Board

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#81

Post by 4ntonius8lock » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #62

slowmovintarget wrote: post #25

Went looking to see what the comparison to tap water was: > Orb found on average there were 10.4 particles of plastic per litre that were 100 microns (0.10 mm) or bigger. This is double the level of microplastics in the tap water tested from more than a dozen countries across five continents, examined in a 2017 study by Orb that looked at similar-sized plastics. Worse... it's worse than tap water.

Well, for microplastics. If you live e.g. in the Bay Area, your tap water instead has a good chance of having a good helping of hexavalent chromium[1], which... not too healthy. (Neither are arsenic, bromium, etc.) Pick your poison. Literally. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Tap-water-Bay-Area-datab...

Is this something that would be removed with common cheap consumer filters? (such as Britta)

I drink a lot of tap water, but always put it through a filter of some sort.

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#82

Post by irrational » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #68

irrational wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a list? I know that in the US all tap water is (or should be) safe to drink. But anytime I travel, even to developed countries, I only use bottled water since I consider the water to be suspect unless I know differently.

US tap water is far from safe to drink. Ask Flint, Michigan. (Incredible levels of lead in the water). Pittsburgh (in 2017) didn't even have enough people to run the necessary water audits. Milwaukee's city health commissioner resigned in 2018 because they didn't warn about unsafe lead levels in the water. In 2018, around half of the samples from Newark's water system showed lead levels above the EPA's threshold. Lar…

I guess it's just the places in the US I've lived in that have safe tap water.

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#83

Post by kmjg88nvf8 » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

afiori wrote: post #44

slowmovintarget wrote: post #25

Went looking to see what the comparison to tap water was: > Orb found on average there were 10.4 particles of plastic per litre that were 100 microns (0.10 mm) or bigger. This is double the level of microplastics in the tap water tested from more than a dozen countries across five continents, examined in a 2017 study by Orb that looked at similar-sized plastics. Worse... it's worse than tap water.

In at least a couple of European countries it is well known that unless your city has specific problems tap water is better than bottled water. The reason being that (except some cases of corruption...) legal limit are much stricter for tap water. Better in impurities at the very least, the taste is usually quite worse.

While that is the common story, I am not entirely convinced. It is presumably true that there are more controls for tap water. But those controls still only test a limited number of substances.

One story that goes around a lot is for example the claim that tap water contains a lot of hormones from all the contraceptive pills women take and then flush out of their body into the water system. That seems to not be controlled for. Not sure how serious the issue really is.

More controls also doesn't change the quality of water. It only detects bad water of some variants. If you had an excellent "mineral water" and an OK tap water, more controls wouldn't make the tap water any better.

Not saying you shouldn't drink the tap water. I drink it most of the time.

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#84

Post by okl » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

hourislate wrote: post #78

I was under the impression Gerolsteiner and San Pellegrino were from deep under ground springs where it took the water decades or more to filter down into the source where the bottler draws it from. Are the plastics somehow in the source or are they being introduced in another way, perhaps when the bottles are washed, handled, etc before filling?

> How do microplastics get into drinking-water?

> Microplastics may enter drinking-water sources in a number of ways: from surface run-off (e.g. after a rain event), to wastewater effluent (both treated and untreated), combined sewer overflows, industrial effluent, degraded plastic waste and atmospheric deposition. Surface run-off and wastewater effluent are recognized as the two main sources, but better data are required to quantify the sources and associate them with more specific plastic waste streams. Plastic bottles and caps that are used in bottled water may also be sources of microplastics in drinking-water.

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/water-quality/gu...

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#85

Post by zaroth » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #62

slowmovintarget wrote: post #25

Went looking to see what the comparison to tap water was: > Orb found on average there were 10.4 particles of plastic per litre that were 100 microns (0.10 mm) or bigger. This is double the level of microplastics in the tap water tested from more than a dozen countries across five continents, examined in a 2017 study by Orb that looked at similar-sized plastics. Worse... it's worse than tap water.

Well, for microplastics. If you live e.g. in the Bay Area, your tap water instead has a good chance of having a good helping of hexavalent chromium[1], which... not too healthy. (Neither are arsenic, bromium, etc.) Pick your poison. Literally. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Tap-water-Bay-Area-datab...

Is that what’s responsible for it smelling like swamp water? I always heard that somehow “algae bloom” was to blame, but there were certain days the San Jose tap water would be pungent.

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#86

Post by dunham » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

hourislate wrote: post #78

I was under the impression Gerolsteiner and San Pellegrino were from deep under ground springs where it took the water decades or more to filter down into the source where the bottler draws it from. Are the plastics somehow in the source or are they being introduced in another way, perhaps when the bottles are washed, handled, etc before filling?

If you dig down to the results, San Pellegrino is one of the lowest: https://orbmedia.org/stories/plus-plastic/

About halfway down the page. The graphs make it look like they didn't take too many samples per brand though.

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#87

Post by zaroth » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #82

groby_b wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US tap water is far from safe to drink. Ask Flint, Michigan. (Incredible levels of lead in the water). Pittsburgh (in 2017) didn't even have enough people to run the necessary water audits. Milwaukee's city health commissioner resigned in 2018 because they didn't warn about unsafe lead levels in the water. In 2018, around half of the samples from Newark's water system showed lead levels above the EPA's threshold. Lar…

I guess it's just the places in the US I've lived in that have safe tap water.

Yes, just the vast majority of the US (geographically and population wise) has incredibly good tap water, with a long tail of famously bad exceptions to the rule.

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#88

Post by thisisnico » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

afiori wrote: post #44

slowmovintarget wrote: post #25

Went looking to see what the comparison to tap water was: > Orb found on average there were 10.4 particles of plastic per litre that were 100 microns (0.10 mm) or bigger. This is double the level of microplastics in the tap water tested from more than a dozen countries across five continents, examined in a 2017 study by Orb that looked at similar-sized plastics. Worse... it's worse than tap water.

In at least a couple of European countries it is well known that unless your city has specific problems tap water is better than bottled water. The reason being that (except some cases of corruption...) legal limit are much stricter for tap water. Better in impurities at the very least, the taste is usually quite worse.

Living in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, I can confirm that our water is extremely clean and good to drink. Additionally our city was rated one of the best tasting tap waters for all of Ontario, cities literally compete for quality water. Contrast that to Flint michigan across the river from me.

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#89

Post by ebg13 » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #7

I wonder if all the articles talking about the prevalence of microplastics, are in actuality demonstrating the safety of microplastics. If it is in 93% of bottled water, and bottled water is used by millions of people (according to https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/should-we-brea... around 110 Million people in the US avoid drinking tap water), then there has been widespread exposure to microplastics. It…

> It does not seem like there has been huge health consequences due to microplastics, so microplastics are probably pretty safe for humans.

How are you deciding that there hasn't been huge health consequences?

Re: Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study

#90

Post by kmjg88nvf8 » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 7:38 PM UTC

marcell wrote: post #10

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #7

I wonder if all the articles talking about the prevalence of microplastics, are in actuality demonstrating the safety of microplastics. If it is in 93% of bottled water, and bottled water is used by millions of people (according to https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/should-we-brea... around 110 Million people in the US avoid drinking tap water), then there has been widespread exposure to microplastics. It…

There’s a lot of logical leaps your making hear. It might not be immediately deadly, but it could have lots of long term subtle effects. For example, it may contribute to cancer rates or obesity. Some people suspect it contributes to low sperm counts among men. All of these would be consistent with the current widespread consumption patterns.

Maybe, but all sorts of things could have long term effects. Even without plastic, the environment is full of toxic or non-digestible things, like dust, or pollen. Many organisms don't want to be eaten and shed particles that evolve to be non-digestible.

If you worry too much about what MAY be dangerous, you couldn't leave the bed anymore. Remaining in bed is definitely dangerous. Not drinking water is also definitely dangerous.