Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 341 posts

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#281

Post by gilmore606 »

zamfi wrote: post #237
john567 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This must be part of some disinformation effort to streer people away from the simple answer. Their conclusion is that you're helpless if your fat and that's just not true. The idea that this is not in your hands is ridiculous. If you are fat and you don't want to be fat you simply change your eating habits. This can be very difficult to do because you have formed these habits throughout your life but it isn't compli…

Obviously you [0] didn't read the article, but that is not their conclusion. There seems to be some kind of unfortunate "shame brigade" out on the Internet that comes out of the woodwork to overrun any conversation around obesity that even hints that there might be reasons for the obesity epidemic other than individual people's poor choices. The lab rats whose rate of obesity has increased over the last 30 years, des…

When I was obese and I thought about my own obesity, I decided it was under my control and I changed my habits (this was hard!) and I lost 110lbs. There was no more to the picture than my eating habits. Perhaps I was a strange outlier; lucky for me.

But when I think about other people's obesity, I am not allowed to think that, because I would be part of a shame brigade.

I wish the shame brigade had gotten to me years earlier.

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#282

Post by twofornone »

unix_fan wrote: post #233
stuckinhell wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could explain the rise of trans women too. It's honestly quite frightening to think we are unknowingly modifying ourselves at such a scale.

I have to question that claim. Poor countries eat plastic two, yet we don’t see the same cultural phenomenon‘s here.

The magnitude and duration of exposure is probably lower, since plastic is a western and relatively recent invention.

Moreover, it is precisely because transgenderism is primarily a cultural (rather than biological) phenomenon, that rates between two otherwise identical populations are going to differ based on the culture's attitude toward transgenderism and the likelihood that a doctor is to diagnose someone with gender dysphoria.

That latter point is severely understudied because transgenderism is one of the wests many recent sacred cows which are beyond criticism. But overdiagnosis should be a much greater concern than it is. Especially since puberty blockers and hormones given to adolescent boys will undoubtedly exacerbate any feelings of dysphoria and I am astounded that no one is talking about the reinforcing effects of these "treatments".

But I digress. Point being comparing rates of transgenderism between first and third worlds is like comparing apples to oranges because transgenderism is a cultural phenomenon.

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#283

Post by gloryjulio »

kaezon wrote: post #273
zamfi wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most folks who respond like this are not looking for reasons to believe they might be wrong, but just in case you are, please take a look at A Chemical Hunger [0], which explores these questions in some depth. It turns out, the simple explanations (people eat more & move less! too much sugar! etc.) are in fact insufficient. [0] https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-p...

Thank you for this citation! I've at least heard that CICO was nonsense, but the author has done a fantastic job researching the subject, breaking down common approaches to weight loss, and studies which have examined them.

How is CICO nonsense...? Unless you are breaking the law of thermodynamics, there is no way you could gain more from what you eat. The best you can do is utilize 100% of the calorie intake. It's physically impossible to gain weight if you are burning for example 150% of the total calories intake! The fuel has to come from somewhere.

The variation lies in different utilization rate, the burn rate, and all other variables, but within the limit of PHYSICS.

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#284

Post by moistly »

ejb999 wrote: post #62
goodpoint wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out masks are not made of asbestos. Unsurprisingly, masks safety and effectiveness has been studied extremely extensively.

>>Turns out masks are not made of asbestos. Neither are cigarettes, but getting enough cigarette smoke in your lung does causes cancer.

”Fun” fact: cigarette filters were made with asbestos.

> From 1952 to 1956, Lorillard Tobacco Company's Kent Micronite cigarettes were made with asbestos filters. The filters were advertised as increasing the experience and safety of smoking

https://www.mesothelioma.com/asbestos-exposure/products/asbe...

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#285

Post by TheRealNGenius »

karaterobot wrote: post #128
zerop wrote: post #111

If we all are against usage of plastic, what stops us from eliminating it completely around us.

We aren't. We're against some of the predicted negative consequences of plastic waste, but we like plastic. It's cheap, and incredibly useful. Plastic goods enable the world we live in. For example, it would be interesting to see a mouse, and keyboard, and monitor housing made out of bronze, or wood, or cast iron, but I bet they would be worse in pretty much every other way — heavier, harder to shape, and very expens…

I just want to clarify that the "we" in parent post does not include me personally, and I was not consulted on this matter prior by parent commenter. Thank you all for coming to my ted talk.

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#286

Post by kaezon »

gloryjulio wrote: post #283
kaezon wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this citation! I've at least heard that CICO was nonsense, but the author has done a fantastic job researching the subject, breaking down common approaches to weight loss, and studies which have examined them.

How is CICO nonsense...? Unless you are breaking the law of thermodynamics, there is no way you could gain more from what you eat. The best you can do is utilize 100% of the calorie intake. It's physically impossible to gain weight if you are burning for example 150% of the total calories intake! The fuel has to come from somewhere. The variation lies in different utilization rate, the burn rate, and all other variab…

Anecdotal really. I honestly probably overstated that. I've seen it fail people on it's own more often than not. I've generally seen folks succeed more often when they change WHEN and WHAT they eat.

Not a scientist, nor a nutrition expert, so I'm not going to pretend to try and convince anyone.

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#287

Post by refurb »

Robotbeat wrote: post #174
refurb wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Micro plastics mostly come from synthetic fibers, like the fabric in masks.

More like from woven fabrics or non-woven felts, which shed fibers.

What fabrics aren’t woven? Isn’t that the definition of fabric - “a woven material”?

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#288

Post by refurb »

mrguyorama wrote: post #253
refurb wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silicon dioxide (sand) causes silicosis if inhaled. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the risk.

Isn't the damage caused physically, not chemically? I think that's the main point

Why would that matter if both kill you?

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#289

Post by gloryjulio »

kaezon wrote: post #286
gloryjulio wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is CICO nonsense...? Unless you are breaking the law of thermodynamics, there is no way you could gain more from what you eat. The best you can do is utilize 100% of the calorie intake. It's physically impossible to gain weight if you are burning for example 150% of the total calories intake! The fuel has to come from somewhere. The variation lies in different utilization rate, the burn rate, and all other variab…

Anecdotal really. I honestly probably overstated that. I've seen it fail people on it's own more often than not. I've generally seen folks succeed more often when they change WHEN and WHAT they eat. Not a scientist, nor a nutrition expert, so I'm not going to pretend to try and convince anyone.

Can you define their failures as they burnt more than they eat and still gain weight? Did they checked strictly with the math? Are you 100% sure when they fail, they were eating less calorie in total than the amount they are burning!?

If a person is eating 1000 calories per day regardless what what food, and is burning 2000 calories per day (CO), how is anyone going to gain weight this way?

Please, as I mentioned above, there are many variables, but not the core principle of CICO which is basic math. You cannot create calories out of thin air! It doesn't mean anyone can stick to strict diet with CICO calculation. It doesn't mean they always measure accurately. Don't mix up the failure in application with the principle. I watched many cooking videos in youtube. It doesn't mean that im gonna cook well; It doesn't mean that the recipe is bad

Re: What is our hidden consumption of microplastics doing to our health?

#290

Post by autoexec »

bb123 wrote: post #220
matthewdgreen wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s worrying about this is that we’re about 50 years into an unexplained epidemic of obesity and metabolic disease that nobody has a clear explanation for, and is also affecting lab animals fed controlled diets. It would be fascinating if this was all correlated with a common environmental contaminant, and the increasing use of various plastics could line up well.

I don’t think it’s unexplained at all. People just don’t like the explanation. People simply eat too much and don’t move enough. The secondary reasons behind that are many but again pretty easy to see (more desk jobs, cheap high calorie foods, automobile ownership etc)

> I don’t think it’s unexplained at all. People just don’t like the explanation. People simply eat too much and don’t move enough.

It wasn't sourced, but if the claim that animals on controlled diets have also gotten fatter over recent decades it would mean that there is something more going on here.

While weight gain is nearly always an issue of excess calories that doesn't explain why it's suddenly a huge and worsening problem seen all over the planet. An explanation for that is certain to be far more nuanced and will likely involve a large host of factors (your "secondary reasons" for example).

At the scale and timeline we're talking about here "People simply eat too much and don’t move enough." is about as useless an explanation as saying "Don't eat so much fatty!" is a solution.

Post reply on HN