101–110 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would poop the glass though
Yeah, generally speaking unless it's a very large shard and cuts your esophagus, once it reaches your stomach, acids will knock the edges off and it'll pass without issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can, there are some great borosilicate glass containers out there. I use them for everything. The ones I have seal well enough that I can fill it with soup and stick it in a backpack, ride somewhere and it's fine on the other side. Thick enough to be basically unbreakable, microwavable, dishwasher-safe, etc. Don't need to worry about tomato staining either like on plastic. I've been thrilled with mine.
Aren't the lids still plastic? I've never seen ones with glass lids.
Here in the UK we're lucky that Pyrex is still borosilicate glass, and there are some I've seen with glass lids that are advertised as "zero plastic".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've got sets of Indian brass, Korean steel, and Japanese lacquered wood food containers that we use in addition to ceramics and glass. The glass chips, and once it does we tend to avoid using it for food. Because all of these things last or compound over a lifetime, it's only expensive to be healthful if you wait.
What is with putting superfluous place names in front of things? Are you trying to sound fancy? You have steel and wood food containers.
OP isn't trying to be "fancy", they're trying to communicate. This is a weird thing to get agitated about.
Sorry people, but you can't stop it: 1. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/04/11/how-much-plastic-d... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/micropla... 3. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/15/winds-ca... Because humanity and capitalism's incentives are just wrong. Bottling companies like Coca Cola and Snapple have long switched to plastic bottles, and externalized the cost to the env…
Policies exist to improve the situation, they just need to be fought for (against the bottling companies):
> According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), the average nationwide recycling rate for beverage containers is around 35%. By contrast, Oregon’s beverage container redemption rate is regularly in the 80-90% range
https://obrc.com/results/how-bottle-bills-compare/
Plastic in a landfill is actually fine, even if wasteful, as long as the landfill is properly built.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read that the majority of microplastics come from tire wear (national geographic quoted 28% of the total), and because there's no good alternative to wheel tires, it's unlikely we'll see a decrease of pollution here. So even if we found an alternative to bottles, plastic bags, clothing, etc, it still won't make a dent in pollution unless we convince the world to use a form of public transit that doesn't make use…
> because there's no good alternative to wheel tires, it's unlikely we'll see a decrease of pollution here Well, we could stop pretending that God gave cars dominion over the earth and build livable cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that average lifespan? There was a lot of death either in childbirth or during early childhood years. If you filter that data out a bit, adults lived a more comparable age. Still not as good as today, but not 31.
>Excluding child mortality, the average life expectancy during the 12th–19th centuries was approximately 55 years So still worse by whole decades than now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#:~:text=Excl... .
https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php#by-population
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Purchased drinks taste different in different containers (Coke in plastic vs glass vs aluminum), so I’m on board with food.
Coke in "aluminum" is actually coke in plastic; the cans are lined.
So do seed oils and other PUFAs and a thousand other things and if anyone would just listen to a podcast once in a while (like Peter Attia's) they'd learn a thing or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more we learn, the less reasonable it seems to dismiss the risk as small enough to ignore.
in many cases it's the opposite: the more we've learned, the more we recognize that the body is able to tolerate small doses of many things in a way where the effects at larger doses don't scale down (IE, the linear no-threshold model is probably wrong in many cases, beyond radiation)
Unless you're saying we understand the specific threshold for plastic and the risk of reaching that threshold can be reasonably extrapolated from typical levels of exposure, I think we're getting at different points.