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

Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

the-scientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 339 posts

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#121

Post by haswell »

coldtea wrote: post #38
jjallen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don’t try and minimize it altogether because you’re getting some elsewhere? This isn’t good logic.

If minimizing it wont make any real dent, it's a sound logic. You know, if it just ends up as wasted, feel-good busy-work.

I don't think this is the right way to frame this.

To me, this is a problem that needs broad solutions and some of those solutions are available immediately and some require broader changes, i.e. there are some things I can control and some things I can't.

Living your life in a way that is conscious of these risks and minimizes them when possible makes the avoidance of plastic an ongoing concern, and increases awareness of the issue in public consciousness.

I don't see how broader changes are possible without growing awareness, and often the best place to start is in one's own life.

If you were to examine the decision in a vacuum and discard all downstream effects, I think it's rational not to invest effort if it won't make a difference.

But I think this overly constrains the possible effects of making the changes that we can, and underestimates the value of instilling ideas in public consciousness.

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#122

Post by titzer »

reset2023 wrote: post #90

Coca Cola is to plastic what oil is to Exxon, and what food is to Monsanto. The CEO of coca cola and his team of scientist in 1978 are responsible for this. Extremely intelligent but extremely unconscious.

They'd make their containers out of pickled baby faces, set up their factory next to a nuclear waste disposal site, and whip children who nod off during their 18 hour shifts if it saved one goddamn cent per bottle.

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#123

Post by TurkishPoptart »

Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #56
myth_drannon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We threw away all our glass containers because they constantly chip. I'm more afraid of ingesting piece of sharp glass than nanoplastics. I don't know why that keeps happenning, I guess dishwasher's high heat damages the glass or they keep bumping into each other.

You would poop the glass though

No, I think eating glass leads to internal bleeding and could be very bad for you.

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#124

Post by saiya-jin »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #100
clnq wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: 1. Lots of drinks come in metal cans with BPA lining on the inside. 2. You can absolutely be reasonably healthy and drink some of these drinks, including the variants that are not sugar-free. I don’t think most people try to be perfectionistically healthy. But I think PFAs are not anywhere closer “reasonably healthy” to consume.

It's kinda like saying people can be reasonably healthy and still smoke some cigarettes. True enough, but if someone is trying to be healthy that's a pretty obvious change to make.

I don't think I ever considered drinking from cans healthy, it is just a desperate move if no better option is present. Same beer tastes significantly worse compared to glass (but if you drink cheapest crap you probably don't notice nor care).

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#125

Post by EGreg »

willcipriano wrote: post #88
EGreg wrote: post #30

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…

> My recommendation would be to tax negative externalities and redistribute all of it as a UBI to the people of the country. Simple and effective Wouldn't you want to resolve the externalities with those funds instead of spending it, likely increasing consumer consumption and making the problem worse? > If we made it more costly for these companies Why wouldn't the costs flow to consumers? Firms recently seem to be a…

Because we'd be indirectly subsidizing any competitor who puts out biodegradeable solutions, without directly picking winners and losers, just making it more costly to produce non-biodegradeable stuff. The alternatives can come out of the same department (e.g. of DuPont chemicals) and they wouldn't be hit with the same tax, so they'd be more competitive over time. The money is redistributed to the working class because otherwise you get this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#126

Post by stevebmark »

Solvency wrote: post #48

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.

The people who think seed oils are unhealthy and cause inflammation are up there with the most ignorant folks in nutrition.

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#127

Post by EGreg »

deelowe wrote: post #73
nahstra wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What products use PFAS whose absence would cause society to collapse? If you look at the major sources of PFAS by 3M, it's not like these were essential products. Here's a random list from wisconsin.gov: Cleaning products. Water-resistant fabrics, such as rain jackets, umbrellas and tents. Grease-resistant paper. Nonstick cookware. Personal care products, like shampoo, dental floss, nail polish, and eye makeup. Stain…

Anything containing "rubber."

Doesn't rubber come from rubber trees? What does that have to do with PFAS?

Teflon is not rubber, as far as I know PTFE are petro- flourochemicals

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#128

Post by actionfromafar »

chrisco255 wrote: post #108
dTal wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coke in "aluminum" is actually coke in plastic; the cans are lined.

No they're not. It's an epoxy resin, not plastic. It's BPA.

So, a plastic then?

Edit after light scolding by commenter below:

BPA is a form of plastic, both in the pedantic sense (it's formed ... plastically... into its product shape) but more importantly in the colloquial sense, "synthetic, plasticky material" and in this general thread "synthetic material with harmful effects on health, probably through hormonal disruption".

So, yes, BPA is a resin, it's also a plastic, and it's also probably pretty bad, healthwise.

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#129

Post by saiya-jin »

dysoco wrote: post #113
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #103

That might explain why some modern children are so stupid. I have young relatives who are just gone. There’s nothing in their heads. It’s like watching a fly bash into a window.

Are you sure it's not just confirmation bias plus a bad perception of how smart you and your same-age friends were when you were young? Sounds like that to me. Kids look normal to me, some of them probably smarter than I was back when I was as kid, others not so much, it's hard to say based on only a few observations but it's probably the same it's always been.

This is hugely anecdotal, I can find examples of both extremes and everything in the middle around me. I think its rather good/poor parenting, parents not having enough time to raise kids properly (hint: there is never 'too much' time you spend with kids, especially young), dumbing kids down with primitive addictive screen fun or social media.

Lacking a lot of social interaction can make otherwise smart kids appear... less smart, since they may be shy, lacking motivation or skill to express themselves so they can be interacted with on higher level.

Once you filter all of this (and probably much more), and still see a difference on massive scale, we can start having a case.

Re: Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits

#130

Post by willcipriano »

EGreg wrote: post #125
willcipriano wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My recommendation would be to tax negative externalities and redistribute all of it as a UBI to the people of the country. Simple and effective Wouldn't you want to resolve the externalities with those funds instead of spending it, likely increasing consumer consumption and making the problem worse? > If we made it more costly for these companies Why wouldn't the costs flow to consumers? Firms recently seem to be a…

Because we'd be indirectly subsidizing any competitor who puts out biodegradeable solutions, without directly picking winners and losers, just making it more costly to produce non-biodegradeable stuff. The alternatives can come out of the same department (e.g. of DuPont chemicals) and they wouldn't be hit with the same tax, so they'd be more competitive over time. The money is redistributed to the working class becau…

How do you accurately price externalities without resolving them? If you spend a billion a year cleaning up plastic it's pretty simple math to spread that out over the cost of plastic products. On the other hand if you don't actually do anything to resolve it you are just guessing on what that costs and could be way over or under.

This seems like "I want UBI" with a flimsy environmental justification.

Post reply on HN