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

Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

news.unl.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 344 posts

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#311

Post by MisterBastahrd »

citrin_ru wrote: post #148
Pxtl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worry with glass is that it's dangerous if it breaks. I find stainless steel Bento boxes are excellent if it's not something that needs a tight seal.

Enamel tableware were once popular and still available. Enamel is glass like in its properties and should be as safe as glass (unless lead containing colour pigment is used which should not be the case nowadays).

Except for the part when it shatters and ends up in your food.

I had a situation where (and thankfully nobody was hurt) I had cooked a stew and the enameled coating from the pot I was using had popped off a 2cm x 2cm area section into the stew at sometime during the cooking process. We didn't detect it until we had served half the food.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#313

Post by lazerpants »

dmalvarado wrote: post #289

Man, I wish we didn't have so much plastic, but I do what I can, and that includes never microwaving anything in plastic. If it's a microwave dinner (generally the ones I like are in paper trays) I pop it onto a plate and cover it with a paper towel. I'm trying to find a solution to my Aeropress that tastes as good. Taking suggestions? (I've tried Chemex and french press, haven't been able to get the same flavor)

The Aeropress shouldn't be as much of a problem, right? It's rigid plastic and contains far fewer polymers and is less prone to breakdown I believe.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#314

Post by barbazoo »

SoftTalker wrote: post #297
surge wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife pointed out and I feel dumb for not realizing it because I know this myself, you never heat baby food much past 30 seconds, certainly not for 3 minutes at highest setting. Babies generally eat baby food at room temperature to body temperature, and anything outside that is considered extreme to a baby's sensitive nervous system, not to mention you wouldn't want to risk lava spots that might burn their mouths.…

Our pediatrician said there was no reason to heat formula. We used powdered formula, just put it in a bottle with "cold" (i.e. unheated) tap water and shook it up right before feeding. Also great for traveling, you don't need a cooler/ice packs to keep mixed formula cool, just bring a bottle of water and mix with the powder as needed. Not storing formula in the bottles also means you don't need to sterilize bottles.…

Same here, we never heated up milk/formula, it seems to be a preference thing.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#315

Post by barbazoo »

doubleg72 wrote: post #291
unsupp0rted wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how it went when our ancestors heated food for babies to eat on a burning camp fire? Was that a factor in high child mortality?

I wonder how our ancestors used a material not even developed yet without getting to to melt on an open fire.

I wonder how our ancestors used a material not even developed yet without getting to melt on an open fire they haven't discovered yet.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#316

Post by autoexec »

hunter2_ wrote: post #269
Dah00n wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you avoid this and other easily avoided situations, like stop using soft plastic drinking bottles and stop reusing bottled water bottles, you would be a big step in the right direction though.

> stop reusing bottled water bottles Can you elaborate? Like is it somehow worse to buy a bottle of water and refill it periodically over the course of a year, than to let the original contents sit in my house for a year and then drink it? If so, I'm guessing the extra handling (squishing, crunching) is the main culprit? Or does leeching occur more readily when the contents are refreshed, as opposed to static content…

I've heard that handling is the main issue with leeching and also shredding of micro/nano plastics into the water, heat and UV also degrade the plastic. It's worse the thinner the plastic bottle is.

I do drink a lot of bottled water, and while I don't reuse bottles I'm still considering how much just pouring the water from the bottles into a glass would help.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#317

Post by manmal »

SoftTalker wrote: post #297
surge wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife pointed out and I feel dumb for not realizing it because I know this myself, you never heat baby food much past 30 seconds, certainly not for 3 minutes at highest setting. Babies generally eat baby food at room temperature to body temperature, and anything outside that is considered extreme to a baby's sensitive nervous system, not to mention you wouldn't want to risk lava spots that might burn their mouths.…

Our pediatrician said there was no reason to heat formula. We used powdered formula, just put it in a bottle with "cold" (i.e. unheated) tap water and shook it up right before feeding. Also great for traveling, you don't need a cooler/ice packs to keep mixed formula cool, just bring a bottle of water and mix with the powder as needed. Not storing formula in the bottles also means you don't need to sterilize bottles.…

I think baby food in this context is not formula, but puréed veggies etc.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#318

Post by sfn42 »

john-radio wrote: post #268
sfn42 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drinking a shitload of water can kill you, not drinking water will certainly kill you. In fact having a shitload of just about anything is likely to harm or kill you. Unrealistically high doses imply absolutely nothing about lower doses.

This comment is unhelpful; the person you're replying to clearly is not claiming that "absolutely everything that's harmful in large doses is harmful in small doses." > Unrealistically high doses imply absolutely nothing about lower doses. The example they give of nuclear radiation is a clear illustration of how a useful hint can be drawn from the high-level example of harm, a pattern which microplastics might very w…

If it doesn't apply to everything then we don't know whether it applies to this which is exactly my point.

Ionizing radiation is also a great example of something everything on the planet is exposed to all the time and we're fine. So clearly the fact that you'll die standing next to the molten core in Chernobyl does not imply that you'll die from background radiation.

Similarly, showing that an extreme dose of microplastics is harmful does not imply that a normal dose of microplastics is. It might be, but we don't know because we've only tested extreme dosages, apparently.

We also don't know that it works the same way in the body as it does in a test tube.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#319

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

flangola7 wrote: post #158
y7 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things could be related to any change in society. There's nothing to suggest it's plastics in particular, right?

If it isn't plastic then what is it? We have been steadily identifying and reducing the number of toxic agents the public is exposed to. Fifty years ago in the 70s the average person would have regular exposure to lead gas, lead paint, tobacco smoke (even if they didn't smoke themselves - indoor smoking was still legal), potent pesticides, and maybe even asbestos. But there were far fewer everyday plastics at the tim…

> If it isn't plastic then what is it?

a good thought exercise, but a distraction from the question at hand, which is, do we have convincing evidence that it's plastics?

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#320

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

scoobitydoobap wrote: post #202
belorn wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest drawback I find with cast iron is the weight. The cleaning, as much as you are supposed to clean it, is generally simplistic. Either just hot water and a light brush or paper. A good thing to know is that any surface that get hot enough will release a bit into the food. Cast iron generally leech iron, stainless steel leech iron, nickel, and chromium, and ceramic leech whatever coating it has similar to no…

Carbon steel is similar to cast iron in that it gets "seasoned" over time, but is much lighter (and heats up more quickly and evenly).

the biggest appeal of cast iron is its large thermal mass, owing to the weight and material
Post reply on HN