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

321–330 of 344 posts

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#321

Post by surge »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #286
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.…

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'm pretty sure children just breastfed for longer before eating solid foods.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#322

Post by surge »

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.…

Yes, but in this case I'm referring to formula, food, or breast milk that's been sitting in a fridge.

You don't need to "heat" it, but some babies are more receptive if its not cold.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#323

Post by XorNot »

foobiekr wrote: post #258
XorNot wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overweight and obese men are more likely to have lowered sperm counts[1] and obesity has tripled since 1970[2]. [1] https://www.healthymale.org.au/news/obesity-overweight-can-i... [2] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and...

Have you considered that you are simply listing two symptoms together instead of identifying cause and effect?

The average American consumes 23% more calories per day in 2010 then in 1970[1] and does 100 calories less physical activity per day in their occupation since 1960[2].

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/12/13/whats-on-...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102055/

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#324

Post by evilduck »

zarzavat wrote: post #142
NovaDudely wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the end of your comment could be seen as 'whatabout-ism', you are right that in simply over cooking something or just adding to much salts/sugars to some foods would probably be a bigger issue.

Salt and sugars are natural parts of our environment and salt is actually a necessary part of our diet. We have organs evolved explicitly for the purpose of maintaining homeostasis of salt and sugar, namely our kidneys and pancreas. For plastics we have no evolved tolerance.

> For plastics we have no evolved tolerance.

Based on what evidence?

What do you think happens when you overheat animal fat or oils in a cooking vessel and "season" it? It forms a plastic. We've been living and eating alongside that type of plastic since we learned to cook food as a species.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#325

Post by evilduck »

peteradio wrote: post #307
evilduck wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet living near the Rocky Mountains with a background radiation dose 3 times higher than gulf coast states still correlates with longer than average lifespans. Extrapolation of high dose outcomes might hint at what research needs to be performed but it doesn't mean the results will follow the same path.

Curious on that. Is this based on a study intending to understand background raditation and lifespan? Or are you just asserting gulf states have lower lifespans than rocky mountain states and also they have lower background radiation. Without controls for cough cough obesity its meaningless.

The very justified and panic-worthy deadly dose of radiation is around 1.4 million times greater than the background radiation that you can double or triple and not even notice.

And yet here we are with a comment thread of heated debate over a plastics exposure study that's 50 million times greater than realistic exposure levels. When or if a realistic exposure study is done we may find that a plastic cup is more like a transcontinental flight than living near a reactor meltdown. Let's find out before we jump to conclusions either way.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#327

Post by dataflow »

rcme wrote: post #20
dataflow wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used in what manner, though? People certainly haven't been heating food in plastics for a hundred years, right?

Tupperware was founded in 1946, and the home microwave was invented in 1967. So it has been about 56 years of just that combo. As I said, I agree that plastics cannot be considered safe, but I was presenting a possible argument that others might use.

56 years is kind of an upper bound on microwaving plastics (for the sake of argument, let's focus on that for now), and that's when it started. It means people who were born then and are (I get that this isn't your personal argument; I'm trying to figure out why this argument might seem plausible to other laymen.)

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#328

Post by sizzle »

chrisco255 wrote: post #98

I'm one of the most skeptical people when it comes to these types of claims. I think the effects are being exaggerated. However, I've recently begun to replace all plastic containers and dishware from my kitchen with stainless steel and glass. Drinks taste better in glass anyways, and steel is a good non-fragile alternative. And I cook in cast iron. It's almost impossible to avoid plastic, and I'm not religious about…

To-go food containers are impregnated with plastic lining, leeching all sorts of crap into heated, acidic food.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#329

Post by sizzle »

chrisco255 wrote: post #98

I'm one of the most skeptical people when it comes to these types of claims. I think the effects are being exaggerated. However, I've recently begun to replace all plastic containers and dishware from my kitchen with stainless steel and glass. Drinks taste better in glass anyways, and steel is a good non-fragile alternative. And I cook in cast iron. It's almost impossible to avoid plastic, and I'm not religious about…

Can you cook eggs or stir fry on cast iron? Or should I get ceramic pans? I’m wanting to get rid of my “forever chemical” Teflon coated pans. Anyone knowledgeable please chime in.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#330

Post by defatigable »

rcme wrote: post #188
defatigable wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My basic mental model is that my body is constantly consuming chemicals that it doesn't use, be it particulates in the air or substances in the foods I eat or drink. My body is very good at incorporating the substances that it finds useful and ignoring (or killing) the ones that it doesn't, so I don't find myself worrying too much about any particular substance it might take up. To your point, I don't have any partic…

> My body is very good at incorporating the substances that it finds useful and ignoring (or killing) the ones that it doesn't What are you basing this off of? From my perspective, the body is decidedly not good at ignoring substances. There are thousands of poisonous or cancerous chemicals. Things like mercury or lead build up in the body to the point of causing severe harm. Anything that can be made small enough wi…

I just ate a dinner off of a plate that's been sitting on my shelf for a few days, using utensils that have been sitting in my drawer for a few days, accumulating whatever residual particles have been floating through the air settling on them.

Like most people I lick my fingers after eating chips and don't sterilize my hands in advance, hands covered with whatever I've recently been touching (including the plastic bag that the chips came in...).

I have an air purifier at home, but there's all sorts of detritus kicked up in the air from materials around the house that my body is constantly inhaling (not to mention the exhaust and tire particulates that I get from cars driving by me or whatever is being produced in the construction site down the street).

I absolutely agree that there are plenty of things out there that are bad for you, at least in sufficient concentration. But every breath you take and every bite you eat is consuming at least some trace amounts of particles that your body doesn't need, from all sorts of sources.

It may well be that nanoparticles of plastics are particularly bad for you (in the concentrations that are normally consumed) but my heuristic is to not worry too much about things like this unless given concrete reason to.

Post reply on HN