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

New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

sustainableplastics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 403 posts

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#381

Post by dennis_jeeves1 »

saberience wrote: post #225
bhouston wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obesity is caused in part by environmental toxins, probably to different extents in different people: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/19/environm... https://www.webmd.com/obesity/what-to-know-obesogens These so called "obesogens" just increase the propensity towards obesity and depending on exposure and your sensitivity to then, you can overcome them or not via exercise and dieting and other means.

Obesity is caused by eating too much. If you don’t eat then you won’t gain weight, there is no subverting the laws of thermodynamics. It sounds callous but if you go to Africa or visit a prisoner of war camp you won’t find many fat people and so blaming chemicals in America for so many fat people doesn’t make much sense to me.

[dead]

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#382

Post by ethbr1 »

flir wrote: post #358
ethbr1 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure you're going to shift US corn subsidies without changing the electoral system. ;) To me, substitutability is key. If you tax unhealthy food, but unhealthy food is the only option (from physical, financial, and time perspectives), people just pay more to eat unhealthy food. If you tax unhealthy food, but also require healthier and low-cost options at the same establishment , then people begin to have options.…

I'm saying I would have picked the unhealthy option. I know this, because I spent decades doing it when I certainly wasn't hurting for money. Maybe on a population level it would work, and I'm just atypical. Can we look at sin taxes on cigarettes and draw any conclusions?

Apparently the relationship between income and obesity is complex enough to vary by race and gender. Which is to say, not tightly coupled. (CDC studies)

Cigarettes are a great example of missing substitutability.

If you smoke, and the price of cigarettes increases, what options do you have?

My version of an anti-smoking campaign would have drastically boosted the price of cigarettes and used to tax to decrease the price of nicotine patches or gum.

If there aren't alternatives at the point of sale, there aren't alternatives.

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#383

Post by seoulmetro »

oarfish wrote: post #185
rthomas6 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the metabolic syndrome/obesity epidemic. 40% of US adults have obesity. By 2030 about half of US adults will, and in 29 states more than half of adults will be obese. We see obesity becoming increasingly normalized. People feel powerless to stop it and that we should just accept it. It feels to me like there is something besides diet changes happening to us. That's part of it, but I wonder if microplastics or so…

> It feels to me like there is something besides diet changes happening to us. Well sure, obesity is a result of a lot of factors, some genetic, but a lot of it is the food environment surrounding people. The lack of easy access to healthy foods or education on how to buy and prepare them, plus economic pressures all play into this.

>The lack of easy access to healthy foods or education on how to buy and prepare them, plus economic pressures all play into this.

This doesn't exist anywhere in the world. You either have easy access to healthy food or no access to food at all.

Healthy food is so much cheaper, more abundant and easier to source in all situations than processed junk.

The idea that people don't know how to eat healthy or can't afford to is a convenient lie.

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#384

Post by lukas099 »

xdavidliu wrote: post #353
lukas099 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone always says this but I’ve never heard it from an actual evolutionary biologist. Some genes evolve faster than others; in fact, some genes have themselves evolved to be able to evolve faster.

does the gene for halving overall hormone levels evolve fast enough to respond to 3 generations of improved health care?

Maybe.

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#385

Post by f1refly »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #219
lukas099 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think bhouston is talking more about poisoniing one’s own body with microplastics, whereas you’re talking about polluting the environment.

I'd guess he knows that. But we do live in the environment, and if they go into the environment they go into the food chain, no?

The boat has been towed out of the environment!

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#386

Post by yuumei »

sva_ wrote: post #159
yuumei wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing you can do personally to reduce the amount in your body is to donate blood

I think you mean PFAS, not microplastics

You’re right I was thinking of PFAS chemicals, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are micro plastics in blood now however

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#387

Post by BaseballPhysics »

DrThunder wrote: post #349
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you don't. A ban forces industries to create alternatives. Otherwise they won't bother. You just schedule a phased elimination over time so those alternatives can get developed. That's precisely how the Montreal Protocol banned CFCs and protected the ozone layer: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

If it was that easy to get an alternative introduced it would have been suggested already and all of these radical "green" governments would have hopped on the train immediately. This idea that we're just killing people with microplastics because we like it is insane. CFC's coming out of your hairspray is WAY different than removing the plastic keeping your food fresh. Stop with the black and white thinking. There is…

[flagged]

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#388

Post by flexagoon »

SirMaster wrote: post #375
flexagoon wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not eating slows down your metabolism Starvation mode is a myth. Well, kinda. You do enter "starvation mode" where your metabolism significantly slows down, but only if you're actually starving . Simply eating in a caloric deficit will not do anything to your metabolism. The beginning of this article talks about that in great detail: https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/

I thought there have been studies finding that simply eating less doesn't necessarily work for some people because of metabolism. Maybe they have a thyroid issue too. And that the amount you would have to limit yourself to with a completely sedentary life (like many people have) and still be in a caloric deficit is just not sustainable for people and would make you feel absolutely miserable and also unlikely to get e…

> "Just eating less" I don't think is really enough for most cases. You need to also be active and exercise along with, and even better, be eating the right balance of macros.

To lose weight, you need to eat in a caloric deficit, that's it. Excercising just burns extra calories which allows you to eat more while staying in a deficit.

And macros / less junk food are, of course, important for health, but if we're speaking strictly about weight loss, no, it doesn't matter. FWIW, you can eat only a Big Mac and 3 Snickers bars every day, and you'll still lose weight, because that's about ~1800 kcal, which is a deficit for most people.

> the amount you would have to limit yourself to with a completely sedentary life (like many people have) and still be in a caloric deficit is just not sustainable for people and would make you feel absolutely miserable and also unlikely to get enough vitamins and minerals and cause other health problems.

That depends on what you eat really, there are a lot of foods that don't have a lot of calories while still being very nourishing, and many of them are just normal foods, not some special "fitness stuff"

---

The article I linked in my above comment is actually a great explanation of why "just eating less" is enough for most people, I highly recommend you read it if you haven't already.

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#389

Post by avgcorrection »

no_identd wrote: post #379
edgyquant wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we stop trying to come up with any reason but the objective one for the cause of the problem?

'The mistake here lies in the assumption that it is possible to describe an object completely (we won't go so far as to say "explain") without making any reference to its relation to its environment (whether this relation be one of indifference, selective relevance and capacity for stimulation, of disconnection, or of closure). In order to avoid these problems, which arise from the point of departure taken, both subj…

This certainly just made me more confused.

Re: New study finds microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, alter behaviour

#390

Post by flir »

ethbr1 wrote: post #382
flir wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying I would have picked the unhealthy option. I know this, because I spent decades doing it when I certainly wasn't hurting for money. Maybe on a population level it would work, and I'm just atypical. Can we look at sin taxes on cigarettes and draw any conclusions?

Apparently the relationship between income and obesity is complex enough to vary by race and gender. Which is to say, not tightly coupled. (CDC studies) Cigarettes are a great example of missing substitutability. If you smoke, and the price of cigarettes increases, what options do you have? My version of an anti-smoking campaign would have drastically boosted the price of cigarettes and used to tax to decrease the pr…

> If there aren't alternatives at the point of sale, there aren't alternatives.

I agree. But most of my bad food choices are made in supermarkets. Next time you're at a checkout, look for the healthy trolleys and the unhealthy trolleys. Honestly, the difference is stark. (When I go on a health kick, I find it amazing how many aisles I just don't need to walk down. So much processed food).

On the tax point I'm going to try to argue you away from the concept of hypothecated tax, because I think it's almost always a bad idea. Money is fungible, and taxation all goes into a single pot. Tying tax and spending together is a rhetorical trick, meant to manipulate public opinion - whenever you see a politician doing that, there's a good chance they're trying to con you.

If we're going to put a sin tax on something, we should do it because it's the right thing to do. If we're going to fund a health programme, we should do it because it's the right thing to do. But these decisions are orthagonal. Tying them just unnecessarily binds government's hands wrt future policy changes. Worst-case, you end up funding obsolete health programmes, "because that's what the tax is for".

Post reply on HN