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

How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#81

Post by _DeadFred_ »

dijit wrote: post #6

Realistically, the best thing you can do to reduce your microplastics intake seems to be to avoid microwaving in plastic bowls and to avoid using plastic bottles for soft drinks and water. (Though cans actually use a thin film of plastic inside too.. so, maybe just avoid packaged water?) Beyond your personal intake though there's bigger fish. Car tyres are the #1 source for microplastics entering rivers, and it's not…

So I boil my water (hoping it does something to all the mirco plastics, maybe make them lump together). Only just now did I think to check 'is my metal kettle lined with plastics'. And guess what...

The modern world is exhausting sometimes.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#82

Post by _DeadFred_ »

alt227 wrote: post #35
a3w wrote: post #28

Half the microplastics in our body is from cars. So move to a car-free city district or remote cabin (and then driving train+bike so not to contribute to the problem?).

If cars are causing microplastic pollution, Im sure bikes and trains are too. Im seems using rubber/plastic compounds for tyres and brakes is always going to cause this issue on any vehicle.

Most of the bike chain lube at my local bike shop is basically just pure PFAS forever chemicals. Might as well cook with non-stick pans if you are applying chain lube to your bike at home.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#83

Post by dijit »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #67
dijit wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You asked for a meta-analysis. Here's one: 39 studies, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... It found microplastics caused a decrease of 5.99 million/mL in sperm concentration, 14.62% in sperm motility, 23.56% in sperm viability, and a 10.65% increase in sperm abnormality rate. (I copied and pasted these values directly from the source). You s…

Doesn't this one directly contradict the other one you linked? What is it now? How is my sperm in danger!? Please Mr. Googlescienceman! Oh god! I'm so confused! I can't take it anymore. Please just tell me what brand of air filter and plastic free clothes I need to buy!! Perhaps I should ask the all mighty google AI overview... Edit: Oh - lol XD. It literally just told me the science has found no causal link for micr…

A single study with N=34 finding no significant effect on sperm count doesn't contradict a meta-analysis of 39 studies that did. That's what meta-analyses are for: aggregating underpowered individual studies into something statistically meaningful.

You know this if you have the science degree you're claiming.

As for Google AI Overview: if that's your standard of evidence now, we've come a long way from 'I subscribe to science.'

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#84

Post by bertil »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #79
bertil wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the millions of people killed by delaying safety legislation for decades knew that pretending to make jokes (what became known as the "stochastic asshole" approach) was also a common tactic taught by those PR firms, to make critics sound like sour-puss.

Whatever deamons you're fighting, they are not here in the room with us, friend. Be well.

Do you know what a "useful idiot" is, in the Soviet manipulation tradecraft?

Someone who repeats, jokingly or not, an argument that was placed somewhere deniable. One lab, looking at a small study, published a correction saying their estimates were wrong because they didn’t realize how their gloves accounted for it. Do you know who knew about that? Every intern in every lab ever. This was a minor correction that should never has reached anyone except the 10 readers of their original report.

But, strangely, that story got a wide coverage in the press: the usual “science” publication, the trade press, even widespread media. Why? Because it was presented as a “They are making things up about micro-plastics” piece, and those can go really far. And that kind of coverage doesn’t happen by accident.

So no, I don’t think you did that deliberately. But I know you read about it recently; I know you didn’t check what that original story was that triggered the coverage; I know you found that quaint—and I have no reason to think you deliberately tried to spread misinformation. But, you did. Because the people who want to sow doubt know what they are doing.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#86

Post by tpm »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #72
schiffern wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I just mean the more expensive tea on the shelf. On cheaper SKUs they're trying to cut cost so they use normal tea bags. The plastic sachets were a trend for a couple years but hopefully most brands have switched away. That study is interesting because they used SEM to image the plastic afterward, and you can see how the plastic surface has literally been torn up on a microscopic level simply by touching hot wate…

Thanks for threwing this ball, so let me ask: Is there any real difference between the more expensive shelf places ("on eye height") than the more cheap one? Id suspect its just intelligent re-labelling/re-packing for different brands? Or is there really a difference in the quality/taste of the expensive ones? In my country, it doesnt matter if i spend 2 bucks or 5 bucks in the supermarket

> Or is there really a difference in the quality/taste of the expensive ones?

If we are still talking about tea, then of course there are huge differences. And the best tea is not packaged in individual tea bags (also it's not sold in supermarkets unless it's a country with a very high tea culture).

So at the low end you would have tea that is grown with lots of chemicals, plucked by machines or by badly paid workers, industrially processed in high quantities, sold as bulk on international markets. While on the highest end you would have artisanal small-batch tea with no chemicals involved, possibly grown in some special way like the tea bushes shaded from the sun or hundred years old tea trees in forested areas, processed by hand so the leaves are not broken etc... And all of this is reflected in the taste.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#87

Post by matsemann »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #82
alt227 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cars are causing microplastic pollution, Im sure bikes and trains are too. Im seems using rubber/plastic compounds for tyres and brakes is always going to cause this issue on any vehicle.

Most of the bike chain lube at my local bike shop is basically just pure PFAS forever chemicals. Might as well cook with non-stick pans if you are applying chain lube to your bike at home.

Why, do you lick your bicycle chain?

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#88

Post by bertil »

alt227 wrote: post #80
bertil wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don’t like factual replies, do you?

I would prefer to keep on topic and discuss the original points personally, but it seems people keep trying to derail into berating each other, commenting on peoples behavoir and pointing out forum rules. Seems strange to me but I get dragged in all the same. Is it not factual that trains have brake pads which wear down and cause carcenogenic micro dust? Seems I made that factual point and it was ignored in favour of…

> Seems strange to me but I get dragged in all the same.

Maybe it‘s a you thing?

> Is it not factual that trains have brake pads which wear down and cause carcenogenic micro dust?

Not a point I have contested, but yet another suggestion without any sense of scale, and so far you have refused to address that aspect of five or six replies on the topic. Maybe that’s why you are inviting so much hostility?

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#89

Post by cubefox »

a3w wrote: post #28

Half the microplastics in our body is from cars. So move to a car-free city district or remote cabin (and then driving train+bike so not to contribute to the problem?).

> Half the microplastics in our body is from cars

I doubt it. The article suggests most is from inhaling indoor dust from synthetic textiles.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#90

Post by array_key_first »

OutOfHere wrote: post #29
schiffern wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>microwaving in plastic bowls More generally, never let hot food touch plastics. The high temperature is what damages the plastic surface, not anything special about microwaves. For instance the same thing happens with plastic tea bags in hot water: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352...

Some people use plastic cutting-trays / knives / forks /spoons / cups / jugs, which also are some things to avoid. I would also avoid all nonstick pans and utensils, as they're lined with PFAS which is worse than plastic, and slowly it will break off into the food. Beware the industry shills on this forum, as they will have you ignore the fact that ingesting PFAS is well known to result in higher blood levels of PFAS…

Non stick pans are perfectly safe to use. But, if you're worried, just avoid very high temperatures and use wooden utensils on them, never metal.
Post reply on HN