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

191–200 of 344 posts

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#191

Post by thomasfromcdnjs »

rcme wrote: post #187
thomasfromcdnjs wrote: post #184

Reading this thread, I didn't know so many people use microwaves. I've never owned one, traditional cooking, food taste better and insert other conspiracies...

Reheating food and defrosting things are much faster in a microwave.

I don't just re-heat my left overs, I make them into a new dish.

Defrosting is a funny one, most people don't know you can roast frozen chunks of meat perfectly fine.

You can reverse sear a frozen steak too. (it works, I've done it)

I sound like a tosser, but you know, food is one of the greatest things humans have to experience. (and perhaps the reason we exist at all)

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#192

Post by giantg2 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #77
giantg2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soft silicon products still contain plastic polymers.

Wait, really? Like baby bottle nipples?

Exactly.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-021-00998-x

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#193

Post by DangerousPie »

Dah00n wrote: post #178
DangerousPie wrote: post #138

Actual paper: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c01942 The real question is whether the exposure you'd receive from occasional microwaving would be enough to ever cause any meaningful health problems. Unfortunately papers like these always like to talk about dramatic metrics like 'billions of nanoplastics' without putting that into any meaningful context.

I guess that's because we don't know, yet. But the question is why let all those plastic particles into your baby if you could avoid it until we know better? A newborn today will likely live to know the result of some future research. If in doubt shouldn't that be enough for at least a warning label?

Because every decision in life is about trade-offs. Sure you could completely stop using plastics in the microwave, but that means buying new items that are potentially more expensive and may have other disadvantages. And for some plastic items there may not even be a viable replacement - for example I'm not sure how you would replace flexible pouches.

So to make any sort of sensible decision you need to know how bad these plastic particles really are, to weigh that against the cost of avoiding them.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#194

Post by XorNot »

Dah00n wrote: post #157
XorNot wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unclear means no one's got a plausible mechanism, which for the widespread existence of them being implied is a bit of a problem. They're inert long chain polymers, and amongst other things you need to show bioavailability in the area t you propose would cause damage at sufficient concentrations. In the current case: how efficiently do nanoplastics cross from the digestive system to the blood stream, how long do they…

But micro plastic have been found in newborns, so why not avoid it until science isn't unclear? Seems to be the smart way but I'm no expert.

Here's the thing about that: lots of particles have been found in the placenta[1]. In the case of the study that found microplastics[2], they found 12 particles in 4% of the volume. 12 - total. So maybe 300 total particles. In about 600 total grams of placenta. It's difficult to put a scale on how few that actually is.

So the issue here is we're not really talking about a unique threat, just a vector of an existing one. In terms of bioactive compounds which could find their way to the placenta, metals and carbonaceous soot are going to be a lot worse then inert plastics (of note: the paper involved notes that the primary possible mechanism is the microplastic acting as a carrier delivering bioactive molecule - not the material itself).

It is also worth noting that in the same study, 2 of the studied placental samples showed no microplastic contamination. Which is to say, given the transport mechanism proposed - inhalation of particles - it's quite likely that the medium is not things ingested in the GI tract, but rather airborne contaminants.

Which would make a lot more sense, seeing as how if micro or nanoparticles were routingly migrating through the gut, we'd suffer serious problems with bacterial infection, or just dealing with something like soluble fiber (which is essentially a plastic - long chain cellulose - that isn't digested).

So the question isn't "why not avoid it?" it's, "are you even avoiding it?" The GI tract is a relatively robust system that's very good at rejecting the external world from it. Whereas your lungs are pretty much a direct link to the blood from the atmosphere.

[1] https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2020/smd/air-pollution-par...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#195

Post by cj »

aziaziazi wrote: post #152
devjab wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn’t have to experiment on children as such. You can follow children who were Brest fed and children who were bottle fed and compare the two. It’s sort of a worrying study for me personally. Because bottle feeding only really works so well because you can microwave, both for cleaning and for heating, modern bottles so easily. If you have to go back to glass containers it’ll be a literal nightmare for most par…

Not a parent, but curious: can’t you microwave glass booties ? I do microwave water in glass and don’t see problems. Is it the fragility of the glass ? In that case I guess any fabric protection can solve it ?

Not a parent, but guessing glass is bad because kids tend to throw things and glass is breakable.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#196

Post by nprateem »

gattr wrote: post #172
mda wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1,000,000,000ng = 1g

@Omin, @mda, just a side note: I recommend using the (centuries old, I guess) established typography rule and putting a space between the number and the unit symbol. See [1] for additional info. [1] SI Unit rules and style conventions, https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html

I never understand this pedantry. The GP is commenting on a forum, not writing a research paper. Who cares how they write, as long as they're understood?

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#197

Post by nologic01 »

The lifecycle of (artificial) plastic stuff in the biosphere is one of these bold, impact agnostic technological adaptations whose true footprint only reveals as densities and exposures become systemic and get integrated over time.

Our mental models and economic organization are simply not geared to long term, insidius, slow cooking phenomena. If a profitable and desirable convenience is not immediately and obviously harmful it assumed to be "ok" for the long term and at scale.

At some point we might have to switch to a thinking pattern where every and any technology that is applied at planetary scale must undergo a long and exhaustive testing process before being deployed.

This will have a dampening effect on innovation in certain areas, but we must accept that moving "fast and breaking things" at planetary scale is no longer a viable strategy.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#198

Post by EA »

thomasfromcdnjs wrote: post #184

Reading this thread, I didn't know so many people use microwaves. I've never owned one, traditional cooking, food taste better and insert other conspiracies...

99% of the homes, apartments, and hotel rooms I have been to in the US have them. Most every restaurant has them.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#199

Post by belorn »

autoexec wrote: post #114
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…

Yeah, this is one of those cases where I think it's better to take the cautious route. Now that we know we're ingesting massive amounts of plastics and it's been found in every human organ, and in blood, and in breast milk, etc I think it's probably a good idea to take what steps we can to cut down on it until things are more clear about the harms. Avoiding this exposure will be easy for me, because I was never very…

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 non-stick. There has actually been studies done on cast iron on people with iron deficiencies, with gains in haemoglobin concentration.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#200

Post by mrob »

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…

I suspect improvements in communications media. Every day, the average man sees many other men who out-compete him, with no hope of that ever changing. He sees men who are richer, taller, stronger, smarter, etc., in ever increasing realism and "engagement". Beating them is impossible, so the correct strategy in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness would be social submission and hoping they are generous. It seems plausible that there's some biological mechanism that lowers testosterone to aid this process.
Post reply on HN