21–30 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ideally would prefer something like reverse osmosis but not so practical Just curious why that is? I was going to buy one for my new house and they seem pretty practical, at least for drinking water at home.
I live in a small place that I rent so I don't have so much space for the system, but if you have the space for it I would say it's worth it! I would also love to have RO for my shower but I haven't found a solution for that.
People in a few decades will think we were crazy for packaging 100% of our food in plastic, the same way we think putting asbestos everywhere was crazy back then. The amount of strokes and aneurysms that are gonna happen in 20~50 years is gonna be truly fantastic.
Try to wipe your mind and walk in a supermarket as if you've never been in one, nothing makes sense whatsoever. Same for roads in the cities, endless streams of 2000kg+ hunk of steel, plastic and glass, 95% of them transport about 80kg of human, 95% of the time they're just parked taking space for no reason. Most things we designed are just so fucking inefficient and borderline insane, humans are very adaptable and i…
Is there a viable way to actually avoid microplastics?
It's pretty much impossible to completely avoid microplastics. They're literally raining down on us at this stage. But it's parts per millions to consider. I remember seeing a video about how all gortex and basically all waterproof great releases microplastics into the environment and then the rain basically carries it everywhere. If I find it ill post it.
People think in terms of food packaging, and they certainly should. But the danger is actually everywhere in our modern life. The cars, the homes, the clothes, the food, the phones, the computers, the blankets, the sheets, the carpet, and so on and so forth.
Smaller particles resulted in fewer obstructions
...and that suggests the whole "nanoplastics" scare is another stupidity which is a moot point anyway because monomers and short-chain polymers are very reactive and unlikely to even persist for long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the era of extreme inefficiency and waste. We are local min/max machines and need government to direct us to the global min/max but it doesn’t do that.
That's because the at best, the government can be a penalty condition in the objective function, and recently it's effect has been almost completely eclipsed by the near term gains. I believe what we'd need is education. The more educated the masses are, the more likely it is that they vote for governments that have the long term interests in mind, and the more likely it is that the government itself will then preven…
Consider the ongoing racism and marginalism against a large portion of the population and the resistance it has to ongoing public education efforts.
Consider the topic of evolution. Or vaccinations.
Sure, we should ensure that those ready to learn are provided with the opportunity to do so, but we have to accept that not everyone is ready, and that is where government comes in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can reduce the exposure but I doubt you can eliminate it. Live far away from roads, live outside of cities, avoid all plastic containers for water/food, avoid synthetic clothes/bed sheets/towels/&c.
"Live far away from roads" I guess it's microplastics for me
I've felt better ever since covid made these omnipresent where I live.
This appears to be a poorly done study-- they're showing the mechanical effect of possible blockage, but they haven't shown that microplastics here are any different than particles of other inert substances found in our environment: clays, silt, organic debris, etc. Those have always been in our drinking water and the immune system deals with what gets into us.
People in a few decades will think we were crazy for packaging 100% of our food in plastic, the same way we think putting asbestos everywhere was crazy back then. The amount of strokes and aneurysms that are gonna happen in 20~50 years is gonna be truly fantastic.
Devils advocate here: food has been packaged in plastics for decades and plastic containers have been around longer than that. If plastics were as damaging as you claim, wouldn’t we have already seen this in the epidemiology?
People in a few decades will think we were crazy for packaging 100% of our food in plastic, the same way we think putting asbestos everywhere was crazy back then. The amount of strokes and aneurysms that are gonna happen in 20~50 years is gonna be truly fantastic.
Devils advocate here: food has been packaged in plastics for decades and plastic containers have been around longer than that. If plastics were as damaging as you claim, wouldn’t we have already seen this in the epidemiology?
I’m just tired of this kind of things : conglomerates are putting X everywhere, and then we have to prove that X is indeed dangerous, when they should be the ones proving that it isn’t. All the while they’re lobbying billions of dollars to try and make the research as slow as possible so that they can get every last cent of profit before X gets banned.