201–210 of 341 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The form matters. The plastic in masks is not inhalable, and in all likelihood wearing a mask reduces inhaled plastics like it reduces inhaling of any other solid.
Micro plastics mostly come from synthetic fibers, like the fabric in masks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. People and jobs are more sedentary. Kids sit in front of screens instead of riding bikes to the park and playing ball or just running around. Fat in prepared foods has been reduced, replaced with corn syrup. Portion sizes for food and drink at restaurants have probably close to doubled since the 1970s. We are less active and we're eating more. Thus we got fat.
Exactly. Fats were deemed the enemy #1 and the problem with corn syrup has relatively only recently been brought to public's attention. A friend of mine from Europe spent the summer in Florida riding bike all day long under a swelling sun, selling encyclopedias. He should have lost weight, but he came back with puffy cheeks and belly. I blame corn syrup for that :)
I did similar things where I probably had 10k steps a day in Europe because we walked everywhere all the time. We also ate a lot and often. So my weight didn't change. Heck, I thinks some people gained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
nice. >In these scenarios (0.15g and 0.3g) about 90% they estimate comes from salt. for a few years now we have switched to rock salt completely at home. it's like 20-40% more expensive and we have to use a hammer/grinder every month or so but we are doing that. by reducing say 90% of the microplastics, is that.. good?
What makes you think that’ll reduce it?
The actual study is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... The study presents three scenarios assuming different assumptions about the mass of plastic particles. In the worst case scenario, where I think the assumptions are bad, they estimate 5g of plastic per week. In the other two scenarios which used more complex but more realistic modelling they estimate 0.15 and 0.3g of plastic cons…
>In these scenarios (0.15g and 0.3g) about 90% they estimate comes from salt. I know nothing about anything, but could salt be heat-treated to burn off plastic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. That said, it does beg the question: why, 12 years after that video was published, has the field not come to an agreement, if it is “pretty clearly” the truth? One could come up with various explanations, including lobbying by big sugar, but it falls flat when you consider that the sugar industry is only a small fraction of the industrialized food industry, there’s plenty of lobbying and influence to go a…
The first person to suggest fossil fuels would leaf to global warming was in 1896. How long until the field came to an agreement?
The actual study is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... The study presents three scenarios assuming different assumptions about the mass of plastic particles. In the worst case scenario, where I think the assumptions are bad, they estimate 5g of plastic per week. In the other two scenarios which used more complex but more realistic modelling they estimate 0.15 and 0.3g of plastic cons…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that pie chart to the left is not poor design choice. it demonstrates actual incompetency.
I didn't get it at first but you're right, it's horrifying. They put the total and the breakdown into the same pie chart.
>bisphenol A mimics the hormone estrogen and can lead to damage in sperm development.19 Further research has shown that microplastics, and not just those with bisphenol A, can cause damage to the testes and lead to the production of deformed sperm cells that have a harder time reaching eggs. I'd more interested in hearing what microdosing xenestrogens on a large scale does to our collective psychology. I think this i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highly unlikely. The obesity epidemic is very well explained by diet and lifestyle choices, and regional variations in average body mass correlate with these explanatory variable pretty well.
So people just started making different choices the last fifty years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My concern is with all the infants. Being able to gawk out and stare at all the many faces you see, and how they respond to you has got to be foundational to your discovery of the world. If had to place a bet on a major "net negative" I'm going all in on this. I have one friend who absolutely swears that "covid babies" are a thing, and that you can spot them from across the room. I haven't yet figured out what that m…
As a parent in the thick of babies exactly at this age and surrounded by other parents in the same situation, I cannot tell the difference between a "covid" baby and any other. What I can tell you is how much time and effort the parents are putting into the baby, and whether is home-schooled or goes to school/daycare. First child? They're probably walking early. Third kid? They'll be pushing a year and a half old wit…
And thanks for a charitable understanding of the "covid baby" idea: obviously "all babies right now are covid babies" so this is a comparison of "pre-covid" vs "now" (and that early on, that line was much blurrier).