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

211–220 of 344 posts

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#211

Post by inconceivable »

gattr wrote: post #205
nprateem wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's just visually jarring. Do you consider your use of spaces after commas and periods and capitalizing the first word in a sentence "pedantry"? To me it's at the same level.

hey at least they're not doing something absolutely and deliberately idiotic like putting the % in front of the number like a currency symbol.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#212

Post by gsk22 »

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...

A microwave is a tool, and like all tools, sometimes it's a good fit for the job and sometimes not.

I also prefer home cooking, but resent the implication that my cooking is inferior because I sometimes use a microwave.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#213

Post by jawon »

softwaredoug wrote: post #203

FYI you can buy glass “Tupperware” that works better than the plastic stuff. It’s more durable and easier to clean. Why did we start even buying plastic containers for this purpose?

Glass chips and breaks. "Tupperware" can take punishment for years. Decades even. Our household started replacing plastic containers with glass last year and we've already cracked 3 and smashed 1. The plastics, used for pet food now, are unchanged.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#214

Post by Dalewyn »

WithinReason wrote: post #189
DangerousPie wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have access to the paper, but just reading the abstract it gives these numbers: > Exposure modeling results suggested that the highest estimated daily intake was 20.3 ng/kg·day for infants drinking microwaved water and 22.1 ng/kg·day for toddlers consuming microwaved dairy products from polypropylene containers. > Furthermore, an in vitro study conducted to assess the cell viability showed that the extracted…

So it seems that a concentration of microplastics that's 50 million times higher than a toddler would get still leaves 20% of cells alive? To me this implies that normal exposure levels to microplastics are likely completely harmless.

I wouldn't frame it as "harmless", but it is probably accurate to say any harm is insignificant at worst.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#215

Post by qbxk »

TylerE wrote: post #78
userbinator wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly were those studies on? Those bags are almost certainly polyethyelene without any additives, which is safe and has been in widespread use for almost a century. Petroleum jelly is far more reactive than PE, although it's substantially the same chemical structure, yet most of us regularly use it on our skin. If the biggest concern about sous vide is the plastic, then I think that's a very strong argument fo…

There are plenty of things that are perfectly safe, even beneficial, on the skin that are harmful if eaten, injected, or inhaled.

genuinely, i ask, like what?

i was told by a doctor once that the general rule is to never put anything on your skin you wouldn't also eat, inject or inhale. your skin is your body's largest organ, and allows many types of molecules to pass through it in either direction. if you rub it on there, you may as well be injecting it, the effect is the same, except, in most cases, the magnitude

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#216

Post by neuronic »

carlmr wrote: post #67
NovaDudely wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more chemists I have spoken to over the years, the more I hear warnings about polymers in general. Seems as though, that in general structure simply cannot be manufactured in a way that is innocuous to our health. It is plausible that plastic will be the next tobacco/leaded gasoline. Time will tell however.

>It is plausible that plastic will be the next tobacco/leaded gasoline. More like lead, since it's impossible to remove the microplastics from our environment. Tobacco you can just stop , I know it's addictive and all, but at least the issue is psychological, not physical.

Dependence on many drugs, including nicotine, is indeed very physical: https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco-n...

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#217

Post by nucleardog »

Dalewyn wrote: post #214
WithinReason wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it seems that a concentration of microplastics that's 50 million times higher than a toddler would get still leaves 20% of cells alive? To me this implies that normal exposure levels to microplastics are likely completely harmless.

I wouldn't frame it as "harmless", but it is probably accurate to say any harm is insignificant at worst.

If it's a single, acute exposure sure.

I'm no doctor or microbiologist or anything, but there definitely seems to be a strong connection between "things that cause cellular damage" and "increased risk of cancer with long term exposure".

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#218

Post by halfcat »

nologic01 wrote: post #197

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…

A planetary scale strategy is only viable if it first outcompetes the alternatives, and then produces the “right behavior” as a side effect.

A few buy a Tesla to save the environment. The majority buy a Tesla because it has “self driving”, it appeals to their vanity, FOMO, etc.

A few buy bitcoin because it’s a necessary tool to curb fiat devaluation and other forms of corruption. Most buy bitcoin because “number go up”, appeal to greed, and even the worst intentioned actors engage simply out of self interest.

Whether Tesla and bitcoin are “the right thing” is not the point. They illustrate the right strategy, where a desired new behavior is adopted at scale even by those with no interest, or even opposing interests.

The hard part is not figuring out what new behavior is needed. It’s figuring out how to bring about wide scale adoption.

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#219

Post by timst4 »

nologic01 wrote: post #197

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…

Chief Seattle had it right all along it seems[0]. We should have been aggressive about considering the impact of technology on the next seven generations. It’s not too late to start of course, but it is too late to avoid dire planetary changes.

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainabil...

Re: Study finds billions of nanoplastics released when microwaving containers

#220

Post by wyldfire »

XorNot wrote: post #139
epolanski wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the effects are being exaggerated. Are they? The article points out that effects of nanoplastics on humans are still unclear.

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…

Aren't there documented impacts of additives like bisphenol A as endocrine disruptors?
Post reply on HN