How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

Post by lancewiggs » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 10:41 PM UTC

tpm wrote: post #86

KellyCriterion wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by Ferret7446 » Sun, Apr 12, 2026, 6:14 AM UTC

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…

Post by alt227 » Sun, Apr 12, 2026, 11:26 AM UTC

bertil wrote: post #88

alt227 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by scotty79 » Sun, Apr 12, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

alt227 wrote: post #50

scotty79 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With cars there are higher energies involved, and things like that tend to grow with square or cube of the energy. I wouldn't be surprised if car was causing orders of magnitude more plastic pollution than a bike per person per mile.

Thats obvious and goes without saying, but then I didnt state any specific metrics, only that they both casue the same thing even in different amounts

Post by pocksuppet » Sun, Apr 12, 2026, 8:23 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #47

rusch wrote: post #2

I wonder when and if microplastics will get it's Asbestos moment. Obviously they are not as carcinogenic, but it seems we don't have the full picture, and microplastics are present at an insanely higher degree than asbestos where.

Not as long as there are powerful car lobbies and the main source of microplastic will remain car tires. Instead, you have articles like this trying to tell people to look away from that main source of problem, and blame, say, indoors or food preparation, and skip details like how the homes with the most microplastic in them are… close to the highway.