717
submitted 1 year ago by Jpopy@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] keenanpepper@sopuli.xyz 227 points 1 year ago

This may be true but I hate the practice of referring to "plastic" as if it's a single substance. It's a bunch of different materials that don't really have that much in common with each other, especially from a health/toxicity standpoint.

For example, people treat it as common sense that "you shouldn't burn plastic" because the smoke is "toxic". For PVC this is totally true, it makes very nasty stuff like dioxin that will poison you. But on the other hand you can burn polyethylene (think milk jug) and it's no more toxic than burning a candle. Definitely way healthier to breath than wood campfire smoke, for example.

There's also such a silly pattern where people learn some chemical might have some effect on the body and suddenly everyone is up in arms about it. For example Bisphenol A in many applications was replaced by the very similar Bisphenol S just so things could be labeled "BPA Free". BPS probably has similar estrogenic effects to BPA.

I'd say the moral of the story is be wary of received wisdom about chemical toxicity from people who aren't chemists.

[-] RinseDrizzle@midwest.social 74 points 1 year ago

Now I just want an accurate infographic of "safe" combustible plastics.

[-] abbadon420@lemm.ee 31 points 1 year ago

Yeah! I don't want to accidentally throw a redneck bonfire with white smoke again.

[-] sadbehr@lemmy.nz 42 points 1 year ago

Have you heard of Dihydrogen monoxide? It literally kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year all over the world, including young children.

You don't hear about it in the news though do you....

[-] islandofcaucasus@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

I'm confused about how it kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. How, by drowning?

[-] pieceofcrazy@feddit.it 26 points 1 year ago

It's an old (early-internet?) joke iirc. And yes, I think that's the answer

[-] islandofcaucasus@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Oh shit, I was thinking there was no way that hundreds of thousands of people did from drowning every year, but they actually do.

WHO estimates that every year over 200k people die from drowning

[-] sadbehr@lemmy.nz 10 points 1 year ago

Yea I did my 10 seconds of research before I quoted my number! I could have said '200k' but 'hundreds of thousands' sounds much more dramatic don't you think? Which is the whole point of the Dihydrogen monoxide thing.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

Wow, talk about preventable deaths...

[-] sadbehr@lemmy.nz 6 points 1 year ago

According to its Wikipedia page, this joke was first published in 1983! I suspect most people know it from the early 2000's when it made a resurgence again.

[-] AmyJ5000@lemmy.amyjnobody.com 8 points 1 year ago

What I think it is, is that every single person who ever consumes it, will eventually die. We are also literally dependant on it. If you stop ingesting it for too long, it can also cause you to die... That's how it went around here, at least.

[-] lunchboxhero@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

That’s my understanding as well, it was a joke about correlation != causation.

[-] Nollij@lemmy.fmhy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Look at all of the related "risks" and add them up. I'm sure that drowning is a small number, but then add in all of the deaths from scalding, acid rain, poisons (that contain water), etc etc and it eventually gets to be a very big number. Probably in the millions

[-] sadbehr@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 year ago

The WHO estimates 236k deaths per year worldwide due to drowning. There's other ways to die to Dihydrogen monoxide other than drowning, so my numbers hold up!

[-] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Acid rain has never killed anyone. It can kill plants and destroy farms, so I guess it can kill indirectly by causing famine, but that's about it.

[-] erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago

Not only BPAs but many chemicals like BPAs can cause birth defects because our bodies think they are estrogen.

If this worries you, read the books It Starts With the Egg and Grain Brain.

They both suggest that not only what you eat, but how it's prepared can affect the health of a child.

For instance it's a big no-no, according to It Starts With the Egg, to heat most plastics in the microwave. The heat breaks the plastic down, it can get in your blood, your body will think it's estrogen, and they don't even know the full effects of this yet.

So think about

  • burritos in plastic wrapping,
  • cling wrap on a bowl,
  • reheating leftovers in Tupperware,
  • disposable cutlery

These chemicals are not just in food:

  • your car's interior
  • your cell phone case
  • even the clothes on your back, unless they're 100% pure, untreated, natural fabric, may have been made with these chemicals.
[-] burgersc12@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yep, the long term affects are gonna be worse than we can imagine imo. These plastics are everywhere in the environment so it is literally unavoidable anywhere on this earth. They are in small concentrations for now, but they are increasing rapidly as more and more plastic is created/wasted every minute

Thinking about reducing plastic fucks me up and it’s been on my mind a lot lately. Noticing every single time we bring new plastic into the household, and how hard it is to avoid. Chicken comes in plastic wrap, and even if we got it at a butcher counter, they still toss it in a plastic bag before wrapping it in brown paper. Bags of potting soil, our toothpaste tubes, peanut butter jars… it’s endless.

At least the majority of my clothes are cotton or wool, but another source is carpet and there isn’t anything I can do about this apartment carpet.

[-] radix@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

Are microplastics similarly diverse in their effects on the human body?

[-] keenanpepper@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

I would guess that chemical effects would be diverse while "physical" effects would not be so diverse. Keep in mind that things like mesothelioma from asbestos are kinda sorta "physical" effects because it's from jagged roughness of the particles at the nanoscale rather than any specific chemistry.

[-] dingus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

So what you're saying is instead of having a bonfire I should be have a milk jug fire?

[-] lorez@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago
[-] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Also be wary of people that say they are chemists on the internet when oil, plastics, and guns have mostly only been researched by their manufacturers. All totally safe.

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
717 points (97.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43728 readers
1830 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS