Sidenote, why is silicone able to accumulate so many airborne chemicals for testing?
Tons of food/kitchen products are made of silicone and touted as food safe. However, I always find that silicone kitchen products accumulate smells and then transfer these odors to the food, so I abhor them. This seems to confirm that mechanism.
Going after plastic manufactures in a similar manner as the US did to tobacco should be a no brainer.
Tobacco companies had a very very weak argument that people born after a specific date used it on purpose (after the warnings were required on the product). Before that date, people believed it was safe due to ads.
But plastic people have no such argument. Health issues are yet to be fully confirmed. But after about 50 years of plastic being everywhere in the environment, we see alarming increases in many health issues among the young. The young have been exposed to plastics since conception.
To me, that is a rather big coincidence.
Are they related ? Only more research will tell, but everyone now has mirco-plastics in their systems.
Seems this is like the mercury build up that happen a long time ago. Eat organisms with micro-plastic in their system, it builds up in your system.
You are missing a part of that no brainer argument. What do you do with all the products that use plastic. You go after big plastic and then what? Unlike tobacco, plastic is used in most/all of our day to day products. This is not a defense of big plastic but rather pushing for the real issue, who do you transition from plastics?
Maybe you put a 500% tariff (at least, since plastic is such a cheap product) on the most dangerous plastics (the ones that are known to disrupt hormones).
Also a domestic plastic tax - by making plastic less cheap (perhaps have it go up 10% every year in perpetuity) eventually there will be incentives to find natural alternatives (paper, bamboo, woods, etc).
It makes no sense to me to claim the most productive country in all of history, with our AI and everything, couldn't replace plastic. It's the same thing people said about oil 50 years ago.
But oil is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago, even when accounting for renewables.
Nobody is claiming it cannot be done but I believe its very valid to point out that it is not a no brainer and the implications on the global economy may be quite severe. Again not a defense of plastic but more that I think its more complicated than people make it out to be.
For many items, bottles. I was quite young before plastics became impossible to avoid, so I remember how things were. As for other things, maybe aluminum for say phone and laptop cases and other items for autos. I doubt we can eliminate all plastic, but I think we can eliminate most of it.
Yes, things would be more expensive, but we have a choice, Health or Plastic. If you factor in the cost of healthcare, then the extra expense may be a wash. It is just a matter of who pays.
Some ideas, I'm sure there are downsides to these and other things possible, and not really sure of the sum total effect of these changes:
- Get serious about plastic recycling, maybe even a cash deposit scheme like glass bottles or aluminium cans in some places.
- Build/grow stuff closer to where it is sold, instead of halfway across the world, so less plastic (and fuel) is needed in transport both for finished products and supplies. This has the added benefit of introducing supply chain resilience, decreasing foreign dependence, and supporting local economies.
- Enable local food markets and street food vendors. Get rid of laws that make it difficult for food trucks or food streeth vendors to operate. Make operating a restaurant and/or selling food cheap and easy. Have your food JIT instead of needing to store it using plastic. Milk used to be delivered and consumed without plastic involved at all.
- Go back to using wood or metal instead of plastic in many items. This will make them stronger and more durable.
- Use paper or wood instead of plastic. Bring back paper grocery bags. Wood is renewable, wood products are biodegradable.
Plastic is widely used, but it doesn't have to be as widely used. Certainly, there are many applications where it's essential (medical, food safety), but a lot of applications where it just happens to be the cheapest and/or most convenient option. By raising the cost we are leveling the playing field for other options.
The most pressing example is fast fashion. The clothes are too cheap, incentivising use-and-bin behavior, and they also don't last because they're cheap synthetics. Cotton is relatively more expensive, but at the very least lasts longer. The race to the bottom must be halted.
Government regulation for chemicals has two purposes. It protects people from harm, and companies from liability. After government approves something for use, corporate liability is limited. You can go after companies only if you can show that they hid some important information from regulators they knew themselves.
If health issues are yet to be fully confirmed despite 50 years of plastic being everywhere in the environment, shouldn't we be a bit more careful about jumping the gun?
I have yet to read any fully documented health related issues. But how can there not be any health issues ?
For example, I saw here on HN that micro-plastics were found in Human's brains. Also we have see a rise in Dementia and Alzheimers over the past decades. Again a bit of a coincidence to me, but makes you wonder.
Personally I think plastics is not the only cause, but I think it is one more thing to tack on to the environmental damage we have cased over the decades. And that damage is now getting to the point that have real health consequences, especially to the young.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31577137/ (2019) "DEHP and DINP Induce Tissue- and Gender-Specific Disturbances in Fatty Acid and Lipidomic Profiles in Neonatal Mice: A Comparative Study"
They mentioned 'airborne' but how do they distinguish plasticizers introduced by airborne particles and plasticizers introduced by showering or washing hands and rubbing detergents on the wristband for example?
Sidenote, why is silicone able to accumulate so many airborne chemicals for testing?
Tons of food/kitchen products are made of silicone and touted as food safe. However, I always find that silicone kitchen products accumulate smells and then transfer these odors to the food, so I abhor them. This seems to confirm that mechanism.
Going after plastic manufactures in a similar manner as the US did to tobacco should be a no brainer.
Tobacco companies had a very very weak argument that people born after a specific date used it on purpose (after the warnings were required on the product). Before that date, people believed it was safe due to ads.
But plastic people have no such argument. Health issues are yet to be fully confirmed. But after about 50 years of plastic being everywhere in the environment, we see alarming increases in many health issues among the young. The young have been exposed to plastics since conception.
To me, that is a rather big coincidence.
Are they related ? Only more research will tell, but everyone now has mirco-plastics in their systems.
Seems this is like the mercury build up that happen a long time ago. Eat organisms with micro-plastic in their system, it builds up in your system.
You are missing a part of that no brainer argument. What do you do with all the products that use plastic. You go after big plastic and then what? Unlike tobacco, plastic is used in most/all of our day to day products. This is not a defense of big plastic but rather pushing for the real issue, who do you transition from plastics?
Maybe you put a 500% tariff (at least, since plastic is such a cheap product) on the most dangerous plastics (the ones that are known to disrupt hormones).
Also a domestic plastic tax - by making plastic less cheap (perhaps have it go up 10% every year in perpetuity) eventually there will be incentives to find natural alternatives (paper, bamboo, woods, etc).
It makes no sense to me to claim the most productive country in all of history, with our AI and everything, couldn't replace plastic. It's the same thing people said about oil 50 years ago.
But oil is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago, even when accounting for renewables.
Nobody is claiming it cannot be done but I believe its very valid to point out that it is not a no brainer and the implications on the global economy may be quite severe. Again not a defense of plastic but more that I think its more complicated than people make it out to be.
For many items, bottles. I was quite young before plastics became impossible to avoid, so I remember how things were. As for other things, maybe aluminum for say phone and laptop cases and other items for autos. I doubt we can eliminate all plastic, but I think we can eliminate most of it.
Yes, things would be more expensive, but we have a choice, Health or Plastic. If you factor in the cost of healthcare, then the extra expense may be a wash. It is just a matter of who pays.
Some ideas, I'm sure there are downsides to these and other things possible, and not really sure of the sum total effect of these changes:
- Get serious about plastic recycling, maybe even a cash deposit scheme like glass bottles or aluminium cans in some places.
- Build/grow stuff closer to where it is sold, instead of halfway across the world, so less plastic (and fuel) is needed in transport both for finished products and supplies. This has the added benefit of introducing supply chain resilience, decreasing foreign dependence, and supporting local economies.
- Enable local food markets and street food vendors. Get rid of laws that make it difficult for food trucks or food streeth vendors to operate. Make operating a restaurant and/or selling food cheap and easy. Have your food JIT instead of needing to store it using plastic. Milk used to be delivered and consumed without plastic involved at all.
- Go back to using wood or metal instead of plastic in many items. This will make them stronger and more durable.
- Use paper or wood instead of plastic. Bring back paper grocery bags. Wood is renewable, wood products are biodegradable.
Plastic is widely used, but it doesn't have to be as widely used. Certainly, there are many applications where it's essential (medical, food safety), but a lot of applications where it just happens to be the cheapest and/or most convenient option. By raising the cost we are leveling the playing field for other options.
The most pressing example is fast fashion. The clothes are too cheap, incentivising use-and-bin behavior, and they also don't last because they're cheap synthetics. Cotton is relatively more expensive, but at the very least lasts longer. The race to the bottom must be halted.
Government regulation for chemicals has two purposes. It protects people from harm, and companies from liability. After government approves something for use, corporate liability is limited. You can go after companies only if you can show that they hid some important information from regulators they knew themselves.
If health issues are yet to be fully confirmed despite 50 years of plastic being everywhere in the environment, shouldn't we be a bit more careful about jumping the gun?
I have yet to read any fully documented health related issues. But how can there not be any health issues ?
For example, I saw here on HN that micro-plastics were found in Human's brains. Also we have see a rise in Dementia and Alzheimers over the past decades. Again a bit of a coincidence to me, but makes you wonder.
Personally I think plastics is not the only cause, but I think it is one more thing to tack on to the environmental damage we have cased over the decades. And that damage is now getting to the point that have real health consequences, especially to the young.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00139...
Highlights
* Silicone wristbands were used to quantify exposure across two different cohorts.
* Human exposure to ortho-phthalates and non-ortho-phthalate plasticizers is ubiquitous.
* DiNP, DEHP, and DEHT accounted for 94–97% of human exposure.
* Our findings raise concerns about chronic DEHP/DiNP/DEHT exposure in urban areas.
oof, DiNP, DEHP, and DEHT can have deleterious effects upon cells:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316248/ (2022) "Effects of DEHP, DEHT and DINP Alone or in a Mixture on Cell Viability and Mitochondrial Metabolism of Endothelial Cells In Vitro"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8157593/ (2021) "Phthalates and Their Impacts on Human Health"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842715/ (2018) "Toxic Effects of Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate: An Overview"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31577137/ (2019) "DEHP and DINP Induce Tissue- and Gender-Specific Disturbances in Fatty Acid and Lipidomic Profiles in Neonatal Mice: A Comparative Study"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7504421/ (2020) "Structure-Dependent Effects of Phthalates on Intercellular and Intracellular Communication in Liver Oval Cells"
They mentioned 'airborne' but how do they distinguish plasticizers introduced by airborne particles and plasticizers introduced by showering or washing hands and rubbing detergents on the wristband for example?