Crumbgrabber

172 readers

1 users here now

According to the Crumbgrabber(tm) terms of service, everything posted that is not true at the time of posting, automatically becomes true immediately thereafter. Please keep this in mind for future reference. Join the worldwide movement now. Thank you for your cooperation. Crumbs. Nothing but crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs. Crumbs.

founded 10 months ago

MODERATORS

Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee

A True man gives zero f*ks (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee to c/crumbgrabber@lemm.ee

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/24563764

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/24015956

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One of the challenges is that little is known about the impact of microplastics on human health and the toxic effects that may vary depending on the type, size, shape, and concentration.

I think everyone agrees that microplastic accumulation is not good, but how much effort should we dedicate to eliminating them. Like if we banned plastic food packaging, but used something that increased the risk of food poisoning by 0.001% would that have a net positive impact on our society's health?

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Plastic isn't a chemical. It's a weasel word. Microplastic isn't a thing either.

At least the fucking BPA stuff from last decade was a real chemical. But fucking plastic? There's no chemical called plastic.

Now if you want to study the effects of polyethylene and/or polyurethane, sure. Except Polyurethane is better known as glue and paint so good fucking luck getting that out of our houses.

We moved to polyurethane paints because they were probably healthier than lead based paints btw. Where's the proof that the... Next paint chemical whatever it ends up being... Is safe?

[–] Dabundis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There is no proof. There is never proof. Moving toward "thing that's probably killing us less" is still worth it imo. It's not uncommon for the solution to one problem to be a cause or catalyst for another problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve problems.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Both Lead and Asbestos have proof. As does Tobacco.

Literally this meme has two chemicals (lead and asbestos) with huge amounts of studies and proof demonstrating the cancer you get when you hang around it.

When we start talking about iffy as shit / bullshit pseudo science like BPA and Microplastic (whatever the fuck that fake chemical means) we are well into fake science that there will never be proof because y'all can't even list off a chemical name correctly.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Isuppose you're right that there is not a strict definition but I've never spoken with person that didn't understand microplastics to mean something like:

micro particles

(too small for a person to notice ingesting but visible with a magnifying glass or optical microscope)

of [solid but easily deformable] hydrocarbon polymers [intended] to be biochemically inert/benign.

Health agencies have historically adjudicated whether particular hydrocarbon polymers are safe for human exposure based on biochemistry (ie are they poisonous?). Assuming that if they were biochemically inert they're safe. But obviously it's unsafe to fill your lungs with inert particles of any size... you'll suffocate. So is it a problem that our blood has unprecedented levels of inert micro particles? It's probably not good. How much can a person ingest before serious issues?

Nobody really knows. Maybe microplastics cause autism, I don't think anybody knows. We'll probably have to do some heinous animal trials to figure it out. And look how much time I've spent talking about something other than climate change.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The issue is that "microplastics scare" is basically a fucking religion right now. There's no evidence nor is there any consistency in testing.

We already know that small particles entering our lungs is bad (see PM2.5 and PM10 studies). So whatevers man. Except the main things that makes PM2.5 or PM10 is burning food, smoked foods, gasoline / diesel engines, and vehicular emissions.

The minute you start talking about the fucking plastic cutting board (HDPE) or the Tupperware (Usually #5 plastic, polypropylene a totally different chemical) and we're talking about numbers far far, far smaller than PM2.5 or PM10 or other such pollutants that we're actually worried about right now.

Do you really think a meme comparing lol Lead and Asbestos to lol "microplastics" is relevant? Or discussion worthy?

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

I agree with you that it's not a major concern and is a fad/ panic. We don't know what the effects are because they are undetectable. I think it's maybe boosted by people that want to keep the green minded people spinning their wheels instead of making progress on climate change.

My point about the lungs was just that if something is inert it doesn't really matter what chemical it is, but it could still be harmful. I'm trying to show that I'm open minded to the harms of micro plastics but still wholly unconvinced that microplastics are worth even a fraction of the attention they're getting.