• flashgnash@lemm.ee
    66·
    2 months ago

    Your child full of micro plastics, their child full of micro plastics and their grandchild full of micro plastics will be joining in eventually

    At least asbestos and lead didn’t get passed down to children and permeate the entire food chain and all the water

  • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    42·
    2 months ago

    Microplastics are terrifying and all that, but I’m sort of more worried about plasticisers like BPA, BPF, BPS and the rest of the alphabet of BP-whatever’s that was created and brought into use after the dangers of BPA were realized.

    Just a heads up - if something plastic says it’s BPA-free, it probably uses a different bisphenol compound that is less studied than BPA. And is likely as toxic (or even more toxic)!

    But nobody ever talks about those, because science words.

    • Midnitte@beehaw.orgEnglish
      6·
      1 month ago

      Tbf, microplastics would typically contain plasticizers, so that distinction doesn’t seem very important other than to highlight that plasticizers are the biologically active component.

      • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        3·
        1 month ago

        That’s very fair, indeed.

        Perhaps awareness of one will spark awareness of the other. I suppose my concern is that plasticisers are sort of a ‘hidden’ risk, for the most part. They’re used in nearly every food packaging (and prep, such as hoses) that isn’t contained in glass, or served up in its own peel.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      5·
      1 month ago

      I’m for sure getting a rare form of cancer then. Nalgene water bottles in the bush working all day every day. Thankfully I’m out of it now

    • Zink@programming.dev
      4·
      1 month ago

      Your comment reminded me about how I keep wondering if I should bite the bullet and throw away all the plastic cups, plates, bowls, and utensils in the house. Spend a little money on more metal and ceramic stuff, and potentially benefit my family’s health long term. Maybe.

      • Marechan@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 month ago

        You might not be better off with metal ustensils, loads of PFAS are used in the manufacturing process and end up in the finished product.

        A professor once told me: “You cannot avoid contamination, you just have to diversify the sources.”

        FYI items labeled as microwavable are tested to assess what leaches in the food or liquids under normal use. The leachate has to be identified and approved by the FDA (doesn’t mean safe but at least ok-ish)

      • Chuymatt@beehaw.org
        1·
        1 month ago

        Yah. Gone all glass, metal, silicone, and ceramics.

        My wife still wants to cook eggs on her non-stick pans, though.

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      19·
      2 months ago

      The beautiful thing about Teflon is also its downfall. It’s such a stable unreactive product that it never breaks down! Ever. Also the process of making it is pretty awful, too.

        • Marechan@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 month ago

          PFAS are hydrophobic molecules so, not knowing what to do with it, your system will store them with the fat (also hydrophobic). Doesn’t do much in itself (depends on the exact molecule though) but the issue is bioaccumulation and amplification: imagine the food chain as a large hopper, sprinkle a bit of none biodegradable shit on top and imagine the dose you get at the bottom of it. In larger quantities you start disrupting processes in the body often leading to cancers or a myriad of symptoms caused by endocrine disrupting.

          Edit: commented before watching your link, there’s slightly more to it but that’s the gist yup