Let me pose the inverse question.
Is there anything safer to eat than microplastics?
Peanuts – no. May die from anaphylaxis.
Sugar – no. At the wrong time deadly to diabetics.
Glucose – no.
Artificial sweetener – not even a single one.
Mushrooms – no.
Tomatoes – no.
Potatoes – no.
Apples – no.
Meat – no.
I’ll have the lettuce bucket and the oily starch sticks.
Remember the melamine in the baby formula?
sarahs mum said:
I’ll have the lettuce bucket and the oily starch sticks.Remember the melamine in the baby formula?
Ta. I’d almost forgotten that.
Lettuce? With or without snails?
Lettuce goes slimy when it’s left out too long. I think?
mollwollfumble said:
sarahs mum said:
I’ll have the lettuce bucket and the oily starch sticks.Remember the melamine in the baby formula?
Ta. I’d almost forgotten that.
Lettuce? With or without snails?
Lettuce goes slimy when it’s left out too long. I think?
I grow lettuce and I don’t worry about snails.
There’s something wrong inside your head moll.
mollwollfumble said:
Let me pose the inverse question.Is there anything safer to eat than microplastics?
Peanuts – no. May die from anaphylaxis.
Sugar – no. At the wrong time deadly to diabetics.
Glucose – no.
Artificial sweetener – not even a single one.
Mushrooms – no.
Tomatoes – no.
Potatoes – no.
Apples – no.
Meat – no.
I believe there to be good observational evidence that the consumption of plastic has a strong correlation with the mental condition known as irrational contrarianism.
on the other hand most foods really are full of polymer so
Maybe not but you should probably incorporate other things in your diet anyway
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
Let me pose the inverse question.Is there anything safer to eat than microplastics?
Peanuts – no. May die from anaphylaxis.
Sugar – no. At the wrong time deadly to diabetics.
Glucose – no.
Artificial sweetener – not even a single one.
Mushrooms – no.
Tomatoes – no.
Potatoes – no.
Apples – no.
Meat – no.
I believe there to be good observational evidence that the consumption of plastic has a strong correlation with the mental condition known as irrational contrarianism.
> irrational contrarianism
Better known as “an active bullshit detector”.
Seriously, there isn’t any safer food. Plastics are mostly chemically inert. Being microplastics allows them to safely pass through the whole directive system without physical blockage. If you have teflon cookware, then you’ve already eaten teflon microplastic.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
Let me pose the inverse question.Is there anything safer to eat than microplastics?
Peanuts – no. May die from anaphylaxis.
Sugar – no. At the wrong time deadly to diabetics.
Glucose – no.
Artificial sweetener – not even a single one.
Mushrooms – no.
Tomatoes – no.
Potatoes – no.
Apples – no.
Meat – no.
I believe there to be good observational evidence that the consumption of plastic has a strong correlation with the mental condition known as irrational contrarianism.
> irrational contrarianism
Better known as “an active bullshit detector”.
Seriously, there isn’t any safer food. Plastics are mostly chemically inert. Being microplastics allows them to safely pass through the whole directive system without physical blockage. If you have teflon cookware, then you’ve already eaten teflon microplastic.
Have they studied microplastics and stomach acids and what chemicals might be released if they get dissolved
dv said:
Maybe not but you should probably incorporate other things in your diet anyway
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.
Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?
If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
Microplastics aren’t food
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
LOL, 100% eh? I’m sure that is some form of logical phallacy.
Bogsnorkler said:
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
LOL, 100% eh? I’m sure that is some form of logical phallacy.
SCIENCE said:
Bogsnorkler said:
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
LOL, 100% eh? I’m sure that is some form of logical phallacy.
sorry misclick, we meant to say, look at the initial list, it’s safer than peanuts IF peanuts cause anaphylaxis
mollwollfumble said:
Let me pose the inverse question.Is there anything safer to eat than microplastics?
Peanuts – no. May die from anaphylaxis.
Sugar – no. At the wrong time deadly to diabetics.
Glucose – no.
Artificial sweetener – not even a single one.
Mushrooms – no.
Tomatoes – no.
Potatoes – no.
Apples – no.
Meat – no.
From the article (you probably missed it).
>>Studies have shown that microplastic exposure can cause aneurysms and reproductive changes in fish, impair cognitive function in hermit crabs, lead to swimming abnormalities in shrimp and weaken the grip of mussels and potentially hamper their growth. We’ve also seen efforts to extrapolate these kinds of findings to humans through studies that use the genetically similar fruit fly as a model, which showed that microplastics can alter gene expression associated with stress response and oxidative damage.
“Much of what we know about microplastics has come from the marine environment research and it is only more recently that human impacts have come under scrutiny,” Jeanette Rotchell, principal investigator of microplastic impacts on human health at the University of Hull, told New Atlas.
Last December, scientists published research investigating the toxic effects of microplastic exposure on human cells. The first study of its kind, it built on previous work in this area such as research demonstrating that microplastics have the ability to alter the shape of human lung cells. This involved a systematic review of the available literature on the impacts of microplastics in lab-based exposure studies.
Among the toxic effects the team considered were cell death, impacts on the cell membranes, oxidative stress and characteristics akin to allergic reactions. The research showed, according to lead author Evangelos Danopoulos, that we are ingesting microplastics at “levels consistent with harmful effects on cells, which are in many cases the initiating event for health effects.” Though clearly not good news, there is an important distinction to be made between what occurs in laboratory experiments, and what we know for sure to be taking place in the human body.
“The limitation in the current scientific evidence is that although we know we are regularly exposed to microplastics, we do not exactly know how they will behave inside our bodies,” Danopoulos told New Atlas. “For example, we don’t know how much will simply pass through and be excreted and how much will have the ability to cross the barrier of the gastrointestinal system and make their way further in our bodies. More research is needed specifically to target these unknown and crucial elements.”
Research in rodents has hinted at these possibilities, such as a study last year showing that microplastics can infiltrate the blood-brain barrier in mice, pointing to potential toxic effects on mammal brains. But by and large, the question of how microplastics behave in the human body, and therefore the health risks they pose, is a great unknown. According to Rotchell, differences in the types of plastics used in these experiments, and those found in the environment, is one of the reasons why.<<
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.
Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?
If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
Safer as in no immediate or soon after allergic reaction but not safe as in long term effects on the body
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
How much bread can you eat before it’s dangerous compared to how much microplastic you can eat before it’s dangerous.
It’s essentially a meaningless comparison as the point at which something becomes dangerous is in the dosage. I’m guessing the safe dosage of microplastics would be a small fraction of any common food.
Spiny Norman said:
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
How much bread can you eat before it’s dangerous compared to how much microplastic you can eat before it’s dangerous.
It’s essentially a meaningless comparison as the point at which something becomes dangerous is in the dosage. I’m guessing the safe dosage of microplastics would be a small fraction of any common food.
Reaping what we sow aren’t we.
I’m assuming its been known about a lot longer than we know and covered up
Cymek said:
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
Safer as in no immediate or soon after allergic reaction but not safe as in long term effects on the body
Nah.
I’m calling shenanigans on the whole anti-microplastics propaganda.
The only risk from plastics is:
But basically, plastics are safer than everything. Both short term and long term. And if you don’t believe me, give me a counterexample.
Who says that some foods don’t have significant long-term effects on the body?
mollwollfumble said:
Cymek said:
mollwollfumble said:
If you are sure that I am wrong, then name me one food, any food, that you are 100 per cent sure is safer than microplastics.Prawns, perhaps?
Scallop ?
Bread?
Olive?
Something else?If you can find one then I’d be quite happy to admit my error.
Safer as in no immediate or soon after allergic reaction but not safe as in long term effects on the body
Nah.
I’m calling shenanigans on the whole anti-microplastics propaganda.
The only risk from plastics is:
- Polycarbonate, both because of sharp edges and because of leaching effects.
- Macroplastics such as Lego bricks, shopping bags and toy soldiers, that may get stuck part way through.
- Fishing lines and other long items.
- There is a slight risk if with vinyl monomer leaching out of vinyl chloride, but there’s certainly no proof that that’s a risk.
But basically, plastics are safer than everything. Both short term and long term. And if you don’t believe me, give me a counterexample.
Who says that some foods don’t have significant long-term effects on the body?
- Many spicy foods are known to cause mouth, throat and stomach cancers. This is a very serious health problem in SE Asia and probably elsewhere.
OK, so we’re all agreed that that there is no food that is intrinsically safer than microplastics in the short term.
Much food has a significant deadly effect in the long term = obesity.
Being overweight used to be, and perhaps still is, the number one killer in Western countries. So it needs to be countered by a food that does not cause obesity – food grade microplastics.
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:
Cymek said:Safer as in no immediate or soon after allergic reaction but not safe as in long term effects on the body
Nah.
I’m calling shenanigans on the whole anti-microplastics propaganda.
The only risk from plastics is:
- Polycarbonate, both because of sharp edges and because of leaching effects.
- Macroplastics such as Lego bricks, shopping bags and toy soldiers, that may get stuck part way through.
- Fishing lines and other long items.
- There is a slight risk if with vinyl monomer leaching out of vinyl chloride, but there’s certainly no proof that that’s a risk.
But basically, plastics are safer than everything. Both short term and long term. And if you don’t believe me, give me a counterexample.
Who says that some foods don’t have significant long-term effects on the body?
- Many spicy foods are known to cause mouth, throat and stomach cancers. This is a very serious health problem in SE Asia and probably elsewhere.
OK, so we’re all agreed that that there is no food that is intrinsically safer than microplastics in the short term.
Much food has a significant deadly effect in the long term = obesity.
Being overweight used to be, and perhaps still is, the number one killer in Western countries. So it needs to be countered by a food that does not cause obesity – food grade microplastics.
We?
You Eat Plastic Every Day. Here’s How To Avoid It.
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
on the other hand most foods really are full of polymer so
But seriously what’s the big difference between fragments of indigestible organic polymer versus fragments of indigestible organic polymer we mean this fibre thing was suggested like 20 years ago at least.
Used to chew and swallow my plastic pens in high school. Sometimes end up with a mouthful of ink.
dv said:
It must be true because it’s written in the Daily Mail.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
on the other hand most foods really are full of polymer so
But seriously what’s the big difference between fragments of indigestible organic polymer versus fragments of indigestible organic polymer we mean this fibre thing was suggested like 20 years ago at least.
It must be true because it’s written in the Daily Mail.
We Mean Who Are We To Question Their Expertise In Faecal Bulking Agency ¿
I know that…