Right, but is your suggestion to say "business as usual" until we have definite irrefutable proof for each and everything? I have no idea how likely or unlikely it is that having plastic in our bodies has any negative impact whatsoever, but that doesn't mean I can't still try to reduce the risk of accumulating more of it in my body. As with most things in life it's a tradeoff, with convenience mostly.
I don't have pans with teflon anymore. I avoid plastic bottles for beverages, which means I almost never drink any soda. I got rid of almost all my Tupperware and use paper bags or boxes made of steel when possible. And even though I grew up using the microwave a lot as a teen, I somehow ended up never owning one myself after moving out.
If it isn't plastic then what is it? We have been steadily identifying and reducing the number of toxic agents the public is exposed to. Fifty years ago in the 70s the average person would have regular exposure to lead gas, lead paint, tobacco smoke (even if they didn't smoke themselves - indoor smoking was still legal), potent pesticides, and maybe even asbestos. But there were far fewer everyday plastics at the time.
I suspect improvements in communications media. Every day, the average man sees many other men who out-compete him, with no hope of that ever changing. He sees men who are richer, taller, stronger, smarter, etc., in ever increasing realism and "engagement". Beating them is impossible, so the correct strategy in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness would be social submission and hoping they are generous. It seems plausible that there's some biological mechanism that lowers testosterone to aid this process.
> We have been steadily identifying and reducing the number of toxic agents the public is exposed to
In some cases, we have just been uncovering what the businesses selling a toxic product already knew but covered up for a quick buck - even using sophisticated and “scientific” arguments.
In many cases, we just need the right incentive from the regulators. To prioritize long term thinking.
> There's nothing to suggest it's plastics in particular
Sometimes wonder if these arguments are just devil’s advocating.
I mean do you avoid heating food in plastic for you and yours?
Or are you so scientific that you believe it’s fine until proven otherwise?
Said another way, if you were to bet money, which way would you bet - that plastics are benign?
I'm not OP but yeah I assume it's fine until proven otherwise. Why wouldn't I?
Otherwise where does it end? What other things should I assume are dangerous despite no evidence? Or are you saying I should latch on to whatever baseless hysteria is popular at the moment?
I'm not a betting man. I think plastics have been around for a long time and as far as I know we haven't proven that they have a negative effect. If they did have a significant negative effect I'm pretty sure we would have proven it by now. So maybe they have an insignificant negative effect. I'm okay with that risk. If I weren't I wouldn't have time to do anything other than worry about and avoid shit that might have an insignificant negative effect - not to mention things that we know have a significant negative effect such as alcohol.
Honestly if you drink alcohol and you worry about microplastics you're just hypocritical.
> Honestly if you drink alcohol and you worry about microplastics you're just hypocritical
That’s correct. Some people feel powerless to address the bigger elephants in the room.
Being obsessively anti-plastic (or anything) shouldn’t be a coping mechanism (but that’s what it is, not hypocrisy).
But I’m suggesting that as a society, we can easily have the collective will to uncover and address issues - more research on plastic, more education on alcohol, etc.
Because we know what short term thinking unregulated actors can do, intentionally or unintentionally.
FWIW I think this is a good remark. It's just correlation until proven otherwise. I was just saying there are changes in society, one of which is the widespread use of plastics, and there are changes in population health roughly starting along the same time. But indeed, we also started to do sitting work massively, and started using wireless communications etc.
Then again, we also reduced coal use in cities, we burn less wood in our houses, etc.
It really, really hard to prove causation beyond doubt. If you have a strong correlation and a reasonable concern that it might be causal relationship, and we are talking about health impacts, at some point it is rational to use the precautionary principle and take action even if you don't have definite proof.
As an extreme example, we actually can't state with 100% confidence that exercise is good for your health, it's just too hard to prove. But nobody with a sane mind will doubt it.
> we actually can't state with 100% confidence that exercise is good for your health
Doubt. It depends what definition you use for "health" but we know for a fact that a sedentary lifestyle has negative effects and that an active lifestyle has positive effects. Those assertions are indisputable.
I don't have pans with teflon anymore. I avoid plastic bottles for beverages, which means I almost never drink any soda. I got rid of almost all my Tupperware and use paper bags or boxes made of steel when possible. And even though I grew up using the microwave a lot as a teen, I somehow ended up never owning one myself after moving out.
Yet for some reason I still managed to survive.