Posted by Jimmc414 10/25/2024
> Prior material analyses of sex toys like those characterized here revealed phthalate concentrations in most tested products at concentrations ranging from 24–60% by weight [11, 14, 15]. In addition, there is growing concern over human exposure to micro-and nano-plastics. The translocation and biouptake of nano-sized particles is now well established [16]. Human exposure to nanoplastics and the potential for enhanced release of plastic additives are of potential concern.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10034881/#:~:text=P....
HN is supposed to be a forum of educated, rational people capable of critical thought. Here are some basic facts.
1. Plastic is often presented in the media as some kind of monolithic hazardous compound where it is not. There are different kinds of plastic. Alternatives are usually economically and environmentally inferior.
2. The most common types of plastic for consumer applications are polyethylene and polypropylene, followed by polyvinyl chloride and polystyrene. PE and PP are biologically and chemically inert. The same reason why they don't break down is the reason why they are harmless. Polystyrene derived from a naturally occuring compound styrene found in some plants and can and does breakdown under attack of UV light, acids, microorganisms. All three PE, PP, and PS are most commonly manufactured without harmful additives. Only PVC uses significant quantities of plasticizers some of which are harmful. Unless you are chewing on your shower curtain you have little to worry about.
3. At least several hundred billion tons of commodity plastics have been mass produced over the last 70 years with little to no quantified, attributable environmental damage from these plastics. Most microplastic is essentially inert dust that is no different from other organic or inorganic dust such as pollen or clay. Plastics are not allergens because they are non reactive and do not stimulate an immune response. It is very likely that blood of animals contains plastic molecules along with thousands of other molecules in trace quantities doing no more harm than natural silt in a river system.
4.The fact that commodity plastics do not readily rot or degrade is a good thing. Petroleum carbon made into stable plastic and buried in a landfill is kept out of the atmosphere.
5. Plastic items are less energy demanding to recycle and produce in the first place because of lower thermal processing requirements than glass, metal or wood.
6. Lignin in wood is a natural plastic.
7. Most of the macro plastics in the ocean comes from Asia and the fishing industry. In the west it is buried in a landfill where it helpfully sequesters carbon.
8. Plastic items are often lighter to ship also consuming less energy that way versus alternatives.
9. Most microplastics in the ocean are from synthetic fibers and tire abrasion. I have yet to see a non handwaving study that these actually result in significant environmental harm. Maybe we should research more durable tire materials. Perversely electric vehicles wear tires quicker than ICE vehicles due to a more aggressive torque curve. Cotton has to be planted (diesel tractor), sprayed with fertilizers and pesticides, picked (diesel), spun, woven, etc. just because it's natural doesn't mean it's better for the environment at mass scale. This true of other things too like glass, metal, paper, etc.
10. People should stop irresponsibly hating on plastics when the alternatives are worse.
This neo Luddite Puritanism is just dumb and unscientific.
I challenge anyone to rebut my assertions with hard facts that quantify to supposed damage plastic does versus what alternatives would do.
It's not enough to assert, loudly, that you are right and we are all wrong and everything is fine let's all go back inside and let the chemists keep doing what they're doing. You have to explain also why PE and PP never under any circumstances ever contain any plasticizers.
Regarding plastics and microplastics in the oceans, I've seen tons of pictures of dead birds that after autopsy have filled their crops with broken plastic pieces instead of food. This is not good, and having all of our sea birds die is not an insignificant environmental harm.
So hand-waiving that away doesn't change the fact that introducing plastics have caused new and exciting forms of harm in our biosphere.
2. I believe you should consider logical fallacies and questions of scale and trade offs.
Specifically people arguing against "plastics" in general seem to depend on hearsay, strawmen, all or nothing fallacy, appeal to authority, etc. it is black and white thinking against the nuance of the real world. In recent times on many issues it seems that black and white thinking is presented as something that is a rational way to approach things. It is not. The real world is complicated and full of nuance anf tradeoffs. Just because you can show some plastics may have some harmful effects does not mean that the miracle of plastic materials is a net bad for humanity or the environment unless you can show the harm EXCEEDS that of scalable alternatives. The burden of proof is on those who are against plastics to show that the net harm caused by specific compounds is worse than the net benefit of using them. We will never be able to prove that all plastics are harmless in every possible context. Nor should we. In life we have to make decisions based on the best available information we have. So it makes more sense to ask after 70 years what significant harms have been caused by plastics that would be made less than alternatives. Even a thousand pictures of dead birds does not make a compelling case unless it is weighed against the costs of harvesting forests for paper and burning fossil fuels to make glass and metal to make inferior packaging that costs more and takes more fuel to transport.
All else held equal light weight non biodegrade materials made from cheap highly productive chemical feed stocks are better for the environment than alternatives.
A series of anecdotes and one sided analyses does not make a compelling case.
You're missing a couple points yourself. For example, the article is talking about phthalates. These are additives added to plastics. These leech from microplastics. So your rant about how plastics are inert shows you didnt even understand the article yourself tbh.
There is plenty of evidence that these compounds are harmful and affect the biology. See the section on wikipedia on phthalates. What there isnt is much evidence and experimentation showing theyre NOT harmful.
EVs are also heavy and might wear tires quicker in braking situations though.
You clearly know this, and much more.
Why not go one step beyond “hey anti all plastic people, not all plastics are bad” and help them get educated on, avoid and solve the harms that do exist?
Lack of nuance, on either side of the debate, mostly comes across as propaganda (to me)