this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
508 points (98.3% liked)

News

28700 readers
4205 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Like the better-known chemical BPA, BPS is an endocrine disruptor linked to breast cancer and reproductive toxicity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 55 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Above that it mentions:

HAZARDS FOUND IN LABORATORY TESTS INCLUDE:

  • Obesity
  • Diabetes
  • Early Puberty
  • Cardiovascular system disorders
  • Abnormal reproductive system development
  • Hormone abnormalities in children
  • Susceptibility to various cancers
  • Resistance to chemotherapy
  • Diminished intellectual capacity

Great, so receipts are going to be like our version of the leaded gasoline and mercury of past generations? 🫠

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s plastics in general, but yeah. It’s already in your brain, and you’re accumulating more every year.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

As I understand it, plastics themselves have no known negative impact on human health - it's the additives in the plastics that are a problem. But I don't think the BPA hazards listed above can be fairly generalized to all microplastics.

EDIT:

from the hazards sheet:

HEALTH HAZARDS IN THERMAL PAPER WITH BISPHENOLS (BPA & BPS)

So BPA and BPS, and they're talking about thermal paper with those in particular.

I guess this has more details about BPA hazards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_Bisphenol_A

The U.S. FDA states "BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods" based on extensive research, including two more studies issued by the agency in early 2014.[2] The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed new scientific information on BPA in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2015: EFSA's experts concluded on each occasion that they could not identify any new evidence which would lead them to revise their opinion that the known level of exposure to BPA is safe; however, the EFSA does recognize some uncertainties, and will continue to investigate them.

As usual, it's highly contextual when something is a hazard and to what extent it is.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Scientists also used to not think plastics crossed the blood-brain barrier until they started finding it in cadaver brains, you know? The list of things we understand about how plastics react to the body and its chemical processes is probably a much shorter list than the one of things we don’t understand about plastics.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yup, though this isn't an argument for why plastics are certainly dangerous. It doesn't really matter, there are many reasons plastics are a problem, even if we don't have that smoking gun yet on how actual plastic is hazardous. BPA, BPS, PVC, and other additives are already horrible, the reliance on plastics are part of what is destroying the earth's climate, and these materials are not recyclable or re-usable, it's an environmental disaster on a scale we have never seen, etc.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

As I understand it, plastics themselves have no known negative impact on human health - it’s the additives in the plastics that are a problem.

  1. What are these additive-free plastics you're suggesting exist? Should we make sure the microplastics lodged in our brain are only of the free-range, organic, and crafted with love variety?

  2. There have already been preliminary studies linking higher concentrations of microplastics with poor medical outcomes with more damning reports coming out very frequently. In the meantime, maybe let's not pretend that whatever absence of evidence you perceive is evidence of absence.

  3. Having no known negative impact certainly doesn't mean they have a known positive impact. So it's likely good to try to avoid them as much as you can.

I know it sucks because it's yet another tough to impossible problem to tackle alongside everything else, but that's just a Monday.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

yeah, this is probably a bit like when people thought smoking wasn't bad for you.

The higher concentration of microplastics are correlation studies, they don't establish a causal link (which would be huge news and the discovery of a century). For example, the correlation could just be due to the poorer lifestyles of those who consume more microplastics (for example, they're more common in processed and fast foods, which tend to be less healthy, for example and may also just be more common in people with lower economic status who then have less access to healthcare and more likely to die younger for a variety of reasons). The point is that they don't have the smoking gun, yet.

We should just be clear about where we are at with the evidence, I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned or the lack of evidence is somehow exonerating or that we should be confident this isn't a public health concern - I am very much concerned.

And of course there are lots of other reasons to avoid plastics, including its impact on the ecology and agriculture. It's terrifying that China for example will just till plastic sheeting into the soil rather than bother to pull it up (and perhaps concerning plastic sheeting is used as a mulch in the first place, both in China and other countries like the U.S.).

I don't know what to tell you about additives, they absolutely do make plastics without some of the known-to-be-hazardous additives, though I'm not saying that has in any way been adopted across the board or has solved the problem (I don't know enough about that to be honest, but I'm cynical industrialists are going to give a shit).