- cross-posted to:
- memes@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- memes@slrpnk.net
You must log in or register to comment.
Fun fact, lead is delicious and counts itself among the most historically accepted forbidden snacks. Wine, in veggies absorbed through fertilizer, dissolved in solution, lead can be, and has been, enjoyed many ways.
See also: sugar of lead.
It is believed that Ludwig van Beethoven died of lead poisoning as the port he used to drink was supposedly adulterated.
The US still has a lot of lead pipes and I think that kind of explains a lot.
because they’re safe.
running water covers them with a layer of stuffMany parts of Europe also do. What’s your point?
not just plastic bottles / containers,
we literally have teflon cookwareTeflon cookware is mostly a non-issue during cooking because PTFE starts melting only at temperatures largely higher than cooking temperatures.
The problem is when it gets discarded and incinerated and it emits residues, and during its fabrication.
No way it doesn’t degrade and emit PFAS occasionally during normal use. There’s a reason nobody who keeps birds will keep that shit in their house.
The risk:reward ratio is so skewed it’s stupid.
Risk: if you heat it slightly too much a class of chemicals literally called “forever chemicals” because of how long they stay in the body will enter your lungs and your food
Reward: food no sticky
to pick a nit and to highlight the other-than-poisoning-you aspect: they’re forever chemicals because they don’t break down naturally anywhere, not just your body. Wait…an idea: throw those pans into a volcano!
Ever seen a well used Teflon pan that wasn’t scratched or chipped? All of that goes into your food.
OK but PTFE itself is not carcinogenic or harmful from what I remember. Only when it starts deteriorating at high temperatures does it release harmful components. So eating your Teflon pan isn’t supposed to be that bad.
https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2021/09/does-teflon-cause-cancer
It’s not known to be harmful or carcinogenic. Doesn’t mean it isn’t. It’s hard to identify correlation between exposure and harm for something that we’re nearly all exposed to especially if the level of harm is low.
Companies have also been known to harass and silence researchers who show their products are harmful. I don’t see a reason to trust that PTFE is safe to eat when I have the option to just not eat it.
Sure but you can apply this logic to anything: copper, cast iron, enamel, nickel used for stainless steel… Where do you stop?
Copper and iron are essential elements in human biology. Enamel coatings need to be thrown out once they start chipping. Nickel isn’t great but in my experience stainless steel pans barely shed any material after years of use.
I stop at manufactured polymers. Particularly when they’re used in applications where they fall apart into our food and the environment where they’re going to last millions of years.
Fair enough!
327°C
Would you crosspost this (or give me permission to crosspost) to RoughRomanMemes and HistoryMemes? This is perfect!
For some extra context for those not in the know - the Romans boiled down wine in lead pots to make sweetener, because the lead made it even sweeter. Not because they didn’t know that lead was bad - they understood it full well, and even associated certain forms of lead poisoning with lead cosmetics.
But sweetener? Just a little tasty sweetener on your bread and in your wine? What could go wrong!
Be my guest!
I keep finding memes like this and was wondering if we had a fediverse equivalent for it yet.
Subbed to the historymemes one just now, but roughromanmemes doesn’t seem to be visible to me for whatever reason.
You may be the first RoughRomanMemes visitor from your instance.
Lol, read that as RoughRoManMemes and thought it was a scooby-doo meme spot. It was not.
If RoughRo memes ever become a thing, I’ll be the first subscriber.
That lead pipes are still around is even funnier: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67585011
Even funnier(?), the Romans knew that lead pipes could leech lead into the water, but also knew how to counteract it (allowing calcium buildup in the pipes and ensuring a certain distance the water traveled to ensure that buildup); but this method doesn’t work with modern pipe systems because the water remains in the pipes for longer, allowing the lead to seep into the water even when there is buildup. Huzzah for worse lead piping problems than the Ancient Romans?
Same with cars. But don’t worry, they’ll be electric soon!
i love electric cars bc i can feel like im helping the environment, without riding public transport with the poors
/s
I mean in most cases it’s someone who doesn’t live in a place with adequate public transport to even be riding with the poors to begin with
true, but buying electric isnt gonna fix that. it just encouraged new chargers to be built instead
Yes, but what is someone supposed to do, forego being able to afford food in the name of making town hall charter a bus service?
I’m going to sound like an asshole but as someone that has been making efforts to live without a car in Canada for more than 20 years… there are other options than motorized vehicles.
Bicycles exist and you can cover a good deal of distance with them. That could help reduce the number of car trips. No need to get rid of them completely but at least try to reduce its use.
There is also the option to move.
But in the end the argument of rural people needing cars is kind of moot because the vast vast majority of people live in cities or in suburbs that were founded on railroads. So it would be relatively easy to help a good chunk of people to get rid, or use less of their cars while rural people can still drive or pedal to a nearest bus stop, tram stop, or train station.
I know that from experience of living in both a rural environment, and in a city. I did move a few times for my work in order to avoid needing a car.
Again, not possible for everybody but options have to be considered because, we’re running out of time and excuses anyway.
If you live in a rural setting and can’t use a bus or cycle, fine. But don’t sabotage the efforts and options for the vast majority of people that should, or do have options, by stating that if you need a car then everybody surely does! Please!
As the meme says: BuT iT’s sO CoNvEnIeNt!1!
Do we know microplastics to be toxic?
Maybe not in small enough quantities, but what happens when your body accumulates enough of it? Maybe its completely inert but it will build up inside us like dust builds up on devices and eventually it might start clogging something critical, like extremely small bloodvessels or maybe some badly understood cleaning mechanism on brains.
We don’t have enough data to know whether plastic is actually harmful to humans long-term. A better comparison would be lead paint or leaded gasoline.
We absolutely have enough data to know that microplastocs are effecting us
Really? BPA is an issue for sure but I’ve not seen anything about Microplastics specifically. It has to do something…
We know for a fact that they cause fertility issues, and are pretty certain that they’re pretty disastrous for hormonal regulation in general
I always thought it was getting lodged in the lungs that made it concerning.
To be fair, most anything being lodged in your lungs would be concerning
It’s also an issue in the marine environment, where zooplankton will starve to death trying to eat it. These are a keystone species for life on earth. Fucking with them isn’t good at all.
I was more thinking about immediate effects on people (analogous to the meme) but this is … terrifying. Great. This is fine. It’s all fine.
Ah, indeed. Here a few excerpts from a literature review:
A major issue when determining the risks of microplastics to human health is the lack of information on human exposure. Adequate analytical tools to sample, isolate, detect, quantify, and characterize small microplastics (<10 µm), especially nanosized plastic particles, are urgently needed.
Increased exposure through indoor air, direct swallowing of house dust or dust settling on food (10), and direct exposure to particles released from plastic food containers or bottles, such as polypropylene infant feeding bottles (11), are of special concern. Larger microplastics are likely excreted through faeces, or after deposition in the respiratory tract or lungs through mucociliary clearance into the gut (1, 2). Given the methodological limitations and measurement bias toward larger particles, existing analyses probably underestimate human external exposure and generally do not include the fraction of smaller-sized particles <10 µm, which are likely more relevant to toxicity (1, 12). Notably, internal exposure measurements of plastic particles in human body fluids and tissues are still in their infancy.
Reported concentrations of microplastics in tap and bottled water vary between 0 and 104 particles/litre, with generally greater particle counts for small-sized microplastics (8). The first atmospheric measurements of larger-sized, predominantly fibrous microplastics indicate that plastic particles are a relevant component of fine dust, with, for example, deposition rates in central London ranging between 575 and 1008 microplastics per square meter per day (9).
Limited in vitro and in vivo data suggest that only small fractions of administered microplastics are capable of crossing epithelial barriers of lungs and intestines, with specific uptake profiles and generally increasing uptake efficiency with decreasing particle size (2).
Studies with human cells in culture, and in rodents and aquatic species indicate translocation of microplastics <10 µm from the gut cavity to the lymph and circulatory systems, causing systemic exposure and accumulation in tissues including liver, kidney, and brain (12). Al though the smallest particles (<0.1 µm) may be capable of accessing all organs, crossing cell membranes (12), the placenta (13), and also the brain (14), major knowledge gaps regarding absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) still exist. Whether there are dose-dependent effects of microplastics in humans also remains unknown.
An additional intriguing, yet understudied, but potentially hazardous property of microplastics is the presence of an eco- or biocorona, i.e., biomolecules and other substances on the surface of the plastic particle, which may influence particle uptake, fate, and effects (6, 13). [Microplastics could act as vehicle for toxic substances]
Vethaak, A. D., & Legler, J. (2021). Microplastics and human health. Science, 371(6530), 672-674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe5041 [but of course it’s fucking paywalled]
You know that science gets further the more evidence we can observe right? Please look up your sources and date them for me, will you? Then do another search and pay attention to recent studies on the effects of plastics on the human body.
You’re asking me to prove a negative. Why don’t you post your sources?
? I’m asking you to look at your sources, not to prove anything to anyone. I don’t even want to hear your conclusion, you can do that all by yourself or continue to look like a fool that didn’t read a single study on the subject.
I don’t think you understand that you’re asking me to prove that something does not exist. You can’t prove that. There has not yet been enough study to prove that it does have a negative effect, aside from BPA which is already being regulated.
i know im gonna get hated for this, but: fluoride tap water
God forbid we… checks notes… prevent tooth decay!
if only there were something we do twice a day to prevent that… oh well.
if you wanna protect your teeth that much then use fluoride mouthwash after you brush your teeth. you can even swallow it if you like.
It’s an interesting discussion to have about consent/medical choices, but the fact is that many people don’t have the knowledge/resources to go out and do that, and for them it’s a benefit without proven drawbacks
Science says no
Yummy, I love eating garbage