Bottled water contains 100x more plastic nanoparticles than previously thought
euronews.com
euronews.com
I spoke to a 70 year old co-worker yesterday. They talked about a time when plastic wasn't used anywhere beyond Saran Wrap. How much of our modern plastic use is youthful folly? I grew up with it being normal so I didn't question it. Changing away from it would be abnormal! I suspect there will be a sharp turn away from plastics in several years, but I can't really fathom what that will be to instead. Paper? Metals? Wax? Glass?
If you enter "pepsi" in image search then all it's there is plastic bottles or aluminum cans.
Apart from "water producers" (sic!) the largest plastic-producing industry is kids' toys. Think all the guns, kiddie bikes, cars, dolls and a lot more. Plastic toys wrapped in plastic, breaking after 1 day, or a week, then thrown away. Or kids growing up and toys thrown away as well.
Or parcel shipping. Even the smallest item sent wrapped in enormous amounts of stretch wrap with bubble wrap inside.
Or theft protection: a micro SD card a size of nail wrapped in 20-cm long and thick plastic to prevent it being easily stolen.
Governments around the world are more than happy to tolerate all that.
You bought the drinks, which were distributed in glass bottles (with stickers of the brand and everything. Like the actual plastic bottles), latter you returned the glass bottles to the store and they gave you money for it.
One day started to be promoted Tetra Brik, whose interior is made of plastic. This coincided with a proliferation of large supermarkets, that burst in selling products cheaper than local neighborhood stores (the place were was returned the glass bottles). It was marketed at TV as super ecologic, better than the glass, and that it could be thrown in the bin.
Plastic bottles for drinks were introduced immediately afterwards.
The local neighborhood stores didn't survived the large supermarkets dumping, but at that time the plastic bottles was already introduced.
EDIT: I have no clear when was introduced the aluminum cans, whose interior is plastic also.
How do we wrap all the dairy, meat, and whatnot at the grocery store? How was it done 100 years ago? Heck, how was this done 200 years ago?
> Researchers still can’t answer the big question: are nanoplastic pieces harmful to health?
Also (about alternatives to bottled water)
> There’s just no win
I rarely buy bottled water myself because I live in a place where tap water is fine and bottled water is expensive and wasteful. But for now, that article has scientific value, but way more is needed before I consider taking action.
It didn’t take much, just learning there is plastic in my blood and water is enough. Sure, health effects are inconclusive for now. That doesn’t mean I want to eat plastic.
I already feel like plastic now is going to end up like cigarettes or lead.
I guess that ceramic filters are an option, this is old tech, existed before plastic, and supposedly effective at making water drinkable.
Or just drink straight tap water, it is fine in most of the developed world. In fact, that's what I think is the safest option. It is constantly being sanitized and monitored. Filtration solutions are fine, but they typically remove chlorine, which is often a desired effect, however, it also means that you also remove the stuff that prevents bacteria growth, which means you have to be careful that your filtered water doesn't become contaminated, possibly by the filter itself. It is, of course, doable, and the risks are low anyways, but if you are filtering drinkable tap water for health reasons, be aware that it is possible that you are making things worse. Of course, if you are filtering because your tap water is of poor quality, or for non-health related reasons (like taste), then go for it.
I’d hate to have to pressurize a glass bottle. Seems like a not amazing plan in amateur hands even if many beverages come that way.
An all-powerful god who creates subjects that are capable of failing a test of his own devising, even though he totally could make everyone adequate if he so chose, such a god is an evil sadist.
It'd be like making up rules for what constitutes an evil pixel in Conway's game of life and punishing those pixels for their transgressions. You controlled every parameter. Those pixels failed the test because you set them up for preordained failure.
The only way to square this away is to assume that god isn't unwilling to intervene, but is unable to.
That wouldn't be called a test. That would be perfect beings who follow the commands of god. (which already exist and are called angels)
> It'd be like making up rules for what constitutes an evil pixel in Conway's game of life and punishing those pixels for their transgressions. You controlled every parameter.
If we set the rules and command those pixels you to follow the rules otherwise we punish you. And those pixels had free will but still chose to transgress. Wouldn't be fair to punish them?
> Those pixels failed the test because you set them up for preordained failure.
You have free will. You chose to transgress and revoke god even though the signs were obvious. God knows the outcome because he is all-knowing but you now have the freedom to do whatever you want. Your actions are not forced.
About 4000 religions that all have a different opinion of what it means to transgress and what god might be is 'obvious'?
There has to be objective morality that was commanded by god to know what is good and what is bad.
Now for me, it's Islam and the Quran. I can say with certainty that the Quran is the word of god and there is plenty of proof. We just need to do a bit of research.
So now we have established that there are perfect beings (angels), subjects under tests (those who have free will) and NPCs (those who suffer from the actions of the aforementioned subjects).
You don't have to pretend he is perfect or justify all his actions. Just admit that any human who made the decisions he did would be rightfully judged as an evil person, but since "might makes right" I guess god is infallible.
Mental gymnastics only helps you sleep at night and won't change the rest of our minds.
Also this discussion went off topic real fast and my comment doesn't help.
Or maybe it is unwilling to intervene because he is immensely powerful but not omniscient. And so, if he wants to create the perfect world, he has to run tests first. The same way we break materials to know their physical properties, that god is breaking humans to test their limits, so that the next iteration will be better. He is not sadistic, we are just unlucky to be in the cancer test batch.
On the contrary. Setting up "tests" is often a sign of perverse malevolence.
If I program a virtual world that includes virtual beings it would be idiocy to blame them or worse punish them for any choice they make, I programmed their ability to make choices they only do what I created them to do.
I agree with you as well that it would be...unfair in some sense to punish or blame people for their bad choices. I think this is complex enough that the only way to treat the subject with nuance is to consider a specific religious theology. This is because we need to know what God's attributes are.
In the typical Abrahamic sense, God is considered to be perfect and holy. That is why he cannot be in the same place as sin without just destroying it. It's the same with how light in a dark room necessarily lights up the darkness. It just cannot help but light up the darkness - it is in its nature. But since God is also perfect in love and in mercy, this means that he doesn't really blame people for much. In fact, that's why he forgives and saves and loves. If he really blamed or punished people for their choices, well, nobody would make it. But again, my view is that God is love and that mercy is his greatest attribute. And that this is consistent with his perfection.
How is it possible for God to not be the cause of all things since he's is the creator of all things? If god did not cause something then that means there is something that god did not create and came from somewhere else.
Revelation 21:6 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
>. That is why he cannot be in the same place as sin without just destroying it.
So god did not create sin? This seems in contradiction with him creating all things.
>But since God is also perfect in love and in mercy, this means that he doesn't really blame people for much.
Genesis 3:16 - To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.
Sound like blame and punishment to me that all women get to share for ones choice long ago to eat from the tree of knowledge, pure idiocy.
> Revelation 21:6 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
Indeed, he created all things at least at their Base level and maybe a little bit of customization over generations to intervene in things for specific reasons. But one fo the things he made was life and that includes human beings and he imbued them with free will, which is what we were discussing. So the free will animates or allows these organisms to behave randomly at times mostly to enjoy unique traits and characteristics and preferences, but also to learn how to be like God and to love too. But this requires that it be a choice, to the extent of someone's knowledge of who God is.
> So god did not create sin? This seems in contradiction with him creating all things.
He did not, except to the extent that he allows choice in matters of love or no love and the ultimate consequence of this to be reflected on a temporary physical world. Sin is more like evil - it is the absence of something.
> Genesis 3:16 - To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.
> Sound like blame and punishment to me that all women get to share for ones choice long ago to eat from the tree of knowledge, pure idiocy.
Yeah, it kinda does suck. But just like sin entered the world through their choices, eternal life and heaven became available to everyone because of what Jesus did. That's what the rest of the book says, in a nutshell. So it's a fair trade. But for them, it was still a pleasant world if you think about it. They were the only ones and they pretty much just got booted out of the Garden of Eden and had to live in their own settlement and stop making so much noise around God's guarden for a while. They were so dependent on God for everything, even some clothing, that God had to install some automation to block the entrance back into the house so that they could finally become self-reliant and dominate everything and have adventures and love. And yes, unfortunately sometimes face evil.
You seem to be avoiding my core point or simply don’t understand it. God created everything or he did not. If I program a game world and beings within it if I don’t introduce outside entropy through a RNG or other outside input then it will be deterministic and no choice the virtual beings inside make will not be able to be predicted.
If God uses outside entropy then there is something he did not create there is a larger universe bigger than him from which he can draw outside input on to feed his creations to test them on their non deterministic choices and punish them for making the wrong ones. Otherwise he is testing for something he already knows the outcome of which makes no sense.
> He did not, except to the extent that he allows choice in matters of love or no love and the ultimate consequence of this to be reflected on a temporary physical world. Sin is more like evil - it is the absence of something
Sorry this is nonsense, the ability to “not love” was choice that god created, evil does not exist without god first creating it unless he did not create everything.
And animals get cancer. Tasmanian devils and their infectious mouth cancer is a famous example.
The fact that we live longer doesn't mean we couldn't live even better/longer without all these pollutants
Wonder no more, 70%+ cancer are caused by lifestyle or environmental conditions, most of which is negatively impacted by our own choices (lack of exercise, contaminated food, contaminated water, bad diets, bad construction materials outgassing nasty things, &c.)
Since God created us and the whole universe then how can he not be to blame for anything that occurs within it?
The only possibility for God to not accept blame is if there were some outside force that he did not create for which blame can be attributed to.
I wonder how the beverage and other industries would respond if there was a huge tax on plastic.
I'd love to see plastic tax on every unit of plastic manufactured or imported.
I would also like to see large scale cleanup and recycling efforts with their cost institutionally transferred to plastic manufacturers and importers proportionally to their recent output.
Now when it comes to these particles science does not yet know if this is harmful. (But be tremendously afraid just in case.)
A second question would be how many nano particles was in the water when it was tapped into the bottles? (Since it can be found in municipal water sources)
Also, it recently became evident that HDPE/LDPE jugs contain even more dangerous than BPA chemicals. Same with water pipes in home. So, there's no escape!
> Slowly filtered drop by drop through the hills of Tuscany, Acqua Panna Natural Spring Water is a gift of nature, with a heritage dating back to 1564. It is a symbol of Tuscan taste, savored the world over, at the table and on the go.