Nanoplastic Ingestion Causes Neurological Deficits
the-scientist.com
the-scientist.com
Me when I was a kid in the 90s: mum is a f'ing idiot wtf is wrong with plastic this hippy shit is dumb
My mum 2020s: so plastic huh?
Me 2020s: ugh.
But that doesn’t matter much in comparison, because PFAS (corrected) are in the product, allegedly: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/19/simply-o...
1. Lots of drinks come in metal cans with BPA lining on the inside.
2. You can absolutely be reasonably healthy and drink some of these drinks, including the variants that are not sugar-free. I don’t think most people try to be perfectionistically healthy. But I think PFAs are not anywhere closer “reasonably healthy” to consume.
Also, PFAS is not the plural of PFA - those are actually different classes of chemicals.
The material itself is already about 1.5× to 2× as dense as your average container plastic, plus since you're aiming for at least a decent strength, on top of that the wall thickness will probably be several times larger too.
We obviously freaked out and acted immediately, the staff was a bit concerned but it wasn't their child chewing glass shards. Daughter fortunately developed quite a skill or pushing stuff she doesn't like from her mouth using tongue, so she pushed out everything quickly, small cut in her inner mouth, 2 minutes of crying, us running around and that was it, with some evening worries (wife is a doctor but still...).
Not recommending this experience, better check what they give to your young ones (say below age of 3) beforehand, or just bring your own unbreakable one, even if (good) plastic.
There's no way to avoid ingesting plastic any more. You could maybe reduce it a bit, that's all.
Unless you're saying we understand the specific threshold for plastic and the risk of reaching that threshold can be reasonably extrapolated from typical levels of exposure, I think we're getting at different points.
To me, this is a problem that needs broad solutions and some of those solutions are available immediately and some require broader changes, i.e. there are some things I can control and some things I can't.
Living your life in a way that is conscious of these risks and minimizes them when possible makes the avoidance of plastic an ongoing concern, and increases awareness of the issue in public consciousness.
I don't see how broader changes are possible without growing awareness, and often the best place to start is in one's own life.
If you were to examine the decision in a vacuum and discard all downstream effects, I think it's rational not to invest effort if it won't make a difference.
But I think this overly constrains the possible effects of making the changes that we can, and underestimates the value of instilling ideas in public consciousness.
But yes, my intuition says that whatever you might eliminate by not storing food in plastic and other types of avoidance is just gonna be a tiny drop in the constant dose of plastic you're getting from everything you ingest.
The microplastics problem is a pollution problem. When you're done with any given plastic thing you throw it out. Some tiny percentage gets recycled, sure but for the most part nearly all plastics get trashed.
The trashed plastic breaks down into microplastics slowly over time and those microplastics are very mobile and easily wash or blow away if they're exposed to sun. This means they end up in rivers, lakes, streams, and large bodies of water (e.g. the ocean). From there they diffuse and get inadvertently eaten by sea creatures which are then eaten by larger sea creatures and ultimately end up concentrating inside the larger species that we eat.
It's not just the fish though; it ends up in our water supplies which are used to wash our other foods and ourselves. Basically, microplastics are currently so pervasive in our water supplies that every product made for human consumption that exists has microplastics in it.
The solution isn't to do away with plastics entirely it's to use different kinds of plastics that don't become long-lived microplastics. For example, polylactic acid (PLA). It's not suitable for all purposes but it's perfectly fine for something like a frozen food container or even the thin plastic film that seals it up.
The only reason we're not using such plastics (in the places where they can be used) is they're not as cheap as the bad stuff. We need regulations that require single-use products use plastics that don't break down into long-lived microplastics.
Thick enough to be basically unbreakable, microwavable, dishwasher-safe, etc. Don't need to worry about tomato staining either like on plastic. I've been thrilled with mine.
Ironically though silicone is much harder to recycle though.
Plastic is garbage. If you live in a place that burns garbage for energy, that's the best fate for it.
Does remind me of a cool tech about plasma arc recycling.
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/plasma-arc-recycling.html
It can basically recycle anything into energy from what I briefly read.
Here in the UK we're lucky that Pyrex is still borosilicate glass, and there are some I've seen with glass lids that are advertised as "zero plastic".
The clip-retaining rims seem to love to chip on the IKEA 365 style ones.
The long-tabbed GlassLock ones seem less vulnerable to that.
Which not unique to glass boxes, I'm still amazed by how robust the living hinges can be, some are going on 10 years and haven't split yet.
They’re still amazing for the price though considering how thick they are and how heat/cold/etc resistant they are. Many other brands crack if dropped even a small distance, or shatter if pouring hot food directly in from the stove.
PYREX all caps should be borosilicate still & mostly immune (within reason).
That ended up being a fast food for dinner night.
Your line of thinking here is the same convenient sort of apathy which enables so many to become and/or stay obese.
Nowadays though I have the extreme where if my food is in plastic I don't feel the food is contaminated (until recently, but for different reasons), but like the plastic is forever smelling of the food and filthy.
My gf uses plastic lunchboxes and even reuses plastic bottles and I swear I can smell the things around the appartment. It's gross.
Edit after light scolding by commenter below:
BPA is a form of plastic, both in the pedantic sense (it's formed ... plastically... into its product shape) but more importantly in the colloquial sense, "synthetic, plasticky material" and in this general thread "synthetic material with harmful effects on health, probably through hormonal disruption".
So, yes, BPA is a resin, it's also a plastic, and it's also probably pretty bad, healthwise.
[0] Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical produced in large quantities for use primarily in the production of polycarbonate plastics.
Guess it is. Why is it a problem?
[1] Researchers have found that BPA exposure is linked to a number of health issues, partly because BPA mimics the structure and function of the hormone estrogen
Not to be wagging the finger, but instead of a snarky remark (ending in a question mark, so the reader can't conclude anything from it) a little Googling and posting a correction with the reasoning would be better.
[0] https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/sya-bpa/index...
It is a precursor to resins and plastics, the same way that water is a precursor to sea water but is not the same thing, even though sea water is 96% water by weight.
Memory is fuzzy and I'm definitely not a doctor, so please double check.
I'm assuming if you are eating glass, it's a small enough piece that you won't notice, it can be big, you'll notice in your mouth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex
> The pyrex (all lowercase) trademark is now used for kitchenware sold in the United States, South America, and Asia. In Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, a variation of the PYREX (all uppercase) trademark is licensed by International Cookware for bakeware that has been made of numerous materials including borosilicate and soda-lime glass, stoneware, metal, plus vitroceramic cookware.
Our leaders are 80 year old post war shell shocked, Cold War paranoids who huffed leaded gas fumes for decades. Explains quite a lot actually.
On the one hand, you can point at mountains of data that show for the most part, to our knowledge, many plastics are safe when used appropriately. Specific cases have shown otherwise (e.g. BPA use and hazards in certain plastic manufacturering is a well studied example). Then there's all the cases where we have little evidence it's harmful. Our ignorance of harm doesn't mean there isn't harm though.
Transition to paranoia. Everything we don't empirically know is a non-hazard and non-dangerous and should be avoided or leveraged very cautiously. We use materials that have been around for ages like wood and ceramics because we know most the hazards at this point and rely on the maturity to mitigate risk of the unknowns.
Somewhere in between we can try to reason about things, but frankly we don't know either way, so either extreme argument (avoid at all costs, use it because it's safe as far as we know) is rational.
The Roman's has no reason to think lead was hazardous until it was a bit too late. Marie Curie had no idea she was slowly killing herself. In some places where time isn't critical, we should probably lean towards the paranoia and tread cautiously. In times where time is important and progress should be made we should tread more toward risk taking and accept the unknowns while trying to manage risk as we go. No matter what risk exists. Lead propelled the Roman's in some aspects, then in some perspectives may have been one of their ultimate downfalls.
Because all of these things last or compound over a lifetime, it's only expensive to be healthful if you wait.
OP isn't trying to be "fancy", they're trying to communicate. This is a weird thing to get agitated about.
(I'll see myself out)
Homer: Hmm. I wonder why he's so eager to go to the garage?
Moe: The "garage"? Hey fellas, the "garage"! Well, ooh la di da, Mr. French Man.
Homer: Well what do you call it?
Moe: A car hole!
I could find images for Indian Brass Container to learn what it is. But I didn't find anything conclusive for Korean steel.
I don't know if it's better for you than plastic or really anything about its chemical composition, but it's not plastic.
Edit: After reading more, there is an acrylic lacquer that was developed in the 1950s that contains plastics, but outside of that, normal or traditional lacquers are typically biological in origin.
For stuff made by lone craftsmen & small boutique shops, maybe 50/50? Maybe less?
For the lacquer you buy in the stores, you will have to examine the contents to see if you have actual lacquer or synthetic petroleum lacquers.
As far as wood products, if it was made after the early-mid 80's, assume that if it was lacquered it was done so with a synthetic, or if it is some form of manufactured wood.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-11-09-860324...
So I wouldn't assume anything acquired finished by someone else is free of such things, regardless of whatever once-precise names they used to describe the finish.
Even when you try DIY-finish something with an eye towards food-safety it's rather challenging. E.g. the "Boiled Linseed Oil" you find on store shelves isn't actually boiled linseed oil, it's usually been adulterated with petroleum distillates and sometimes toxic "dryers" (cobalt comes to mind) to achieve the results boiling used to serve.
Here in CA the once common Turpentine which is literally distilled pine trees can't even be sold to the public due to VOCs. The stocked replacements are mostly petroleum distillates, labeled as known to cause cancer in the state.
The oil industry has infected everything
It's probably better than plastic, but remember that coral snake venom and puffer fish toxin are 'all natural' and so the concept of all natural is utter and complete bullshit.
They are pretty much everywhere. They shed fibers all the time. We’re in contact with it all the time.
They’re so much nicer than the plastic type, and seem durable so far (the thick flat weave type has been holding up well on our stairs).
Unless you have kids or pets, or live somewhere especially humid, in which case you will regret not getting nylon.
Probably.
When the BPA scare came I saw so many people switching to a different kind of plastic instead of stainless steel or glass. I just could not understand what people were thinking.
Of course it cannot be positive to store food in plastic containers either. But difficult to avoid.
Beeswax food wraps work surprising well
Hard problem to solve. I wonder what the best effort-per-payoff is in this scenario. Perhaps cutting out plastic water bottles would be 90% of the benefit, and the plastic containers for food is 10% of the benefit but tremendously more effort -- I don't know (never did research on this).
PFAS coated paper?
Different values or something else...
Baby products are often made from stuff which at least in theory should be less harmful, but I suppose it's only tested for a select group of hazards.
EDIT: forget the bamboo - not microwave safe. I ate some glue along with my dishes apparently.
EDIT2: Apparently wheat bran containers are microwave safe and since they're edible, they can't be lined with plastic. Not reusable of course.
Also I wouldn't put them on 100%, because low-water content stuff tends to burn in a microwave oven.
If the concentrations of those used in a lab are far in excess of those in the real world, then these results may be of less concern.
So this article was working with concentrations 10x larger on mice (usually worse ability to filter). Beyond that, they admitted that microplastics did not induce an effect which is most of the plastics found in the ocean, etc...
Get some nice PCBs stuck to plastic particles and they may not trip contamination sensors, but get deposited in your body where the PCBs become mobile again and end up in your system.
It's obviously not possible to give a mouse a smaller dose of microplastics over 30 years and measure the cognitive effects.
This is all to say -- your prior shouldn't be "this thing that was never supposed to go into the body is safe until proven otherwise"
> After two months of daily ingestion of nanoplastics at the estimated human consumption dose, nanoplastic-exposed mice exhibited reduced cognition and short-term memory as assessed by standard neurological assessments such as the open-field test, novel object recognition assay, and the Morris water maze.
I'm a bit confused about whether it makes sense to feed the "estimated human consumption dose" of something to a mouse when a human weighs something like 2000 times as much.
It's also potentially a reason to switch to an electric vehicle -- to avoid exposure to gas fumes while refueling your vehicle. (Or you can be "an extremist nutter" like me and give up your car entirely.)
If you drink that plastic is the least of your problems
> It's also potentially a reason to switch to an electric vehicle -- to avoid exposure to gas fumes while refueling your vehicle.
Car interiors are off-gassing nasty shit all the time, especially when they sit in the sun
And I will note that I drink a lot of tea and fruit juice, which also come in plastic bottles. Most drinks come in plastic or metal containers these days. Most of the time, I buy mine in plastic containers.
I wish it were different and I've lived without a car for more than a decade in the US. Try advocating for a less car dependent infrastructure in the US. It gets you mostly pissed on.
Individuals have limits on how much they can control given the larger context of the world they live in. Attacking my consumption of cola drinks as the focus willfully ignores my real point that styrofoam food containers are dramatically worse than plastic bottles.
B. I have a genetic disorder. Diet coke contains extracts from the coca plant -- thus the name "Coca Cola" -- minus the hallucinogen cocaine. They have medicinal effects on the gut and lungs, both important systems significantly impacted by my genetic disorder.
C. Before someone else jumps up to tell me I'm evil incarnate, diet coke is the only thing I consume that contains sugar substitutes. I generally avoid them as well. And I drink no other cola drinks. Full stop.
I generally don't discuss this on HN. I don't intend to discuss it further in this thread. Note to self: I thought it was just a few of my relatives who were nutters who believe all sodas are the work of the devil and if you have any health issues and ever drink a single drop of cola, your health problems are entirely your fault for drinking colas. But, no, there are more people out there cast from the same mold.
Edit: comment not 100 percent accurate. I also drink ginger ale. Feeling like you need to defend your personal choices at gun point from judgy random internet strangers is not the best means to engage in meaningful discussion.
But do people buy those drinks daily? I drink mostly just tap water - because it is convenient - as it is almost everywhere.
So, yes, I buy such drinks -- and consume them -- daily.
This is possibly a class issue. Lots of people in the world lack reliable access to clean water. There are entire charities devoted to trying to remedy that fact.
I didn't come here to ask a bunch of random internet strangers to tell me what a stupid fuck up they believe me to be for absolutely no reason and how easily they think they can solve my problems with a snap of their fingers.
I intended to make two points:
1. Given what a shit world we live in, harder plastic bottles are the lesser evil in many cases. They are much less poisonous than styrofoam containers, especially when hot consumables are put in styrofoam containers.
2. Gas fumes are a related threat, so the less exposure you have to gas fumes, the better.
I'd be willing to make two assumptions:
1. A gaping wound in your leg is probably less healthy than a moderately-high sugar consumption.
2. People who are concerned about nanoplastic intake are probably also concerned about deleterious health effects of things like sugar intake.
If you're already in the middle of the healthy BMI range and not having trouble keeping a healthy weight, I don't think there's been a demonstrated harm.
It’s worse for people attempting to lose weight because it apparently doesn’t work for that either, and this is the main reason sweeteners are used.
I didn't saw they were equivalent, I just said they're similar. They're in fact two totally different categories of "unhealthy", which is why I used them. Because over a 20-year period, most stab wounds go away completely, while the effects of sugar intake tend to compound.
I dont think I have had a 'soda' in at least 15 years.
I havent been able to avoid plastic in my life - but I try.
For example, pretty much every spoon in my drawer is Bamboo.
I have a 'hippy' friend, and he has nearly zero plastic in his kitchen - and he exclusively eats with wooden utensils, stoneware or wooden bowls.
I think that ALL single-use-plastics should be replaced by corn-plant-based materials.
Single use plastic should be taken out as aggressively as the nazis! :-)
Its so bad for everything.
We should also be burning down DOW Chemical and the major plastic manufacturers for their lack of any accountability, responsibility.
Look at the documentary "the devil we know" about Teflon.
Microplastic in the environment comes from long term degradation of plastic when it washes into the ocean or waterways and breaks down from UV / radical exposure.
According to a report compiled by the EU, the largest group of primary sources consists of the small particles released from the washing waters of synthetic textiles, such as fleece clothing. Wear particles from tire and road materials are the second largest primary source. Together, these primary sources form 15–31% of the microplastics in the oceans, that is, less than one third.
Secondary sources include larger plastic items, such as bottles, bags and fishing nets that are ground into microplastics over time. These are estimated to form 69–81% of the sources of microplastics in the oceans, that is, at least two thirds.
https://www.nokiantyres.com/company/sustainability/environme...
Should I be worried about breathing those? I presume a portion of them are plastic from synthetic fibers. Should I be wearing a mask to load/unload the dryer?
Use a mask or try not to breathe it as much as possible.
https://dynomight.net/humidifiers/
That being said I have no idea if it's worth wearing a mask.
Edit: this joke comment that struck a nerve haha https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34428710
I haven't convinced the rest of the family of this however, so I'm just doing what I can.
Still interesting, but yes, this is in mice.
Like exercise and eating fewer calories?
What is this said estimated human consumption dose anyways?
But it's one thing to pump a 100g/100g of micro plastics to bodyweight directly into the brain of a mouse and another to study mice in a mostly natural environment filled with plastic dust in similar proportions to what we find in our human lives..
I mean, I can understand doing those kinda of experiments in animals since it would be unethical to do them in humans (not going to discuss the implications of doing tests in animals either, let's just say that doing them in animals is less controversial). But as always the title omits this crucial point of information, mostly probably because this generate more clicks for the website, but I hate this trend so much.
1. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/04/11/how-much-plastic-d...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/micropla...
3. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/15/winds-ca...
Because humanity and capitalism's incentives are just wrong. Bottling companies like Coca Cola and Snapple have long switched to plastic bottles, and externalized the cost to the environment.
My recommendation would be to tax negative externalities and redistribute all of it as a UBI to the people of the country. Simple and effective, but apparently the governments have been moving way too slowly.
What's worse is that the governments perpetuate a lie to the public, making them think they can individually make a difference. In the case of plastic the lie was "recycling", when in fact the plastics were simply shipped to China, who dumped them in landfills and rivers.
But the government tells the individual that they can't have a plastic straw or bag. It's all there to distract the individuals from banding together and demanding the costs be imposed on the corporations which put out metric tons every day. I write more about this phenomenon here: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362
And it's not just the bottling companies. It's all the packaging. It's the clothes using synthetic fabrics like polyester, which generate microplastics flushed in every wash. And so on. Convenience is when you'd rather have a one-time-use spoon shipped from China, than wash and re-use a spoon. Your ancestors re-filled containers.
If we made it more costly for these companies, they'd long ago have researched biodegradable alternatives.
"A problem is a challenge with a least one workable solution. A dilemma is challenge with multiple choices, all equally bad."
If we eliminated all PFAS chemicals today, society would collapse. What's the point of eliminating PFAS chemicals to improve life expectancy if the very act of doing so would cause a famine?
Cleaning products. Water-resistant fabrics, such as rain jackets, umbrellas and tents. Grease-resistant paper. Nonstick cookware. Personal care products, like shampoo, dental floss, nail polish, and eye makeup. Stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics.
Teflon is not rubber, as far as I know PTFE are petro- flourochemicals
Teflon is not rubber, but viton is fluorinated elastomer, and it's used everywhere as well.
Obbiosl computing would be radically altered as well but I'm not actually sure how much that would matter. Other than during the 90s, there just simply isn't much evidence for all this extra computing having a significant effect on growth.
Small amounts of hard to replace PFAS may be contained in devices such as antenna connectors for devices with WiFi (which cannot cause pollution unless destroyed in an inappropriate way).
Nevertheless PFAS are absolutely irreplaceable in various chemical equipment used in chemical analyses and in various fabrication processes, for instance in the fabrication of all semiconductor devices (because no other substances have comparable corrosion resistance). PFAS would also be very difficult to replace in a few other applications, e.g. vacuum seals and insulators for high-frequency applications (as no other materials have a similar combination of low dielectric constant and low losses).
In all such industrial applications the risks of pollution are much smaller than in mass-market applications. However, it is likely that after PFAS will hopefully no longer be used for mass-market applications their price for professional applications might increase a lot, causing some price increases in other products, e.g. electronic devices.
Viton is essential in modern engines. Basically anywhere you are in contact with gasoline, you need fluoroelastomer.
The entire chemicals industry - everything from medicine to energy to commodity chemicals - would collapse overnight if you took away teflon, viton, and PVDF. That's not hyperbole, it's used everywhere and there are no drop in alternatives. Silicone can fit the bill for some purposes, but it has nowhere the compatibility and longevity of viton. We have no real non-fluoronated alternative to teflon.
I think this is a failure of imagination. The modern world, largely as we appreciate it today, existed in 1940 in Europe and the U.S. That is well before the widespread deployment of plastics. It was a world in which everyone, including the very rich did with a little less but still, a fairly high quality of life.
The only question that separates then from today, is whether we can scale that kind of material to the much larger global middle class.
Without PFAS there would be no production of modern electronic devices, so no computers and no mobile phones.
Nevertheless, unlike with PFAS used in things like clothes, kitchenware or packing, when PFAS are used in industrial processes or in electronic equipment (as high-frequency electrical insulators or in optical devices) it is much easier to avoid any pollution.
Uh, yup. That in no way contradicts what I said.
> Nevertheless, unlike with PFAS used in things like clothes, kitchenware or packing, when PFAS are used in industrial processes or in electronic equipment (as high-frequency electrical insulators or in optical devices) it is much easier to avoid any pollution.
Yeah, I'm not arguing for a ban. I'm arguing that from a historical perspective, civilization in no way hinges on plastics. They are ubiquitous so an abrupt end of plastics would obviously be very disruptive. But there was a pretty decent life to be had before they became so and I imagine we could figure out how to do that again.
Metal, wood, resins, etc were just far more ubiquitous, doing many of the jobs plastics do now. Lots of things were a bit more expensive because of this. But none the less, people lived pretty decent lives.
Oh no, less waterproofing, what will we ever do? Guess we should keep this cancer material around.
Oh no, we lose some classes of medications, guess we should just poison the Earth and generations to come because losing lipitor and prozac is just unacceptable.
We could reduce human consumption of the particles if we only consumed lab-grown meat & hydroponically grown vegetables where the water is ultra-filtered before use.
Well, we could stop pretending that God gave cars dominion over the earth and build livable cities.
Steel wheels on steel tracks work pretty well, actually. Admittedly brake dust is still a problem for classic locomotive-pulled trains.
Wouldn't you want to resolve the externalities with those funds instead of spending it, likely increasing consumer consumption and making the problem worse?
> If we made it more costly for these companies
Why wouldn't the costs flow to consumers? Firms recently seem to be able to set prices at what the market will bear.
This seems like "I want UBI" with a flimsy environmental justification.
You have to hit those corps in their pocketbook and affect their bottom line before they act. It’s the only thing they understand.
As far as cleanup - forget it. We may be able to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but we won’t be able to remove microplastics around the world. It is urgent we stop creating MORE though. That means also mandating drainage systems that filter and trap these particles before they escape. We already mandate that for many forms of grease!
It you on the other hand took those funds and used them for environmental clean up, recycling programs, etc I'd be on board. Consumers should pay for the disposal of what they consumed.
Policies exist to improve the situation, they just need to be fought for (against the bottling companies):
> According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), the average nationwide recycling rate for beverage containers is around 35%. By contrast, Oregon’s beverage container redemption rate is regularly in the 80-90% range
https://obrc.com/results/how-bottle-bills-compare/
Plastic in a landfill is actually fine, even if wasteful, as long as the landfill is properly built.
Just as air filters are not polluting the air with massive clouds of nanoparticles your face mask is not filling your lungs with them.
The vast majority of what you interact with is made of plastic, at least the mask is useful
Pick your battles. First you don't want to be sick/die/cause your elder relative to die by infecting them. Then once you are not dead you don't want to get into your body substances that clearly have no business being there and can make you sick slower and less noticeably.
I'm guessing you would want to run a filter/wear a mask if there's a good reason and not do it when there isn't.
Seriously - if I had enough tinfoil - I'd say that our entire dietary ecosystem is under attack, directly, in order to reduce the healthiness of our food supply. Plus the many many food processing/farm etc plants which caught fire in the last 18 months.
Of course not to defend plastics or anything. It's just relatively less worse than lead.
I was just comparing as its the relatively "less worse" evil (as lead/heavy metals stay in body forever AFAIK).
Though maybe using some tremendous UV light inside our bodies would work. Scientists should look into that.
Anyway, lead has far more deep rooted utility in the consumer space. Lead was relatively easy to phase out, plastics, not so much.
So still worse by whole decades than now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#:~:text=Excl....
https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php#by-population
Kids look normal to me, some of them probably smarter than I was back when I was as kid, others not so much, it's hard to say based on only a few observations but it's probably the same it's always been.
Lacking a lot of social interaction can make otherwise smart kids appear... less smart, since they may be shy, lacking motivation or skill to express themselves so they can be interacted with on higher level.
Once you filter all of this (and probably much more), and still see a difference on massive scale, we can start having a case.
Sorry, but this just sounds so silly. If only I would take a little bit of time out of my day to pick one of the 45 new podcasts created that morning and learn from its reliable, well sourced arguments!
Let's throw around studies like pokemon cards then. I have a study too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955571/
> I'm not part of a "nutrition community"
Your comment implies you're comfortable enough to give other people advice, eg "don't eat seed oils because the contain trans fat," even though they don't. I don't mind so much that people believe whatever they want, it's a problem when you misinform others about it.
I think the more worrying thing about vegetable/seed oils is the omega 6. A small amount is not an issue from my understanding. And in fact omega 6 can be healthy for some specific situations. But it’s the fact that these oils are used in just about all processed foods and restaurant cooking to the point where people are consuming more omega 6 than they should be and we’re seeing negative health effects as a result.
Are seed oils something other than oil derived from seeds? As in, some of the most natural possible foods?