Hacker News Reader

And the "scares" are often correct. See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc.

You don't need a double blind study to look at smoking and say "inhaling smoke is probably bad for you". Likewise you can look at the evidence of microplastics being bad for human health and say "ingesting random synthetic chemicals that bio-accumulate and are hard to break down are probably bad for you".

Obviously panic isn't helpful. But I've switched anything that has to touch hot food/liquid to some combination of glass/metal. I've also started buying milk in glass containers. All of this has had zero impact on my life beyond some upfront cost buying glass food storage containers and making milk more expensive. I'd recommend everyone else who can afford it do the same.

Even in the 1950s when everyone smoked everywhere and you couldn't escape second hand smoke outside of the house, it was still a healthier choice to not smoke yourself.

> Even in the 1950s when everyone smoked everywhere and you couldn't escape second hand smoke outside of the house, it was still a healthier choice to not smoke yourself.

Side: Unfortunately in multi-family apartment buildings in tropical places like India where balconies are common, even escaping second hand smoke in your own home is difficult if you don’t keep your windows always closed to the neighbor below you.

>See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc.

Good observation, as a general rule any new substance must generally proven to be safe ( and there are reasonable ways to do it, without being overly cautious), it must not be a case of proving that something is harmful once in use.

> And the "scares" are often correct. See smoking, leaded gasoline, trans fats, various other food additives, etc.

Leaded gasoline: we knew that was bad and did it anyway because it was easy and cheap.

Trans fats: was this ever a 'scare'?

Various other food additives: which? I know of more that were demonized for no reason than additives that ended up being bad for people.

I applaud your use of non-plastic and think more people should do it. I dislike our reliance on plastics and think the microplastic scare is useful. I just don't see any evidence and only see scare headlines and I think that rousing people's fears over something is generally a bad idea when we could do it rationally.

> Likewise you can look at the evidence of microplastics being bad for human health and say "ingesting random synthetic chemicals that bio-accumulate and are hard to break down are probably bad for you".

I'm not sure why it should be self-evident that inert, tiny things in your body would cause harm. It sounds bad, but there is no real reason why it would be.

Given the wide variety of chemicals lumped under the name "microplastics" and the complexity of the systems of the human body, many of which even modern medical science doesn't fully comprehend, the chance that they're all or even mostly inert is extremely small. Also "inert" materials can cause problems in human body all the time, even if it's just simple inflammation from the immune system responding to the physical damage they can cause.

It's like continuously pouring small grains of random dirt you scraped off the ground into your car's engine while it's running, when you're not entirely sure how the engine works, and going "meh, they're just tiny particles of dirt. My engine is still running. Probably fine". You can run that experiment on your one and only body if you wish.

I would hope that there were a better 'we don't need evidence because it is obvious they are harmful' argument than 'things are complex and we don't know yet'.

> and get rid of the 'wrap everything in a layer of plastic' tendencies that are completely unnecessary.

If only fruits and vegetables had robust, natural, bio-degradable packaging of their own. Some sort of peelable skin, perhaps.

"bio-degradable packaging"

That is the thing: they rot. And if wrapped in plastic, they last longer ... so more fruit makes it to the markets. That being said, I strongly prefer fruits directly from trees that were not treated with 50+ different chemicals.

less an issue if people eat locally and seasonally

But overwhelmingly they don't.

In our fucked-up society, yes. We eat sugar and corn, because that's whats subsidized and marketed.

Food forests were very much a thing, for a very, very long time. Thousands of years.

I think corn was eaten since thousands of years, too.

And whether food forests were a big thing and not just common in some areas, is quite disputable.

Do you want to compare the percentage of corn of people's diet between now and then?

Do you want to compare the actual plant - size, nutrition profile?

Do you want to compare the growing methods - monoculture pesticide gmo corn vs heirloom corn?

Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people, that doesn't mean they didn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that we couldn't do the same thing but better if we made an effort to.

It irks me when people use 'the way we do things now' to dismiss alternatives with great potential. What's the motivation there?

Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?' It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination.

"Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people"

Food forests being a BIG thing all around the world is something many people, myself dispute. So you make a claim against the common consensus, it is up to you to proof your point.

"Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?'"

And the logic is, now there are way more people to feed. And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others(usually cannot live off their huge land at all). You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food.

And food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world.

> And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others.

Maybe that's true. But, does it actually matter - at all - that some communities didn't work? It shouldn't, but you think it does. That's weird.

> food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world.

Think those goalpoasts just broke the sound barrier. We went from "food forests would let people eat fruit with less pesticides" to "well they won't feed the entire planet".

And you're still wrong. Food forests will have a critical role in feeding the world sustainably. It's not just about calories - it's about soil health, diversity, fairness, carbon sequestration.

> You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food.

There's no call for this kind of condescending strawman. It's very much against the guidelines here.

"Maybe that's true. But, does it actually matter - at all - that some communities didn't work"

Can you point me then towards some communities, that do live off their land? Without pesticides?

Like I said, I have seen quite a few. But usually those with the biggest words had the lowest yield. And no doubt some can do it. (Conventional organic farming obviously does work). But the combination of permaculture and food forest and alike I have not seen work. Nice looking gardens, yes, but simply not enough solid food as an outcome.

And in general:

"There's no call for this kind of condescending strawman. It's very much against the guidelines here. "

Well, then maybe reconsider your words before?

"It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination."

> Can you point me then towards some communities, that do live off their land? Without pesticides?

Modern synthetic pesticides were invented in the 40's. Natural pesticides have been used for thousands of years. Your question doesn't seem to discern a difference.

> Well, then maybe reconsider your words before? "It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination."

That wasn't a strawman, nor was it personal. And it's 100% true, so I'll say it again - using the way things are done now to shut down ideas for making things better is profoundly stupid and unimaginative. If you think that mean I'm saying you are stupid, well...

"Modern synthetic pesticides were invented in the 40's. Natural pesticides have been used for thousands of years"

The difference is still the number of people between then and now. So far it is a hypothesis, that we can feed everyone without conventional agriculture methods.

>There is no evidence that these things cause damage in mammals despite all the alarming research

There is no evidence despite all the research evidence?

Or do you mean, there is more evidence that cell phones do not cause harm, than there is that they do cause harm?

There is no conclusive evidence. IE it has neither been proved in a lab nor observed in the population. Also, there is no known mechanism by which they could cause harm.

I don’t know why the burden of proof is so difficult for people to understand. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

> There is no evidence despite all the research evidence?

I am confused. Why are you talking about cell phones?

Let's go back to glass for liquids at least

Heavier, easily breakable, and far more expensive to process?

You forgot reusable.

So are plastic and metal containers.