Average bottle of water contains 240,000 pieces of cancer-causing nanoplastics

Don't you suppose those nanoparticles are also leeching into your food when you cook with plastic spoons and spatulas, and store it in plastic containers?

It's impossible to believe the problem is limited to bottled water. Soft drinks and fruit and veggie juices come in plastic bottles.

And discarded ones end up in the ground and in the sea and rivers and lakes.
 
hollydolly said:
we've managed to live so long because most of us haven't drunk bottled water all our lives... but Cancer is at an all time high it makes sense to avoid anything with known carcinogens
Click to expand...
Mental health and behavioral issues are at an all time high, too. So is dementia, I think. If nanoplastics effect hormones, then there you have it....probably.
 
Murrmurr said:
Don't you suppose those nanoparticles are also leeching into your food when you cook with plastic spoons and spatulas, and store it in plastic containers?

It's impossible to believe the problem is limited to bottled water. Soft drinks and fruit and veggie juices come in plastic bottles.

And discarded ones end up in the ground and in the sea and rivers and lakes.
Click to expand...
I think the issue is that water can sit there leaching chemicals for months before you open and drink it.
 
Murrmurr said:
Mental health and behavioral issues are at an all time high, too. So is dementia, I think. If nanoplastics effect hormones, then there you have it....probably.
Click to expand...
No, that's the rampant abuse of products derived from cannabis. "Gummies" can be worse than sucking on aluminum all day long.
 
Don't forget the amalgam fillings of your teeth. Much more dangerous, even if they have been removed. It's in your jawbones and in your brain meanwhile. There are theories that amalgam causes dementia.
 
dilettante said:
I think the issue is that water can sit there leaching chemicals for months before you open and drink it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I'm thinking that maybe heat from cooking would speed up that process. Plus, I mentioned storing food in plastic containers. If the risks are cancer and physiological changes, even if the risks are minimal, why would we continue using plastics at all?

I mean, I know it's about money, but where's the FDA when you really need them?
 
I heard about it this morning. Also discussed were all the things we purchase to consume in plastic. From plastic bottles of katsup to foods wrapped in plastic, bread.

I think we are doomed.
 
Sorry folks but some of you are going to need to buy space suits with oxygen tanks. Not only are man-made caused microplastics in water, but also in our urban air pollution. When it rains, atmospheric water vapor attaches to such particles and then once accumulating enough mass falls as rain and snow.

Thus the article is just the tip of a larger issue. Additionally hydrocarbons from burning natural vegetation and plant/tree pollen is another large source of air pollution. Our animals bodies have evolved to deal with low levels of most these contaminants. What science needs to continue to understand are those man-made contaminants that are truly carcinogenic and remove them from industry. Not all plastic or hydrocarbons are dangers.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120312366
 
Murrmurr said:
Don't you suppose those nanoparticles are also leeching into your food when you cook with plastic spoons and spatulas, and store it in plastic containers?

It's impossible to believe the problem is limited to bottled water. Soft drinks and fruit and veggie juices come in plastic bottles.

And discarded ones end up in the ground and in the sea and rivers and lakes.
Click to expand...
we've been told many times not to store or cook ( in the microwave) anything in Plastic... to take food out of a container that is supposedly microwaveable and put it on a plate...

I use silicon utensils of which the compound is inert or so we're told..
 
Did you know that most cans, both aluminum and steel, have a plastic liner inside? So do most paper containers, like milk cartons and paper plates. It's difficult to avoid plastics today.

When I was a boy scout, you could make fire starters from milk cartons because they were wax coated. Today, the smoke would be toxic.
 
From 1 October 2023 businesses must no longer supply, sell or offer certain single-use plastic items in England. The UK government has announced a ban on a wide range of plastic items, which will include:

  • Online and over-the-counter sales and supply
  • Items from new and existing stock
  • All types of single-use plastic, including biodegradable, compostable and recycled
  • Items wholly or partly made from plastic, including coating or lining

‘Single use’ means the item is meant to be used only once for its original purpose, and businesses could be fined if they continue to supply banned single-use plastics after 1 October.


What single-use plastic items are banned​

Plates..
  • Bowls
  • Trays
  • Containers
  • Cutlery
  • Balloon sticks

Plates, bowls and trays​





You can still supply single-use plastic plates, bowls and trays if either of the following apply:


  • You are supplying them to another business
  • The items are packaging (pre-filled or filled at the point of sale)

Polystyrene food and drink containers​


You can still supply food or drink in polystyrene containers if it needs further preparation before it is consumed, for example:
  • Adding water
  • Microwaving
  • Toasting

Polystyrene means expanded and extruded polystyrene, and this includes polystyrene cups. In addition, there are no exemptions to the ban of Cutlery and Balloon Sticks.


Local authorities will carry out inspections to make sure the rules are being followed, and if you break the law, inspectors can order your business to cover the cost of the investigation.


Plates, bowls and trays​


From 1 October you must not supply single-use plastic plates, trays and bowls to members of the public.


Exemptions​


You can still supply single-use plastic plates, bowls and trays if either of the following apply:


  • you are supplying them to another business
  • the items are packaging (pre-filled or filled at the point of sale)

Examples of this type of packaging include:


  • a pre-filled salad bowl or ready meal packaged in a tray
  • a plate filled at the counter of a takeaway
  • a tray used to deliver food

Cutlery and balloon sticks​


From 1 October you must not supply single-use plastic cutlery or balloon sticks.


There are no exemptions to this ban.


Polystyrene food and drink containers​


From 1 October you must not supply ready-to-consume food and drink in polystyrene containers. This includes in polystyrene cups.


Polystyrene means expanded and extruded polystyrene.
 
Grampa Don said:
Did you know that most cans, both aluminum and steel, have a plastic liner inside? So do most paper containers, like milk cartons and paper plates. It's difficult to avoid plastics today.

When I was a boy scout, you could make fire starters from milk cartons because they were wax coated. Today, the smoke would be toxic.
Click to expand...
For decades, most canned food manufacturers used can linings made of epoxy resin based on bisphenol A, or BPA, making food the primary route of our exposure to this toxic chemical. A robust body of scientific studies shows BPA readily migrates from cans into food and that very small levels are harmful to neurological, cardiovascular, reproductive, endocrine and other biological systems.


Pushed by consumer concern, manufacturers have moved to replace BPA with alternative chemicals. According to the Can Manufacturers Institute

, today about 95 percent of food cans are made without BPA-based linings, using a variety of other coatings, or polymers. The trade group says linings are now typically made from non-BPA acrylic or polyester epoxies, or olefin polymers
. But it’s unclear whether this vague list includes all alternatives in use – and more importantly, whether they’re safer than BPA.


Studies by the National Toxicology Program

and other researchers have identified the potential health impacts of some possible replacement chemicals but don’t say whether those alternatives have been commercially adopted. The studies also don’t report one-to-one substitutions of BPA for other bisphenol chemicals, such as BPS, which is widely used to coat receipt paper and which can disrupt hormones. Biomonitoring data analyzed by academic researchers and government agencies show decreases in human exposure to BPA, and increases
in exposure to other bisphenols, but again, can’t say whether that trend is due to replacement of BPA in cans with other bisphenols.


In 2015, EWG published results of a survey of canned foods, revealing limited information on BPA substitutes. Since then, other public health groups have tried to pinpoint where BPA is still being used and the specific replacement chemicals.


A 2016 investigation

by six nonprofit groupshttps://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/bpa-update-tracking-canned-food-phaseout#_edn1 – “Buyer Beware: Toxic BPA and regrettable substitutes in the linings of canned food” – analyzed nearly 200 food cans purchased at locations across the U.S. and Canada. Analysis with an infrared spectrometer identified BPA-based epoxy resins in 67 percent of the samples. The tests also identified four major alternative coating types: acrylic resins, oleoresins, polyester resins, and PVC, or polyvinyl chloride-based, resins. Many cans contained a combination of these coating materials.


In 2017, the Center for Environmental Health, or CEH, also used infrared spectroscopy to test

more than 250 canned foods from across the nation for BPA. CEH also found the chemical was still commonplace, with 38 percent of the cans containing BPA-based linings. What’s more, CEH’s second round of testing found a huge disparity in foods purchased in ethnic grocery stores, with BPA in more than 90 percent of can linings. But by 2019, follow-up tests
found that 96 percent of all cans were BPA-free.


But concerns remain, because too much information about the substitutes is hidden.


To make can coatings effective barriers between the food and the metal, polymers of different chains and chemistries are cross-linked together. Cross-linker agents commonly include formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen, but these agents don’t have to be disclosed – nor do other additives or production materials. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require anything about the linings to be labeled, even though a percentage of chemicals in the coatings can contaminate the food.


How do the hazards of the major alternatives stack up?

  • Acrylic resins have biodegradability and environmental toxicity concerns. Thirty-nine percent of the acrylic linings detected in the Buyer Beware investigation included polystyrene, which is derived from styrene, a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disruptor.
  • Polyesters may have less potential for direct human harm than other alternatives. However, this group of chemicals is toxic to aquatic life and can persist in the environment for many years.
  • PVC is a notoriously toxic chemical created from vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen. The Buyer Beware coalition and CEH both found PVC-based resin was a popular alternative, discovering it in 25 percent and 19 percent of the cans, respectively.
  • Whole or partially plant-based oleoresins are commonly derived from trees and are often marketed as safer options. However, little is publicly known about how oleoresin mixtures are typically formulated.
 
Limit Your Exposure to BPA and Its Regrettable Substitutes


Until we can be sure that all manufacturers have transitioned away from BPA-based linings and that alternatives have been thoroughly assessed for safety, be wary of purchasing canned foods.


Some manufacturers label their cans “BPA free” but most don’t disclose the replacement chemicals. Even when they do, the complete lining composition is typically withheld. Can lining formulas may contain a dozen or more different chemicals among the array of food contact materials

granted for use by the FDA.


We call on food companies and retailers to label the complete set of chemicals in their linings. They should also work with coating suppliers and the rest of the canned food supply chain to publish the results of private safety and exposure assessments for substitutes.


Tips for Avoiding BPA and Toxic Alternatives


  • When choosing canned goods, contact the company to ask whether it still uses BPA. If not, ask for details about the replacement – what it is, its safety profile and when the switch was made. Every can is stamped with a code that corresponds to its production date. Ask the company which codes indicate that a canned item was manufactured after the BPA phaseout.

  • Avoid canned beverages, as it is unclear how widely they still use BPA.

  • Whenever possible, substitute fresh, frozen or dried food for canned.

  • Limit how many packaged and processed foods you eat, in general. BPA may be found in more than just canned foods – for instance, in the lids of foods and beverages packaged in glass jars and bottles, aerosol cans for whipped toppings and nonstick sprays, tins of cooking oil and aluminum beverage cans.

  • In California, look for Proposition 65
  • warnings indicating the possible presence of BPA. Companies are required to provide either label or shelf sign warnings for products that contain BPA at concentrations above a “safe harbor level” or to justify their decision not to provide a warning.
 
Too late to worry folks ... it's everywhere.

Medicial practicioners have found, during autopsies, that there is evidence of plastic in most people's lungs, not surprising .. and also traces of plastic in the bloodstream, yup.. also not suprising. But I think they've reported they've also found plastic in people's brain.
It's too late. We're already morphing into something mysterious and non-human.
 
I personally use very little canned foods... in the Uk we don't can things as much as the USA...so we generally find vegetables, and soups are the main items which are canned, with fruit, and processed meat ( ham).. following behind for sale in the supermarkets.. but really not much more than that

I really eat very few canned foods.. my most often thing is canned baked beans... maybe once or twice a week..otherwise it's just the odd canned peas...or spaghetti hoops... I prefer frozen foods always have ..Ive never been a lover of canned foods
 
hollydolly said:

100 times more than previously thought.​

  • The world shifted to bottled water due to claims tap water is contaminated
  • But a new study finds plastic bottles contain more toxic nanoparticles than tap

Bottles of plastic water contain hundreds of thousands of toxic microscopic plastic particles, new research has found.

The findings are likely to shock anyone who has swapped from tap to bottled water, believing it was better for their health.

Drinking water from a bottle could mean you are contaminating your body with tiny bits of plastic, which scientists fear can accumulate in your vital organs with unknown health implications.

Nanoplastics have already been linked to cancer, fertility problems and birth defects.

Scientists using the most advanced laser scanning techniques found an average of 240,000 plastic particles in a one-liter bottle of water, compared to 5.5 per one liter of tap water.
79767885-12940249-Scientists_using_the_most_advanced_laser_scanning_techniques_fou-a-1_1704749292647.jpg

Scientists using the most advanced laser scanning techniques found an average of 240,000 plastic particles in a one-liter bottle of water, compared to 5.5 per one-liter of tap water

University of Columbia researchers tested three popular brands of bottled water sold in the United States – and, using lasers, analyzed the plastic particles they contained down to just 100 nanometers in size.
The particles – nanoplastics - are much smaller than the microplastics previously detected in bottled water.

However, the particles are considered potentially toxic because they are so small that they can enter directly into blood cells and the brain.

These microscopic particles carry phthalates — chemicals that make plastics more durable, flexible, and lasting longer.

Phthalate exposure is attributed to 100,000 premature deaths in the US each year. The chemicals are known to interfere with hormone production in the body.
More here
Click to expand...
How I wish we could relax and trust the big corporations not to poison us.
 
dilettante said:
No, that's the rampant abuse of products derived from cannabis. "Gummies" can be worse than sucking on aluminum all day long.
Click to expand...
Please explain. Yesterday I picked up some high dose Vitamin D. It was a brand and dosage I have used before but didn't realize until I got home that this time it was in gummy form. Or are you talking about gummies with THC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top