And this is in addition to the regular known risk of plastic leeching into water over time as the water bottle breaks down or hot/freezing temperatures that can also cause the water bottle to break down.
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?
Plastic industry explosion is last 40 years. I think today almost nobody remembers Pepsi or Coca Cola in glass bottles. Suddenly it has become more expensive to wash bottles than to poison people and the planet.
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.
At the 80-90's all was returnable glass (In Europe at least).
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.
I always wondered if we would see hemp get seriously used here. Not a materials engineer, but the little bit I know about hemp, seems like it could be a good replacement.
> 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.
I’ve already taken steps in the last few years to reduce plastic use. Use a glass water pitcher filter system, use glass containers for leftovers, drink water/beverages from glass and not plastic, use reusable grocery bags, stopped buying clothes made with plastic, etc.
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.
The article mentions filters and say they cans introduce plastics too (in fact that's where the "There’s just no win" comes from).
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.
Thanks for your response. If the water comes in contact with the exterior of the filters, the plastic casing does seem to undermine the point of the move.
I have a SodaStream that uses a glass bottle. The bottle is fully enclosed in a metal shield while being pressurized to prevent injury if the bottle breaks. I've had it for years without any bottles breaking; the glass is quite thick.
I used to think “if there really was a God, why would he create cancer and cause fetal growth anomalies?”, and as I learn of all the things we created (plastic nanoparticles in drinking tap water in Sweden, for example), I can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t God who is to blame for cancer, but ourselves.
If you believe in an all-powerful God, it follows that he/she/it also created the conditions which allows cancer to exist and chose to do nothing to prevent it (because the opposite contradicts its/his/her all-powerfulness).
If life was a test, and we are rewarded based on that test. Would it be fair for god to intervene and remove the evil and sick? Wouldn't that be unfair for the good people? What would be the point of virtue in this life without its coexistence with evil. We appreciate our health when we get sick. We appreciate good people when we meet evil ones. We will appreciate heaven with the existence of hell.
> If life was a test, and we are rewarded based on that test. Would it be fair for god to intervene and remove the evil and sick?
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.
> 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
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.
There are 4000 religions, but there is one truth. there cannot be 2 truths otherwise that means neither is the truth. We are required to find that truth and follow it.
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.
What is free will when my life depends on the actions of others? If the water that I drink is filled with nanoparticles that will result in cancer, why I am suffering from the free will of the others who decided to put them there? That means I'm not the subject under test, I'm a NPC.
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).
It's ok to worship a cruel god, you know. Just not my cup of tea.
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.
Boring. What's the point of a test where everyone passes? Creating an environment where everything is destined to pass sounds way less interesting than adding some rules and randomness (although in real life it's more complex). Also whoever said that death fails the test?
> The only way to square this away is to assume that god isn't unwilling to intervene, but is unable to.
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.
There is no ethical issue in breaking materials, that we're aware of. Performing experiments that cause suffering to sapient beings, when sapience is clearly not required for the phenomena studied (humans without brains get cancer just fine) seems harder to justify ethically.
Calling something a test wouldn't make the harm and suffering you've set up ok. Otherwise "Saw" would be wholesome family movie recommended for all ages.
On the contrary. Setting up "tests" is often a sign of perverse malevolence.
That only follows if God didn’t enable free will. Most theists believe God will redeem and rehabilitate the entire universe once time is up. For example, Christians believe that sin is responsible for a fallen world and that God will fix not just the planet, but the entire universe.
Same way you can predict the weather even though predicting it doesn't cause it to happen. God's prediction abilities would have been honed over trillions of years versus our few decades of computerized meteorology. It doesn't follow that just because you know something is going to happen that you cause it to happen. I think some things are left up to people with certain major events in people's lives and indeed in society at large being determined ahead of time, and in those cases how people respond to what happens is where they exercise their free will. Other times they're allowed to choose something of their own choosing from options provided or allowed by God.
God created the weather along with the rest of the universe he doesn't predict it. The only way he wouldn't know the outcome is if there is an outside force or source of entropy not created by him.
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 that God created the weather and doesn't predict it. I only brought up the weather as an example of systems that humans can predict with high success despite that prediction not having any causal impacts. The predictors don't by their prediction cause the predicted. So we have an example of a system where there is some kind of mechanism by which we see that it is possible to know without causing.
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.
>So we have an example of a system where there is some kind of mechanism by which we see that it is possible to know without causing.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Is that how God defines his power over knowledge, or is it according to human definitions? Ultimately, this being is the one who created reality and decides the limits of what can be known because he is the one furthest in knowledge and prediction powers. God does predict. He knows everything that can be known, and he predicts and makes the future and sometimes lets it go on its own for the sake of free will, but only in the short term.
Well, I have no idea why a hypothetically omnipotent and benevolent god would allow bugs in my code to exist either. Unfortunately, not being omnipotent myself I have certain disadvantages in that regard.
Cancers existed in ancient times. Besides, even if all harm was done by humans the God would still bear the ultimate blame because he created humans and the universe in such way that those things happen. The only way you can honestly believe in omnipotent God is by concluding he is malevolent. It resolves all contradictions very neatly.
It's not clear to me cancer rates are actually higher than the past. People are living longer because they're not dying of other diseases (tuberculoses, syphilis, heart attacks, etc. etc.), and no one was checking what did or didn't give you cancer in the past.
And animals get cancer. Tasmanian devils and their infectious mouth cancer is a famous example.
With everyone burning fires for heating and cooking, factories spewing out smoke, and no one testing chemicals used to colour everything from clothing to food to toys? I wouldn't be so sure.
> I can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t God who is to blame for cancer, but ourselves.
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.)
If you don't like that philosophical abstraction then let me phrase it another way: "How much of our cancer rates and fetal anomalies are a natural result of our genes, and how much are they a result of things we humans have done to our environment?"
What is the solution to recycled plastic? There does not seem to be a market for recycled plastic that would support its recycling. Perhaps the costs of using plastics should go up?
I wonder how the beverage and other industries would respond if there was a huge tax on plastic.
I think the sheer amount is so huge that the only viable path is turning plastics into building and insulation materials.
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.
Routinely people get yelled at on here for being
worried about the dangers of radioactivity.
For instance, from the wastewater from Fukushima.
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)
I keep buying Aqua Panna glass-bottled water but keep wondering how much water gets into the glass through plastic pipes!
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!
We now find PFAS in rain water and well water so we're past the point of no return already. Plastic pipes and bottles are far down the list of our concerns
But it goes through a very serious filtering! From their website:
> 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.
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?