• niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    55 minutes ago

    Yeah, it’s sooooo funny… it’s heeeeeeel-larious! I don’t know about you, but I for one can’t stop laughing!

    The way language is used or abused creates patterns in the mind.
    I strongly suspect that this way of using language is not healthy at all, for an individual nor for a community.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      32 minutes ago

      Funny has apparently been used to describe something suspicious for more than 200 years. So say it with a wild west accent.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It’s that bullshit when they take a vertically oriented picture/video, stretch it and blur it to a 4:3 ratio, and center the content over it.

      Imo a waste of bandwidth and computer power for people who can’t cope with the idea of vertical content on a horizontal screen, on a platform primarily accessed by phones anyway.

    • vortic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      If these aren’t microplastics, what are?

      “Micro” just means “small” in this case and doesn’t mean “microscopic” or have anything to do with “micrometer”.

      The definition of “microplastic” according to NOAA: “Microplastics are small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long”.

    • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Microbeads are manufactured solid plastic particles of less than one millimeter in their largest dimension.[1] They are most frequently made of polyethylene but can be of other petrochemical plastics such as polypropylene and polystyrene. They are used in exfoliating personal care products, toothpastes, and in biomedical and health-science research.[2]

      -Wikipedia

  • But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Just mineral or ground rocks work just as well. I hate my wife’s soft face scrub, i need that shit that feels like I’m scrubbing my face with sandpaper, to exfoliate well. They sell one that has ground up lava rock, i love that shit, and it makes me wonder why anyone ever thought plastic bits was a good idea

    • theparadox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      My ex would use St. Ives “Apricot Exfoliant” or something, which has powdered apricot pits and walnut shells. Those are waste products that I wouldn’t expect to cause problems but who knows.

      • sulgoth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Harder? No. Enamel is harder than steel. It is more brittle though so don’t go chewing rocks.

        • GTG3000@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Tooth enamel is ~5 on mohs scale. Quartz, the most common kinda rock (afaik), is ~7. You’re correct that enamel is harder than steel though, since it’s ~4? Disclaimer: all of these numbers are from a quick google search.

          Fun fact, this is why we know ancient people used to make bread - the way they separated wheat from the chuff included dropping it on the ground, which led to sand being in the bread and consequently destroying their teeth over a lifetime of eating it.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        43
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The PFAS/PFOA controversy, is mostly about banning these commodity products so that the proprietary, non-commodity alternatives by western companies can become the only high temperature dry lubricant on sale.

        Maybe in another 60 years we’ll have the same controversy about them !

        • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          53
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          No it isnt, its about the production precursors being literal poison for anything they get into with no chance of breaking down. Its a unusually harmful and persistive compound.

            • IngeniousRocks (They/She) @lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              26
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Hey friend you know the chemicals they make those things from are like WILDLY carconogenic right? And that PFAs and their cousins last forever and don’t break down in the environment?

              These chemicals are being banned because humans got too good at making super stable fuck-you-big molecules that just so happen to be wildly incompatible with anything that has DNA. These chemicals are literally everywhere with water treatment facilities having acceptable limits 2ppb or less. Yea, B, Billon. The thing with that amount though, is even THAT isn’t safe, its just regulable. Here’s an oversimplified video on the subject by Veritasium, the clickbait headline is just that. I believe this is also on nebula if you’d prefer to avoid youtube.

            • stratoscaster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              Dude it’s literally poison what do you want??? It also leeches into the environment extremely easily.

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Did you at some point read about how some of them, such as the ones used in frying pans, are unlikely to cause problems in the human body, and then completely stopped looking into it further?

          It’s a massive group of compounds, some of which currently look to be quite safe, but a significant number of which also have fully verified dangers (especially some compounds required for production).

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Yes, I read about it and the teflon on frying pan is explicitely NOT the problem. I understand that pointing to frying pans and saying “PTFE !!” is the attention grabbing thing to do. But there is no danger here.

            The problem is the manufacturing plants leaking PFOA/PFAS into their surrounding environment !

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 hours ago

                That’s been well known for over 50 years, why do you think now, all of a sudden, this is becoming an issue now ? This is because there are new coatings, silicon based PTFE-free coatings and PTFE-based metamaterial that combine titanium, ceramic and/or PCD.

                As the manufacturer invest in this new technology, they either restrict PTFE commodity manufacturers out of their market or merely stop funding lobbying that protects the PTFE.

                This is not a conspiracy theory, simple emergent interests that do not require a coordination.

                • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 hours ago

                  Abestos was used for millenias, and was known the miners a thousands years ago would succumb to a mysterious illness after working years in the mines… and it was just banned in the US in checks notes. Last year. Must’ve been big fiberglass behind it!

                • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  Cool.

                  But the reason you’re being downvoted, is that instead of commenting this, you made a comment that sounded like you were dismissing the dangers of PFAS, and dismissing it as the modern-day equivalent to lead, asbestos, and the like.

                  Which is what it is, and you clearly agree that it is.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Except plastic doesn’t really seem to do anything. It just “is there”. Unless you swallow enough of it to clog something, it doesn’t seem to do anything.

      We’ve seens lots of “it might interefere with hormones”, but that part is always to be confirmed in the next research grant request and then we never hear about it again.

      • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Plastics are a broad category. But specific plasticizers, like BPA, have been demonstrated to cause specific endocrine issues, up to and including a causal link to certain cancers, miscarriages, and other reproductive/immune issues. And it’s not just correlations being found, as the research is showing the mechanism of action by actually inducing the effects in vitro.

        And so when a particular plasticizer has been shown to be harmful, the research goes into other chemically similar plasticizers to see whether they have biological effects, as well. BPS is another plasticizer that is being studied, as it is chemically similar to BPA.

        So we haven’t shown that all microplastics are bad. I’m skeptical that these effects would extend to all plastics. But some common compounds that are present in many plastics are a cause for concern, and the difficulty in treating water or waste for microplastics in general means that some of those harmful compounds are present in lots of places where we’d rather not.

        We moved from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline based on the specific dangers attributable to lead itself. We can do the same for the specific compounds in our plastics shown to be harmful. Maybe the end result is that we have a lot of safer plastics remaining. But your comment seems to suggest that we not even try.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I’m more concerned about useless and damaging, performative actions against plastic.

          Of course what we need is plastic monomers that are neither carcinogenic nor hormone disrupters. We should stop dumping the stuff into the river. Poisonned blastic with bromine should be labelled in a was that makes it easy to identity. We should breed yeast that can east plastic and keep them in giesters.

  • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    148
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I remember when I found out that shit was plastic. I always assumed they were organic material of some kind, like the body scrubs with the crushed up walnut shell in it (which probably has fucking microplastic in it, too). So disgusting.

    This is why we need to change how shit works. It shouldn’t go: company does some shit > fall out > government steps in. It should go: company has an idea > must get permission first from environmental agencies

      • moody@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The difference is in the definition or organic. When the average person thinks organic, they mean something that is or used to be alive. When a scientist think organic, they’re talking about carbon compounds.

        • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Plastic are made from fossil fuels which are from primordial plants. So still organic according to your definition. Just a few hundred million years since it was alive.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Interesting. Always thought chewing gum was more like when you made “plastic” out of the caesin in milk.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Plastic is an organic material, trees are mostly plastic (lignin, a phenolic polymer, cellulose a polysaccharide polymer, hemicellulose an heteropolysaccharide and suberin a polyester-like polymer).

      The problem we’re having is a naturalistic fallacy crossed with the unpleasant fact that almost everything we touch sheds dust and powder absolutely everywhere. This along with spores and yeast and other dusts constantly enter our bodies.

      Plastic is only of note because we made it.

      Any problems beyond that is speculative and will requires ginormous gobs of grant money to actually answer with anything than precautionary principle-based FUD.

      • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Hydrocarbon based plastic absolutely isnt natural, there are many different kinds of plastic in existence but overwhelmingly stuff from the last 50 years has been the inorganic hydrocarbon non biodegradable hydrocarbon type which doesn’t break down and is likely a endocrinologal distruptor & a carcinogen.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          inorganic hydrocarbon

          Hydrocarbons are, by definition, organic compounds made exclusively of carbon and hydrogen.

          Do you know of any hydrocarbon that do not contain hydrogen nor carbon and that are relevant to this discussion ?

          • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Care to not nitpick a slip of the mind (that’s already been pointed out and corrected) literally just after I had woken up and address the actual point?

            • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              current plastics not biodegradable is the same problem that trees had for 300 million years. I think it’s a matter of time before some yeast evolves the ability to eat plastic. Then all plastic will start to mold and rot like all other organic matter.

              as for being “endocrinologal distruptor & a carcinogen”, yes so is a lot of other stuff, probably stuff in wood, again, like turpentine

              We’re not going to ban all plastics until some company has a proprietary alternative that they can force us to buy by making all other products illegal to produce. But that new alternative doesn’t exist yet.

              My advice, don’t eat electrical junction boxes

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        There are probably some with sand and other hard minerals, I think Dove had some soaps with aluminum oxide in it?

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          11 hours ago

          i’ve definitely seen things like that, i think mostly “artisanal” soaps with like ground coconut shell or something, but the thing is that it tends to look like shit.

          • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I would much rather use that bar of soap than the mysterious liquid gels full of dyes and other junk. If natural tones are somehow gross and icky but a blood red goo that faintly smells of petro chemicals is fine then maybe we really are doomed as a species.

            You go back a century or so, that bar of soap would likely have been considered a luxury product.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              i don’t think soap with grit added would have ever been considered a luxury product, low-quality soap still looks way prettier

              • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 hours ago

                The grit exfoliates and makes your skin softer by removing dead skin. Definitely luxurious before soaps were more common.

          • KingRandomGuy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 hours ago

            For real though, Gojo soap seems to work the best for getting rid of grease and oil from machines. My guess is regular soaps don’t do a great job at carrying away the oil residue, but Gojo soap just sands down your top skin layer to remove it.

  • cacti@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    13 hours ago

    This stuff still exists in my country, and the expensive toothpaste my mother bought is one of them 🙂

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Oh I’d somehow forgotten this era

    That shit was in everything non solid for like 2 years

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I still use a few profucts with a similar concept, though the beads are of cellulose or similar fiber as opposed to plastic. I’m not aware if they’re problematic or not, so I thought I’d comment in the hope that perhaps someone who feels strongly about these things might educate me if they are indeed bad for you or the environment or something.

  • BroBot9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Reasons we need more oversight and regulations for these corporate snake oil salesmen. This shit should be a crime against humanity and every damn company that put that shit into their products should be abolished.

  • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Haha, my poorly googled current events assignment is highly relevant after all these years! Take that you dork try hards!

  • Nikls94@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Inalways thought that those were like the crunchy exterior of chewing gum, but as little glitter pellet things