Plastic Microfibers are in the food supply.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evpdpn/were-eating-plastics-from-our-own-dirty-laundry
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evpdpn/were-eating-plastics-from-our-own-dirty-laundry
Discard Your Fleece and Synthetic Clothing Immediately
- Thread starter Remix
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
richard
Member
What else is new !
sierra
Well-known member
This could explain why, I'm not prone to cold like I used to be. I'm part Fleece now.
egilbe
Member
Might explain why as I get older, I'm furrier
hikerbrian
Active member
Please DON'T discard your fleece and synthetic clothing immediately. At least not on account of the study that is linked in the above article.
The 'study' is a prime example of a few people creating a problem where one almost certainly does not exist, using bush-league 'science' in an effort to do good but ultimately causing for more harm than good. The methods section reads like a bunch of out of town hikers climbing Washington in late November in jeans and sneakers, and then publishing their gear list as a good way to bag the peak. If these scientists (*shudder*) would spend as much time and money on experimentation as they did on the hi-res photos in the website, we'd have a much better understanding of what (if any) problem actually exists.
The 'study' is a prime example of a few people creating a problem where one almost certainly does not exist, using bush-league 'science' in an effort to do good but ultimately causing for more harm than good. The methods section reads like a bunch of out of town hikers climbing Washington in late November in jeans and sneakers, and then publishing their gear list as a good way to bag the peak. If these scientists (*shudder*) would spend as much time and money on experimentation as they did on the hi-res photos in the website, we'd have a much better understanding of what (if any) problem actually exists.
richard
Member
"The sky is falling"
The Nibiru Cataclysm http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...x-apocalypse-hurricane-irma-mexico-earthquake on the 23rd will make it all spurious.
I don't know what to think about the issue, but it is not fake news without a scientific basis.
See a peer reviewed paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14340. I do see the harm has not been determined, but there are specific hypotheses for biological toxicity. I wonder if the chemical structure of the plastic changes with cooking.
Just something to keep your eye on...like cell phone health, blue light from LEDs (european scientists and the DOE are in great disagreement), the plastic in water bottles, and so on and so forth.
.
The Nibiru Cataclysm http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...x-apocalypse-hurricane-irma-mexico-earthquake on the 23rd will make it all spurious.
Haha!
Oh wait, this is a rigorous scientific discussion - leave belief out of it.
hikerbrian
Active member
It's not fake news, but it's not particularly rigorous or meaningful either. Sample collection, analysis, characterization - it's all pretty amateur. For example, no attempt is made to distinguish between the types of fibers they observe - could be cotton, wool, or just about anything else. Also, no attempt is made to quantify how much material they find or show if any of this is harmful in any way. I'm not real worried about a small fraction of fish in one part of the country having tiny/trace quantities of possibly cotton or wool fibers in their stomachs.
So, sure, keep an eye on it. But that's not what the title of this thread says... ;-)
Trail Boss
New member
The Nibiru Cataclysm http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...x-apocalypse-hurricane-irma-mexico-earthquake on the 23rd will make it all spurious.
Good gosh there was a recent lengthy TV show about this very subject. It purported to be a serious blend of "science and religious prophecy" (yes, an outright miracle). After 5-10 minutes I thought all my eye-rolling would cause me serious vision damage so I switched it off. Truly the bottom of the faux-science barrel but the zenith of 'creative interpretation' of religious prophecy.
I hope whoever funded the show has money left over to produce a second one. It can feature the original cast of "scientific" doomsayers scraping the egg off their ignorant faces. Of course, that'll never happen. At best it'll be some hand-waving about using the "wrong calendar" and "prophecy is not an exact science".
TEO
Well-known member
Amateur and "not particularly rigorous" articles do not get published in Nature, the world's preëminent scientific journal.
Good gosh there was a recent lengthy TV show about this very subject. It purported to be a serious blend of "science and religious prophecy" (yes, an outright miracle). After 5-10 minutes I thought all my eye-rolling would cause me serious vision damage so I switched it off. Truly the bottom of the faux-science barrel but the zenith of 'creative interpretation' of religious prophecy.
I hope whoever funded the show has money left over to produce a second one. It can feature the original cast of "scientific" doomsayers scraping the egg off their ignorant faces. Of course, that'll never happen. At best it'll be some hand-waving about using the "wrong calendar" and "prophecy is not an exact science".
This Wikipedia site pretty well sums it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
hikerbrian
Active member
Except that it's not published in Nature, it's published in Nature Scientific Reports. You can look up the corresponding impact factors yourself.
[edit: I'm thinking my pre-coffee posts can be rather pithy. Since probably not a single person reading this has any care or interest in impact factors, I'll just say that not all peer-reviewed journals have the same standards for publication. Nature has very high impact factor and high standards of scientific rigor (though some crap still gets in), while Nature Scientific Reports does not have either. Looking to see where a particular paper is published, and then checking the impact factor of that journal, is a very good start for judging the quality of published research. It's not fool-proof, but it's a very good start. This is becoming rather tangential to the theme of this forum. But since we're bombarded with 'science' on a daily basis, maybe this helps folks better judge the quality of what they're reading.]
Last edited:
TEO
Well-known member
Mea culpa.
I certainly appreciate your posts on this. I think the topic is relevant to out interests since it combines health, environment, and synthetic fibers that most of us use.
I think that if evidence of harm comes out, we'll adjust accordingly, but it's fair to be skeptical right now.
