Even the Petroleum Institute has admitted that previous generations of "recycling" was a scam, but swears that this time it's real, is my understanding of the situation. In fact, I seem to recall speculation that most of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was "recycled" plastic that had been shipped from the US and Europe to China, then dumped into rivers there and ended up in the Pacific Ocean, because plastic recycling wasn't just a scam, it was actively negative for the environment.
Just to be clear, recycling is good (paper mostly works out, aluminum for sure), but plastic recycling in particular is largely a scam designed to assuage people's guilt at how much plastic they use.
Bury everything currently on the surface of the planet and replace it with material from underground?
The earth doesn't filter the byproducts out. Burying isn't a solution. It also doesn't address the behemoth scale of plastics already in the environment which will continue to release byproducts into our water.
Maybe what we need is a strong will to solve the problem, no lobbying to prevent the funding of the necessary research or restrictions on creation of plastics, and so on. Similar to how the space race and nuclear programs more or less got all of the money, resources, and agency required to get the job done.
It seems like the reality with plastic is we've become insanely good at making it, but nowhere near as good at dealing with its externalities. We can get better at it.
Meanwhile plastics have already permeated our environment. Even if we stopped all use today, it would be practically impossible to remove every trace of them from the environment.
Asbestos was at times used in:
* cigarrette filters
* water filters
* hair dryers
* space heaters
* anti-scorch pads (stoves and bunsen burners)
* HVAC duct sealing
* boiler, pipe, and duct insulation (buildings, machinery, vehicles)
* brakes
They're... still a thing... https://www.google.com/search?q=polycarbonate+water+bottles
Mostly, don't get your polycarbonate hot.
To be clear, if you're really worried about plastic, you can't use paper or aluminum containers either since they're coated. It's glass only, but no mason jars or screw caps since those have silicone seals. Seal it with wax/cork.
Silicone is likely one of the safest, though.
Also, Eden Foods uses cans linings free of phthalates:
Ex Chico in the baby bottle space (glass lined plastic bottles) Purist in the adult bottle space (glass lined stainless steel).
You can also get plenty of unlined aluminum/stainless cups/bottles (amazon is full of them).
No idea how that idea is going to play out long term.
True but most people don't know what those are, and they also don't/can't currently cover all plastic in the household / daily life.
So basically you're blaming Obama for not managing to do something perfectly. Are you part of the "all or nothing" camp of policymaking?
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research/suppo...
Another article says vinyl flooring including luxury vinyl may also leach off plasticizers?
"These recent regulatory measures reflect a growing awareness of the harmful effects of DEHP. However, it is notable that many of these regulations were not in place at the time of data acquisition for the present study and their effect is not reflected in our results." (pg 11)
We are seeing results from pre-regulation era in this data.
Every tech had a little bottle on their bench, with a special lid, that would have a small amount of liquid always in it (you'd pump it, to bring up more liquid). These bottles are still used, today.
This was for removing solder flux. Worked great.
At the end of each row of tech benches, was a red bucket, full of the same stuff. We'd use that to wash entire boards.
If you got the liquid on your skin, it made the skin turn white, and flake off.
Smelled like acetone had a one-night-stand with gasoline.
The liquid was trichlor[0] (not the pool kind).
Our management swore that it was perfectly safe, and that we could even drink it.
This was in the early 1980s.
Back in the 60s carbontet was used everywhere (dry cleaning and industrial) and there are superfund sites in Happy Tx and Alabama.
Everyone has seen the walk through dry cleaning right?
https://youtu.be/WbkfkcSiYcI
I feel like it's probably the wrong chemical though, far too many similar names. Maybe you meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene
I wouldn't call the smell "pleasant," or "mild," though...
This was 1983-1987. My first job.
Could we go back to wax paper, glass bottles, metal tins, and the like? Maybe, but that comes with its own challenges, from spoilage to metals contamination to transport weight.
And it isn't just my suspicion, see links below, but we haven't yet forcefully moved away from plastics around food. If RF Kennedy could do one thing, I would ask him to focus on plastics and food, rather than the more nutty stuff.
Side bonus: it may help raise the low fertility rate that Trump and Elon are so concerned about as well.
https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/reduce-your-risk/myt...
A lot of people that get a fresh autism diagnosis these days recognize the same symptoms in their (grand)parents.
Anyway, RFK does seem to focus on food stuffs, by banning certain food dyes (no more lurid froot loops for you (https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/22/nx...) but also by relaxing food safety laws (https://www.yahoo.com/news/usda-withdraws-plan-limit-salmone...).
Given that autism is highly heritable, most experts are sceptical of the idea that environmental factors could drive a major increase in the numbers, although again, it could be the case that genetics predicts only predisposition towards autism, rather than the condition itself.
A lot of wiffle to say “we don’t know”, but if there is a genuine increase in the incidence of autism in the population for etiological reasons, it’s relatively small.
But we do know that age of fathers does drive increase autism rates - thus while there is likely a genetic component, there are degradations related to age that further increase the risk: https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/risk-of-autism-spike...
Is largely illusory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bentinck,_5th_Duke_of_Por...
"The duke was highly introverted and well known for his eccentricity; he did not want to meet people and never invited anyone to his home. He employed hundreds through his various construction projects, and though well paid, the employees were not allowed to speak to him or acknowledge him. The one worker who raised his hat to the duke was promptly dismissed. The tenants on his estates were aware of his wishes and knew they were required to ignore him if they passed by. His rooms had double letterboxes, one for in-coming and another for out-going mail. Only his valet was permitted to see him in person in his quarters—he would not even let the doctor in, while his tenants and workmen received all their instructions in writing."
"The underground chambers—all of which were painted pink—included a great hall 160 ft (49 m) long and 63 ft (19 m) wide, which was originally intended as a chapel, but which was instead used as a picture gallery and occasionally as a ballroom. The ballroom reportedly had a hydraulic lift that could carry 20 guests from the surface and a ceiling that was painted as a giant sunset. The duke never organised any dances in the ballroom."
We'd diagnose this guy in a heartbeat now, but then, he was "eccentric". If he'd been poor and not an aristocrat, he'd have been a "moron" or "retarded" or something along those lines.
It's deeply odd to see Kennedy saying it's a new phenomenon. His own aunt was lobotomized for "becoming increasingly irritable and difficult".
> Is largely illusory.
Huh? First off autism rates are provable increasing in the US. It is multi-factor for sure that includes increased awareness and more access to autism tests, but...
It is a proven fact that older fathers have a higher change of having offspring with autism [1] and it is also a fact that in the US (as like many places in the world) men are having their children later [2]. Together these two accepted scientific facts lead directly to increasing autism rates, no? Or do you disagree with this reasoning?
The link I am positing but there isn't quite as much acceptance is that sperm degradation that leads to autism, isn't only caused by age but also influenced by plastics.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/autism-rates-risi...
[2] https://biox.stanford.edu/highlight/fathers-american-newborn...
Yes. That's what happens when you make a brand new label. (And then redefine it a few times; Asperger's used to be separate, now it's part of the spectrum. Or when we started realizing that, say, women are underdiagnosed with it and started working to address that.)
Rates of female "hysteria" are at an all-time low, for similar reasons.
> It is a proven fact that older fathers have a higher change of having offspring with autism…
Which could be just because of biological changes from their age, or environmental exposures during that time, but also could have other explanations, like autistic people having a harder time on average finding long-term partners.
We've had plenty of autistic people all along. We just called it different things. They're the "weird uncle" or "idiot savant" or the guy who went off to live in a silent monastery of eras past. Insane asylums. Or they wandered off at age three into a snowstorm in an era where baby gates weren't a thing.
There's no real evidence that people are having a harder time having babies at the same ages they did traditionally. The fertility rate is a social problem, probably (I guess it could be chemically induced behavior)
There is a lot of evidence that fertility, especially male, is dropping. This isnt societal. The actual fertility rate of sperm has been measured to be dropping.
This isn't "people aren't having kids." It's "male sperm is less fertile".
This is in addition to societal trends in developed countries to have less kids.
Under the Chevron Doctrine, Congress could pass a law that broadly bans all chemicals like these and then the agencies could react to new studies like this and push out new rules as we learn more and as companies attempt workarounds.
But with that tool gone, there's basically no chance of this ever getting fixed. Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. Good luck with that!
This speak of stupidity/incompetence or most likely corruption, the average ignorant populace is generally to blame, their priorities are never a healthy environment ( unless it's for virtue signalling). There is no hope.
Claiming that banning evictions falls under there is a rather 'creative' interpretation, but it was initially allowed due to Chevon deference where judges were obligated to defer to the interpretations of regulatory agencies.
If an agency is tasked with the 'prohibition of plastics, or related compounds, deemed reasonably likely to be harmful' then they would be fully capable of doing just that. With Chevron Deference they probably could then expand that mandate to then do something like claim regulatory authority over beaches owing to prohibited plastic waste washing ashore, but without it that would probably require a new law since that's clearly an unintended expansion of power.
Not true. And I mean literally definitionally not true. Chevron deference only applies (definitionally) when the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
With Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenged a rule, the court applied a two part test:
Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2.
Part 2. Is the agency's interpretation of the legislation reasonable? If yes: the agency's rule wins. If no: the rule is bad.
Without Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenges a rule, it works this way:
Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2.
Part 2. What's the court's opinion on the matter? That's the rule for this particular instance of the problem.
This decision does not get codified into any statute or guidance that other companies are obligated to follow, and future cases on the same chemicals can easily contradict each other as to the chemical's permissibility.
Not always possible, is it? I mean there must have been a time before plastics?
I assure you, they will not do anything with the information even if they had it.
Convenience trumps every other consideration including safety.
That's a very good pun even if it wasn't intentional.
Antibiotics usage is still a huge issue in beef/dairy. Environmental destruction is still a huge issue in beef/dairy. Hormone exposure thru beef/dairy is still an issue. Etc. Etc.
On the other hand you might downplay how bad can be for some people to totally eliminating meat/dairy. I know a couple of examples that had big issues with iron deficiency due to that. Pills didn't work for years, while restarting eating for a couple of months meat fixed all their health issues.
I do agree though that people eat way more than they need, but probably it is not only meat related (also sugar, carbs and others).
lol what
First thing I thought of is how much DEHP is used is the hospital, including for medical devices implanted in the heart. Such as pacemakers, catheters, stents and valves.
DEHP as a component is something like 30% of flexible tubing used in a hospital setting.
Phthalates leach because they aren't integrated with the base plastic by design - that's how they work. Phthalates sit in between the polymer chains (such as PET), rather than being bonded to them, which is precisely what affords that material flexibility, and also why they leach so easily.
and sort by the "DEHP" column.
If I understand correctly, an RXBAR could have up to 1% of your tolerable daily intake for DEHP, and most foods are well below that.
Based on the OP, it seems like DEHP might be a bigger issue in developing countries.
So, for example, Whole Foods organic grass fed beef appears to be very high in DEHP...if you get it in the plastic wrap container, but would have almost none if wrapped in wax paper (note: not the same thing as parchment paper). Similarly, a lot of restaurant to-go orders will test high for endocrine disruptors because they come in plastic containers, but would be low in these chemicals if tested at the restaurant.
Link above has a form to sign up for the mailing list. I also have a Substack post summarizing what we know about the dangers of plasticizers (https://trevorklee.substack.com/p/the-evidence-on-plasticize...) .
Solved every gastro issue I've ever had, humans co-evolved with barley and it's awesome. No modifications needed.
RansomStark•5h ago