other big overlooked area — paper cups are covered inside with hydrophobic film that is made of plastic, and given extra hot water makes plasticisers get off substance, chances are all those paper cups are releasing lots of microplastics into hot water. ask for mugs folks.
Growing up, paper cups were all coated in wax, but I can't remember the last time I'd seen one coated in wax in the US, it's been at least a decade. Back then I remember being cautioned against using paper cups for hot drinks as it would melt the parafin (which wasn't great to drink) and then the paper would get soggy. Hot drinks to go were mostly served in styrofoam back then, while they are mostly plastic coated paper now. So that was probably a small step forward, although reusable ceramic or metal is better than either.
Your own comment is also not science. Scientific results (particular testing conditions and results) need to be interpreted and actions decided on in the real world. Policy is not science either.
> Several studies in the past have shown that harmful chemicals and substances can leach from paper and paperboard-based food packaging into the food meant for human consumption (Choi et al., 2002, Hansen et al., 2013, Schaider et al., 2017, Trier et al., 2011, Trier et al., 2018, Deshwal et al., 2019, Vandermarken et al., 2019).
> "BPA, phthalates, plasticisers etc. are not chemically bound to substance they added too, and under heat they come out [...] you don't want to mix these with your food, but the worst thing to do is to put it in the heated environment" — Dr. Shanna Swan, Ph.D
Just make sure the mugs weren't washed with Jet Dry...
Avoiding toxic and questionable substances really does get exhausting after awhile. It's everywhere. I'm able to draw a reasonable line (for me) without getting too nuts about it. Hoping AI ends up helping with this.
what would AI do that human intelligence couldn't? Is it not a linear cause-and-effect relationship? more plastics cause more illness? (yes | no). If plastics are toxic, wouldn't we see for ourselves (thus NOT requiring AI) a proportionate increase in sickness in samples (people or animals) with higher plastic in their bodies? Why is the message more profound if AI tells you versus a human team of college researchers?
"What would seeing information on a computer screen do for you that a book couldn't?"
Reducing friction of access to information, friend. That's what. Taking a label in a supermarket and immediately seeing what's good and bad about it. Increasing competitive pressure on companies who still use toxic ingredients. I could go on here but it seems like you just take issue with "AI" as a concept because it is trivial to come up with many ways in which AI would help here.
if humans cant figure out a causal link between microplastics and health issues, they shouldn't be working in that field. they already publish enough false information as-is, for those sweet juicy government "research" bucks. Last thing we need is a legion of retarded AI parrots saying "MuH AI aLgO sAiD sO!!!" without having the slightest clue what they are talking about.
> If plastics are toxic, wouldn't we see for ourselves (thus NOT requiring AI) a proportionate increase in sickness in samples (people or animals) with higher plastic in their bodies?
Yeah man I notice microplastics in tissue samples from my sick friends all the time. Haven’t you?
