Thanks or the link. No way to prove it (yet) but I’m thinking micro and nano plastics are a big cause of cancers in younger people that usually affected people later in life. The article talks about plastics causing inflammation (artery plaque). Chronic inflammation is linked to colon rectal cancer, which is showing up in larger number for people under 40, some in 20s and 30s. This age group grew up with plastic everywhere and in just about everything….and eating it. Just think of milk. Use to come in glass or paper wax containers, which were still used in the 70s. Then plastic came along. Coincidence?
1 Like
Lots of environmental factors, unfortunately, plus a virus that speeds some cancers up. Plus the HPV cancers. Lots of things have changed over 60 years. Also, I think, in some cases, things that wouldn’t have been diagnosed are now getting diagnosed, or were getting diagnosed more, until recently.
There were some horrible cancer stories 100 years ago, too, that we luckily don’t deal with now. Those poor women who worked in the watch factory.
4 Likes
True, lots of factors but micro plastics are linked to cancer. Too late for many of us and I don’t think plastics will be eliminated for quite some time. Not in our life times…in seven generations? Cynic and skeptic in me says, probably not. Of course won’t be alive to see it but no way it can be good.
Microplastics trigger uncontrolled cell proliferation and ensue tissue growth leading to various cancers affecting the lungs, blood, breasts, prostate, and ovaries . Additionally, such contamination can potentially affect sub-cellular signaling and injure multiple organs.
2 Likes
Sorry for the downer, but I’d rather know. Pretending or ignoring just doesn’t help. I thought someone posted this already. Apologies if there’s a duplicate
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)
All the studies I have seen or correlative.
Are there any studies that actually show a causative connection between “black plastics” (or microplastics or flame retardants or whatever chemical du jour) and cancer?
1 Like
Ah, the moment has arrived! I was waiting for someone to sniff about whether there was a Gold Standard study proving a direct, causal relationship between black plastic utensils and cancers.
I love science, and I applaud its rigor when it comes to proving causation. But IMO that rigor is no license to ignore dangers whose only excuse is the LACK of a study.
Yes, there is ample research on BFRs’ health dangers. And the reason this is now in the news is that BFRs have been found in SOME black plastic utensils. The speculation is that things made from recycled black plastics are tainted with BFRs from TV and electronics cases. But it’s clear that BFRs (and other compounds) can leach from plastics.
Can you tell if your ladle has BFRs? Probably not, unless you have a gas chromatograph in your garage or are willing to pay for testing. And what COULD that testing prove? That BFRs are in MY ladle? That laden ladles CAUSED someone’s cancer? Of course not.
I suggest a good way to think about these issues is to remember the faith/belief/knowledge progression. I can’t KNOW BFRs in my Dollar Store utensils will kill me (or any earlier), but based on real chemistry and real studies, I can reasonably BELIEVE BFRs in my ladle would be dangerous. And therefore using black plastic utensils aren’t worth taking the risk. Such a conclusion isn’t fantasy, or even suspect.
I think faith here is reserved for people who are willing to keep using stuff until a peer-reviewed Gold Standard meta study comes along.
2 Likes
My Ph.D. advisor once told me that if you torture the data enough it will say anything you want it to say.
Words to live by.
I trust, but verify. Always.
3 Likes
I had one black plastic spatula - tossed it. No big deal, not worth the risk. I have other spatulas.
if you consider things that - in the last 20/50 years - have been considered “risky” or considered “safe” - the bottom line is not looking all too good.
and the “internet intelligence factor” has made the situation worse - by a factor of at least 1,000 - probably 10,000.
anyone can post anything on the internet.
That’s the issue, isn’t it? Given the certainty that there are BFRs in some black plastic utensils, why would any reasonable person insist on waiting for verification?
These tools are cheap.
Don’t even need to mess with the data. Just pay for research that serves your purpose.
Remember tobacco? Sugar?
I think it’s interesting that the “questioning” happening here is of the science, not of who funded what studies and suppressed what studies, and where the money trail usually leads.
Scientists don’t often get paid to spook people for kicks. But it’s definitely profitable for the folks causing the issue to raise doubts about the science, or throw money at funding studies to obfuscate the results.
3 Likes
I remember when people (smokers) argued that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. It’s what they wanted to believe.
4 Likes
Perhaps that was before my time, but anyone who was smoking in the 70s and beyond def knew what they were doing.
But nicotine is highly addictive, and people are very good at compartmentalization and cognitive disconnect — not just about cigarettes 
Yes, I do.
But I also remember people preaching that eating eggs will increase your cholesterol (when we now know that dietary cholesterol has very little effect on blood cholesterol) or that antiperspirants cause cancer (when there is no evidence even showing a correlative effect).
I am not questioning the science, because how can I?
I have not even seen it.
check the reporting / resaearch.
BFRs are not reported.
only ‘B flag’ compounds.
Have you watched “Thank You For Smoking”?
It’s not just that people believed what they wanted.
2 Likes
- Stiffler, Lisa (March 28, 2007). “PBDEs: They are everywhere, they accumulate and they spread”. Seattle Post Intelligencer.
- ^ Kim Hooper; Jianwen She (2003). “Lessons from the Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs): Precautionary Principle, Primary Prevention, and the Value of Community-Based Body-Burden Monitoring Using Breast Milk”. Environmental Health Perspectives. 111 (1): 109–114. doi:10.1289/ehp.5438. PMC 1241314. PMID 12515688. Archived from the original on 2008-11-01.
- ^ “Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) Action Plan Summary | Existing Chemicals | OPPT | US EPA”. Archived from the original on 2015-09-01. Retrieved 2012-12-03.
- ^ “Brominated Flame Retardants in the Environment” (PDF). Columbia Environmental Research Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-05-08. Retrieved 2012-12-03.
- ^ “European Union Risk Assessment Report of diphenyl ether, pentabromo deriv”. Institute for Health and Consumer Protection. 2000. Archived from the original on 2014-10-26. Retrieved 2014-10-26.
- ^ “European Union Risk Assessment Report of diphenyl ether, octabromo deriv”. Institute for Health and Consumer Protection. 2003. Archived from the original on 2014-10-26. Retrieved 2014-10-26.
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28599595/
- https://greenpeace.to/publications/playing_with_fire.pdf
- https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/45367456/Brominated_Organic_Micropollutants_-_Ign20160505-82802-1ob9g13-libre.pdf?1462433771=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DBrominated_Organic_Micropollutants_Ignit.pdf&Expires=1732665822&Signature=JGpnLmIV8H1DwYAXAGsLkE6F2v2~8IUYtKRsHMUCvwOhwZLSAnGEHZ~Rc69U1DGpHDvDdp-wUtz--54HaCrV5mMN9LdbaCwtnrsrnd13qow7G-dlBqSv0CPOL5QCh9juFz8Kode4egnTgU2XMF6ealN7r-6tgC6FWnmxjKn07Q0qoSiPPYOxwRdPD4B6HVzASfXQUq8npMRqzAWUEf4NSUtw3374B61qNxyIg3lUkgvphBoC2NoXkYgzs-ZIhoTleW0hKgMjJ1T5e6a~JcmBsAid2wQAKpAxKYYj7pAWkEIcIdY7zSJdrP9vNzPReKc43bo0CbbZ2XYeo4A5flA9Kw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Corporations spend multi billions on legal and PR (including bogus scientific studies) defend dangerous products and confusing the public about safety and health risks. It’s no surprise one of their standards lines is, “there’s no conclusive evidence to proof XXX is dangerous, unsafe or bad for health.”. Billions for spin, confusion, gaslighting and being bad corporate citizens and lousy human beings. Then there’s the whole “buyer beware” baloney. Fine let the buyer beware but ONLY after real information is provided and no spin, BS and legal mucking.
This is what Googles AI generator came up with:
According to data from OpenSecrets, industries considered “harmful” like tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) have spent billions of dollars on lobbying, with the UPF industry spending the most at around $1.15 billion, followed by gambling, tobacco, and then alcohol, highlighting the significant amount corporations spend to influence legislation regarding potentially dangerous products
1 Like
My grandmother, born early in the 1900s, said after getting a lung cancer diagnosis 30 years after her husband died from emphysema, that cigarettes were healthy and did not cause her lung cancer. I picture her making some money being in a TV commercial for the tobacco institute, saying that, hacking away and smoking. They lived in North Carolina, a state which had a large economic investment in growing tobacco and manufacturing cigarettes.
People believe what they want to believe, for a combination of economic and emotional reasons.
I agree, Saregama, follow the money trail. That’s true for all kinds of reporting on food and other products.
4 Likes
