undefined

points

[-]

And indeed there is not currently conclusive proof that WiFi is a significant risk to human health. However, this is the same line the tobacco industry used for decades even though they knew different.

by timr7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Because it’s an inverted claim of falsification it works for literally anything (I cannot prove that X will absolutely not hurt you), but you get pilloried if you put something in the blank that the herd happens to support.

We’ve reached the absurd point where all sides of the political spectrum have sacred cows, and an exceedingly poor understanding of scientific reasoning, and all sides also try to dunk on the others by claiming scientific authority.

by NiloCK8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Is there any specific evidence that they are a risk to human health?

I mean, I get the instinct that foreign-entity can't exactly be good for me, but the same instinct applied to GMOs, and as far as I know organic foods have never yielded any sort of statistically visible health impacts.

Plastics earn their keep in general by being non-reactive and 'durable', so it's not entirely shocking if they can pass through (or hang around inside) the body without engaging in a lot of biochemical activity.

by kalaksi7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I get your point that plastics are relatively inert and may not cause noticeable harm (depending on quantity?), but I think it'd be wise to be cautious. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Bisphenol_A_(BPA) .

I'd also consider plastic, and their additives, to be a lot bigger and longer lasting unknown than GMOs.

by wisty8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Yeah, they gum up cellular workings. Kind of like how macro plastics will gum up turtle stomaches.

I have seen zero evidence that they are bad in very small quantities, but the dose can make the poison and they are out there in increasingly alarming quantities.