this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22056 readers
90 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
TL;DR: This article is misleading and sensational. Do not take it at face value.
This isn't how the cups were intended to be used. Yes this can be used to model a threat caused by cups littered into our environment; but this article tries to spin this out first to scare you.
More scare tactic information; preying on your lack of familiarity with how these things are regulated or tested. Scaremongering continues for two more paragraphs before it abruptly changes tone midway.
By now the author hopes you're scared enough to do as they ask; but if you weren't convinced; they threw in some other statistics at the end, and even breaks their suggestion by showing how inconvenient and impractical it is to recycle them.
They're still not done scaring you though.
They dump some number of particles on you; giving you zero context, and zero information about how dangerous that is. They only mention in passing the "harmful chemicals and heavy metals", giving no specific concentrations nor giving you any clues as to how much of it is in there.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389420321087
Unfortunately the above article is pay-walled; and is difficult to access. I doubt the journalists read the full paper. Everything mentioned in the article is accessible from snippets on this exact webpage; which may mean things are being taken out of context.
B-b-but ... chemicals!
While I was reading it I felt the idea that baking under the sun in a landfill could have a similar effect? Sure, that's not their "intended" use but also looking around extremely trash-filled areas, there is definitely trash baking under the sun in small puddles so they aren't really being used as intended in the first place.
Just around my old home in a country where trash isn't piled up everywhere to the point where it's a community effort to solve, I saw plenty of styrofoam and wax lined paper cups sitting in the same conditions - damp, wet, and baking. Frankly, it seems weird to say it's only sensationalism when there are around 600 billion paper/plastic cups made a year and there's no possible way that 100% of them are being disposed of "how they are intended to be used".
While I don't think it's the most important thing ever we should focus on, it should be important to mitigate issues like this when we come across them and there's nothing wrong with raising awareness. At the moment, there are actually hundreds of thousands of these types of products in water and landfills. Whether that's how they were meant to be or not, if conditions can cause them to break down this way then somewhere along the way it is going to happen because we just can't properly dispose of 100% of anything.
The point is that the article gives no context for their statistics. This is super common in science journalism.
For example, take the articles that came out after the vaping and heavy metal study came out. Vapes have heavy metals in them. Scary!
What they didn't mention was that the levels found were lower than atmospheric levels.