bottles, plastic, recycling-4276208.jpg

Chemists warn plastics in bottled water may be 100x worse than previously thought

The following is from Newsweek.

Plastic is everywhere, from the Arctic ice to the human placenta. In fact, previous estimates suggest that the average person ingests a credit card-worth of microscopic plastic particles every week.

But new research shows that this could actually be an understatement.

Microplastics refer to any plastics that are smaller than 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) long. They can be found in industrial waste and various beauty products and can also be formed during the degradation of larger pieces of plastic waste.

Over time, these microplastics can break down even further into so-called nanoplastics. These nanoplastics are so tiny that they can pass through our intestines and lungs directly into our bloodstreams and travel through our bodies into our vital organs, including our hearts and brains.

Many of these plastic particles are washed into the ocean, which contains somewhere between 50 and 75 trillion pieces of plastic, according to estimates by UNESCO’s Ocean Literacy Portal. And eventually, these plastics end up in our food and waterways.

While the idea of eating plastic is unsettling in itself, the major concern here is that these plastic particles contain chemicals that can interrupt our body’s natural release of hormones, potentially increasing our risk of reproductive disorders and certain cancers. They can also carry toxins on their surface like heavy metals.

In the past, researchers have shown bottled water can contain tens of thousands of identifiable plastic fragments in a single container. However, until recently, only the larger microplastics were detectable with available measuring tools. The realm of the nanoplastics was largely a mystery.

“Previously this was just a dark area, uncharted. Toxicity studies were just guessing what’s in there,” Beizhan Yan, an environmental chemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a statement.

In a new paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yan and colleagues employed cutting edge technology to assess this uncharted territory.

Using a technique called Raman scattering microscopy—which can detect particles down to the size of a Covid virus—the team were able to measure an average of 240,000 particles of plastic in each liter of bottled water, 90 percent of which were nanoplastics.

This is 10 to 100 times larger than previous estimates.

The team hopes to expand their research into tap water and other water sources to better inform our exposure to these potentially hazardous particles.

Link to article here.

Visit The Sharyl Attkisson Store today

Shop Now

Unique gifts for independent thinkers

Proceeds benefit independent journalism

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 thoughts on “Chemists warn plastics in bottled water may be 100x worse than previously thought”

  1. What they don’t mention is they don’t actually measure the particles as a whole floating around in the bottle but grind the bottle up into powder and count the nano particles the bottle is made up of.

  2. An “average of 240,000” particles/Liter. I call bullshit on this. Show us the data; we’ll do the calculations. Besides I don’t trust studies performed by teenage college students.

  3. This is a big fear the monster under the bed story, being pushed by the climate alarmist anti petroleum industry hacks. On no micro and nano plastic particulars are every where. And they may do this and do that. But they haven’t been shown to do anything. Plastic itself is an inert material. It the very reason why it is used in so many products from medical implants, to storage for toxic chemicals, toothbrushes, clothing the list is so long it is impossible to list. If plastics micro, nano or other wise was in fact a health issue and considering that plastics came into wide spread use in the mid 1950’s where are all of these negative health outcomes. If you take every chemical that is claimed to have negative health effects on animals and humans if such effects were in fact true our birth rate would be virtually zero and those the birth defect rate of those who survived the chemical onslaught in the womb and the abortionists forceps should be around 90%. Our life expectancy should be dropping faster than a lead balloon, the rate of all cancers should be exploding. It is fear mongering at it worst. And while there are no doubt some substances that can be harmful to human and animals, the fact of the matter is that most are not. Take Talcum power for example. It was blamed for causing ovarian cancer. And lawyers exploited faulty and fraudulent science to win a huge law suit against J&J. But later it turns out that the science was rigged and there was no evidence that any of the claims were true. But millions if not billions have already been fraudulent paid out, most to attorneys who claim to be acting in good faith for a class of victims, non victims in reality, who after subtracting out their cost, copying, mailing, phone calls employee, travel etc etc etc them they get 30% or more of the awarded proceeds. Which in reality they can gross almost 90% of the total award. This number comes from a real life example that I will show below. Then there the case of DDT an insecticide that a non scientist environmental radical claimed was killing birds world wide endangering even our national symbol, because if was causing the shell’s of eggs the be thinner than what somewhat thought they should be. DDT has saving millions of lives as it was the most effective mosquito insecticide against malaria carrying mosquitoes. Even without the actual scientific evidence to prove all the claims made in the book Silent Spring DDT was band. Since it was band it is estimated that around 10 million more people have died from malaria as a result. Mostly in poor countries, so what do we care, right. Despite George Clooney’s campaign to send mosquito netting to these poor people. As it turns out DDT did cause shell thinning in a relative few species of birds, but that this could be prevented by adjusting the amount of DDT used. The amount being used prior was greater than the amount needed to effectively control mosquitoes. So problem solved right? Well not so much. The US still banned it from being exported inspite of the scientific evidence that confirmed what the inventor of the product had said all along. But the countries most affected by malaria started importing it anyway. Guess what malaria deaths decreased to the pre ban level. The author of Solent Spring, the fraudulent scientist who conduct and supported that research and the US government are responsible for a level of deaths matching Hitler.
    When science and politics mix it is humanity that suffers. And mirco and nano plastics fear mongering is trying to be the next one. And one ofvthe reasons is that it is part of the overall climate alarmist plan. Plastics are the product of oil production and are a major contributor to many benefits in both human and animal existence. So how do you attack this aspect of a product you are wanting to get rid of? Well you start claiming that it is a danger. It threatens our environment or health and our lives. You tell people that disposal diapers can last thousands of years in a land fill, I never understood why exactly I should care if the golf course or ski slope I was enjoying had disposable diapers 20, 30 or more feet below me. But that is one of the arguments they make. Now nano plastics can get into your blood stream, and do what exactly, they don’t say. I have 2 stints in my arteries keeping them open allowing me to live not just live but live a good life. Guess what is coating those stints and allowing my arteries to incorporate then in the walls of my arteries? Plastic. I also had a knee replacement. In addition to metal guess what material is lining the metal joints? Plastic. And I am suppose to be concerned about little itty bitty super tiny particles of plastic that can enter and pass right through my body. Really. I don’t think so.

Scroll to Top