The chemicals added to plastics are likely contributing more than $250 billion to annual healthcare costs in the United States, researchers say.

They are used to give plastic products their distinctive durability, bendability and sleek, nonstick surface.

Yet some of these chemical additives have been tied to maladies such as breast and prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes, as well as problems with children’s brain development and adult fertility.

Of particular concern are a class of additives known as endocrine disruptors — chemicals that mimic and confuse hormone signaling in humans.

Now, a team of physicians, epidemiologists and endocrinologists have estimated the costs of plastic exposure on the U.S. healthcare system and come to a sobering conclusion.

  • girlfreddy
    18·
    5 months ago

    “What this study tries to do is to say” to plastic manufacturers that “‘it’s not just that you’re hurting people’s lives, it’s that you’re costing the economy. … You are profiting as companies off the backs of people’s health and well-being,’” he said.

    Plastic manufacturers and the companies who use those containers don’t care what it does to us. They just don’t want to be forced to spread manufacturing out, to save on increased transportation costs that would come from using glass containers instead.

    But that’s what gov’ts have to do to change anything … shut down plastic usage and/or force those companies who use them to pay for the environmental damage and cost of healthcare.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      5 months ago

      increased transportation costs that would come from using glass containers instead

      So spend more gasoline to move an order of magnitude more weight around? Just weighed two roughly equivalent containers, ~6 fluid ounces each.

      Glass: 105g

      Plastic: 7g

      (That measurement misses the metal lid on the glass container vs. a plastic lid or wrap. Add 10g and 1g to the totals.)

      Ah, but I see you’re proposing to spread manufacturing out some, save on shipping? So thousands of new glass plants splattered everywhere? The shipping costs sound more environmentally effective than splatting thousands of acres of forest, creating more heat islands, etc. And don’t forget all the extra energy infrastructure to power those plants! But what do I know.

      Say what you will about capitalism, but it finds ways to use money efficiently. And here’s the thing people miss; Energy = MONEY. That equation exhibits the commutative property. Money = ENERGY.

      I’m leaving out the increase in food costs to consumers. Like it isn’t bad enough, we should add more? Also, are we going to add more burden to the people that have to lift and move all that glass?

      Posted a time or two that sometime in the future our plastic use will be looked upon as vile, insane. I can rage forever on the subject. But we’re not at a place in history to completely get around it. Not yet. Baby steps.

      And BTW, I LOVE glass! I’ve made so many cool things out of waste. But fuck me, there’s only so many drinking glasses, bowls, jewelry, etc., a man can make and use. I’ve got 300lbs of waste glass in the shed to work with, nowhere to put the finished product.

      tl;dr: The only way we save this planet is renewable energy, and I include nuclear in that. Any other talk is missing the energy equation, missing the forest for the trees.