Microplastics Found In Human Stools For the First Time (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: In a pilot study with a small sample size, researchers looked for microplastics in stool samples of eight people from Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and Austria. To their surprise, every single sample tested positive for the presence of a variety of microplastics (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). In a pilot study with a small sample size, researchers looked for microplastics in stool samples of eight people from Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and Austria. To their surprise, every single sample tested positive for the presence of a variety of microplastics.
The new paper, which was presented Monday at a gastroenterology conference in Vienna, could provide support for marine biologists who have long warned of the dangers posed by microplastics in our oceans. But the paper suggests that microplastics are entering our bodies through other means, as well. To conduct the study, they selected volunteers from each country who kept food diaries for a week and provided stool samples. Dr. Philipp Schwabl, a researcher at the Medical University of Vienna who led the study, and his colleagues analyzed the samples with a spectrometer. Up to nine different kinds of plastics were detected, ranging in size from .002 to .02 inches. The most common plastics detected were polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate -- both major components of plastic bottles and caps.
The new paper, which was presented Monday at a gastroenterology conference in Vienna, could provide support for marine biologists who have long warned of the dangers posed by microplastics in our oceans. But the paper suggests that microplastics are entering our bodies through other means, as well. To conduct the study, they selected volunteers from each country who kept food diaries for a week and provided stool samples. Dr. Philipp Schwabl, a researcher at the Medical University of Vienna who led the study, and his colleagues analyzed the samples with a spectrometer. Up to nine different kinds of plastics were detected, ranging in size from .002 to .02 inches. The most common plastics detected were polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate -- both major components of plastic bottles and caps.
It is caused by High Fructose Corn Syrup consumption and obeisity does correlate directly to that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
See the graph showing the sharp rise in total corn based sugars in the 1980's and 1990s, in the *USA*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#/media/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,_1966_to_2013.svg
Your idea of "unsupported by evidence" is laughable.
HFCS is pure calories in carbohydrate form. The exact thing needed to get fat.
HFCS's consumption rise corresponding to people getting super fat.
Whereever HFCS consumption increase, so the people became fat.
I work in the industry. All aluminum and steel cans have an internal coating. Some types are more visible but they all have it.
Most probably it has to do with the different source of sugar. Coca Cola tastes different in every country regardless of which bottle you get it in. As for beer it could very likely be the case that the beer in the can is fresher. Glass bottles are not ideal for beer in the way they are stored and exposed to light. Beer is sensitive to light which is why many beers use as dark of a glass as possible. In cans beer is kept fully airtight, light tight, and nitrogen blanketed. I always ask this question during brewery tours and the answer is always the same: cans are better for the beer, but our customers think it's cheap which is why we ship it in bottles instead.
Now just remember this tibbit next time you're drinking a Corona. Maybe it's not a bad beer that is only remotely palatable when combined with lemon, but rather it just went off on account of ignoring hundreds of years of experience of exposing beer to light in clear glass bottles :-)
It is fairly simple to keep from this type situation.
1. Freeze, when encountering the police in a stop, just be still. Don't move until directed to.
2. Go out of your way to show empty hands, don't be holding a cell phone, etc....show plainly your hands are empty.
3. Actually this should be #!...DON"T FUCKING RUN.
4. Obey officers commands, don't smart off, don't talk any more than you need too (being quiet is one of the first things your lawyer would tell you, you have the right to remain silent...REMAIN SILENT as is your right).
These simple 4 steps would keep the majority of folks from getting shot by the police when they do not need to be shot.
When did common sense go out the door?
It is legal to carry guns in your car here...no license required.
When you get pulled over here...you shut off the engine, keep movements slow...and put both hands on the steering wheel in plain site and wait for officer to approach you.
I usually tell the officer, "I have a loaded gun located xyz".....at that point, they usually ask me to get out of the car...some retrieve the weapon, some don't and just run a check on my DL. No one gets excited, no one gets shot.
Being respectful, and moving slow and deliberate and obeying officers commands make stops pretty quick and uneventful....especially if you are not committing a crime.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........