Andrew Huberman· PhD
Turns out it’s bad but not THAT bad.
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Turns out it’s bad but not THAT bad.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
A more recent paper looked at the quantitative analysis they used used a different quantitative analysis and claimed that they vastly overestimated the amount of plastic that we ingest every week what do I mean by vastly overestimated this newer analysis of the same data claims that the credit card's worth of plastic that it was argued we can consume every week well that was an overestimate by a millionfold
we'll Link in the show notes to um both the uh the original analysis which came out of the University of Newcastle commissioned by the the WWF was released I think in 2019 um and then obviously the um uh sort of the rebuttal to that
that sound bite that humans consume a credit card worth of plastic uh refers to a report that estimated weekly consumption was five grams of mmps um that has been largely debunked