Andrew Huberman· PhD
But I do want to mention that the size was was shown to be larger from the glass bottles versus the plastic. So, the microplastic size was larger.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
But I do want to mention that the size was was shown to be larger from the glass bottles versus the plastic. So, the microplastic size was larger.
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.
If you hit the recommended 2 L of water a day using glass bottles at 4.5 ppL, you swallow ≈ 3300 microplastics a year. The same hydration from plastic bottles at 1.6 ppL is ≈ 1170 particles a year.
For still or sparkling water the counts were lower but still lopsided: 4.5 µplastics /L in glass vs. 1.6 µplastics /L in plastic.
So if if you drank the 2 liters of water a day, you know, as is recommended from these glass bottles, you would swallow 3,300 microplastics a year, if you get one IV drip, it's 40,000 microplastics to put that in context.
Plastic bottles hundreds of thousands of nanoplastics. Okay, glass bottles are clearly better. The other problem with plastic bottles that this study is missing is all of the endocrine disrupting chemicals in the plastic of this bottle that are going into the water.
studies show that people who drink bottled water exclusively could consume up to 990,000 more additional plastic particles per year compared to those who only drink tap water