Microplastics Found In 90 Percent of Table Salt (nationalgeographic.com) 190
An anonymous reader quotes a report from National Geographic: New research shows microplastics in 90 percent of the table salt brands sampled worldwide. Of 39 salt brands tested, 36 had microplastics in them, according to a new analysis by researchers in South Korea and Greenpeace East Asia. Salt samples from 21 countries in Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Asia were analyzed. The three brands that did not contain microplastics are from Taiwan (refined sea salt), China (refined rock salt), and France (unrefined sea salt produced by solar evaporation). The study was published this month in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The density of microplastics found in salt varied dramatically among different brands, but those from Asian brands were especially high, the study found. The highest quantities of microplastics were found in salt sold in Indonesia. Asia is a hot spot for plastic pollution, and Indonesia -- with 34,000 miles (54,720 km) of coastline -- ranked in an unrelated 2015 study as suffering the second-worst level of plastic pollution in the world. In another indicator of the geographic density of plastic pollution, microplastics levels were highest in sea salt, followed by lake salt and then rock salt. Even though the study found that the average adult consumes approximately 2,000 microplastics per year through salt, it's not clear what the health consequences are.
The density of microplastics found in salt varied dramatically among different brands, but those from Asian brands were especially high, the study found. The highest quantities of microplastics were found in salt sold in Indonesia. Asia is a hot spot for plastic pollution, and Indonesia -- with 34,000 miles (54,720 km) of coastline -- ranked in an unrelated 2015 study as suffering the second-worst level of plastic pollution in the world. In another indicator of the geographic density of plastic pollution, microplastics levels were highest in sea salt, followed by lake salt and then rock salt. Even though the study found that the average adult consumes approximately 2,000 microplastics per year through salt, it's not clear what the health consequences are.
My doctor was right! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are there any health implications of micro plastics in salt? That was suspiciously left out of the article for some reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The new study estimates that the average adult consumes approximately 2,000 microplastics per year through salt. What that means remains a mystery.
What I want to know is how much 2,000 picroplastics is. Is it 2,000 particles, or 2,000 different polymers? Or maybe it is more like 3 Internets?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thing is, the title of this article (including the original sourced news article) is again clickbait.
It isn't 90% of table salt. I don't see that number anywhere in the study summary. And in fact, the summary of the article indicates it is looking at *sea* salt, as well as lake salt (some lakes are salty) and rock salt.
News flash. Loads, and I mean loads of salt comes from inland salt deposits. In Canada, it mostly comes from salt dug up, from ancient sea beds in the Prairies. It's the same in the US t
Re: (Score:3)
The new study estimates that the average adult consumes approximately 2,000 microplastics per year through salt. What that means remains a mystery.
What I want to know is how much 2,000 picroplastics is. Is it 2,000 particles, or 2,000 different polymers? Or maybe it is more like 3 Internets?
I'm not sure, but you'll want to finish the Kessel Run in less than it, whatever it is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there any health implications of micro plastics in salt? That was suspiciously left out of the article for some reason.
Health implication?
Take roast beef.
Before roasting you rub salt on the meat
The heat from roasting would cause the microplastics in the salt to give off 'funny chemicals', some of them happen to be carcinogenic.
If you are going to skip your roast beef, how about cake or cookies?
They are baked - with massive heat involved.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Does it matter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long until someone tries to introduce the term "essential dietary microplastics"?
Re: (Score:1)
Some questions are better left unasked.
Already happened (Score:2)
How long until someone tries to introduce the term "essential dietary microplastics"?
Looking at the time of your post I'd say Friday October 19, 2018 @ 12:36AM is when it will happen.
Re: (Score:1)
I read somewhere:
"...most plastic products release estrogenic chemicals..."
so it will likely make us all better women.
Last sentence in the summary (Score:1)
"...it's not clear what the health consequences are."
Re: (Score:1)
Are there any health implications of micro plastics in salt? That was suspiciously left out of the article for some reason.
Microplastic beads where removed from toothpaste a few years ago because they where found that they where embedding themselves in between your teeth and gums and becoming nucleation sites for bacteria causing gum disease. The plastics where initially added as an enamel safe abrasive to remove more plaque, but the law of unintended consequences of allowing the marketing team drive the ship caused people to lose their teeth. Because anyone with functioning brain cells would have figured that this was a possib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
None that we know of. This is the continuation of the current lie of extreme end of green movement and need for clicks.
Essentially this is the continuation of the several stories on topic done in recent past, after the study about a year ago was popularized. That study talked about "microplastics", which are small micrometre-sized plastics that are so small, they can freely penetrate cell walls. They appear to have no interaction with cells themselves and are biologically inert. Their primary source was sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of large plastic particulates found in plastic trash. Microplastics are smaller than human cells, and comparable in size to larger bacteria.
If you read the other commentary carefully, the only harmful effect that could be found with microplastics in fish is that if they get utterly insane amounts of it, their buoyancy changes to a harmful degree, as plastic is generally lighter than water in tissues that it will displace.
Re: (Score:2)
That was suspiciously left out of the article for some reason.
There's nothing suspicious about it at all. There is actually not much research on the health implications of microplastics.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article, there is plenty of research, a natural experiment.
If 90% of table salt people are using all the time has microplastics in it, then it clearly has no negative health effects, or else with such a massive experimental group, we'd have seen negative results already. :)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your conclusion is premature.
Plastics have been used for less than one hundred years and their concentrations in the environment have exponentially increased over the last 50 years.
How long did it take to figure out that radiation exposure was bad? How long did it take to figure out smoking was bad?
We don't know the long term health effect of ingesting microplastics. Depending on what they are it might take decades more before some specific health problem is traced to exposure to microplastics.
Re: Does it matter? (Score:2)
How long did it take to figure out that radiation exposure was bad?
From which point? We discovered x-rays in 1895. By 1896 we already knew they could be harmful. Less that 9 years after discovering them we had the first death due to x-ray exposure. Which of those numbers were you looking for?
How long did it take to figure out smoking was bad?
Again, from which point? Smoking came to the "civilized world" from the Americas. I can't say whether the Indians were aware of the negative health effects, but the early prescientific Europeans certainly weren't so it seems unlikely that the natives would have been either.
Then a
Re: (Score:2)
While I disagree somewhat on the premise, what you are saying is very sound, and correct. We haven't had the time.
But realize, one of the reason why these micro plastics are everywhere, is because it's inert and not reacting with anything. But with these single molecule's that are not being broken down are accumulating, we do need a way to remove them from the environment.
Also, further studies needed
What it proves and does not prove (Score:3)
If 90% of table salt people are using all the time has microplastics in it, then it clearly has no negative health effects, or else with such a massive experimental group, we'd have seen negative results already. :)
No, all that proves is that whatever effects there might be are not acutely toxic. It's quite possible there may be long term effects or mild effects or effects that only impact a portion of the population or perhaps no impact at all. We just don't know at this point. It's not unusual at all for mild chemical pollution (which this is) to have health implications that are not noticed for some time. Right now we have essentially no clue if these things will actually be harmful but we would be foolish not
Re: (Score:2)
If 90% of table salt people are using all the time has microplastics in it, then it clearly has no negative health effects
Yes as said by asbestos manufacturers 30 years ago.
Scope was more limited (Score:2)
The present study is based on the hypothesis that commercial sea salts can act as an indicator of MP pollution in the surrounding environment unless the MPs are filtered out during the manufacturing process.
The paper speaks of testing commercial table salt vendor products, and correlating the concentration of 'microplastics' to industrial sources. That's a limited scope, and respectable.
I still would like to look into the details of the 'microparticle' counting. Particle counting accuracy is hugely dependent on measurement technique. Add differentiation from other 'particles' to that challenge? I'd like to see details. Paywall though.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Yes according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That section still says nothing about what concentration would be harmful, nor whether you are likely to get a harmful dose from these sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem for humans... The effects on the environment and plants/animals are much better understood.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem for humans... The effects on the environment and plants/animals are much better understood.
Really? then why do none of these articles actually reference such? All of the articles I have seen just take it as a given that microplastics are bad. None of them tell me how they are bad or what evidence there is for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any health implications of micro plastics in salt? That was suspiciously left out of the article for some reason.
From what I have read the smaller the plastic particles the more likely they are to get into cells and cause damage there. People tend to use 'microplastics' interchangeably with 'nanoplastics' but while neither is particularly healthy the nanoplastic particles are worse by virtue of being smaller. Microplastics are sized between ~0.05-5mm while nanoplastics are 1,000 times smaller than algae cells. For comparison the diameter of a human skin cell is about 0.03 mm.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any health implications of micro plastics in salt? That was suspiciously left out of the article for some reason.
No it wasn't - the National Geographic article had a section titled "Is this harmful?"
It wasn't addressed in the original research article in "Environmental Science and Technology", but that's because it's a different question that requires different expertise and completely different sort of data. Hardly "suspicious" that the researchers addressed a valid question in their own area of expertise. Assessing the health risks of environmental exposure to microplastic is much more challenging, both economical
You need data first (Score:2)
Are there any health implications of micro plastics in salt? That was suspiciously left out of the article for some reason.
What's suspicious about it? The answer is they have no fucking clue what the health implications (if any) are. Neither does anyone else at this point. Why would they make claims about health implications when there is a good approximation of zero data regarding the effect of microplastic on health? We know it isn't acutely toxic but beyond that a lot of research is going to have to be done to figure out if/how/why it is a problem and even more research to figure out what to do about it if it actually is
Nothing suspicious about it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dose? Concentration? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The study with its summary was linked in the submission:
A wide range of MP content (in number of MPs per kg of salt; n/kg) was found: 0–1674 n/kg (excluding one outlier of 13629 n/kg) in sea salts, 0–148 n/kg in rock salt, and 28–462 n/kg in lake salt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dose? Concentration? (Score:4, Interesting)
If if and if.
But currently it's a buzz word with no known (good, bad or ugly) health implications. Also, what's the dosage from fish? Beef? Tap water?
For plastics that don't dissolve in the stomach, particle size could matter greatly. For those that do, the bigger concern is what they break down into and if that's toxic.
The article is horrible...i thought NatGeo was better than this kind of fear-mongering faux-science crap. The study I'm even less interested in given who it's authored by. Greenpeace is among the top-tier nonsense media out there.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking AC. Your anecdote about your 'sister' and her laurels is meaningless.
Re: (Score:1)
You can guarantee that cooking pretty much anything is gonna dissolve the microplastics you add to it.
Re: (Score:1)
So about a tenth as much as the uranium salts in it eh?
Re: (Score:1)
Microplastic beads where removed from toothpaste a few years ago because they where found that they where embedding themselves in between your teeth and gums and becoming nucleation sites for bacteria causing gum disease. The plastics where initially added as an enamel safe abrasive to remove more plaque, but the law of unintended consequences of allowing the marketing team drive the ship caused people to lose their teeth. Because anyone with functioning brain cells would have figured that this was a possib
Simple experiment (Score:2)
Want some idea of what the upper bound is by size volume
Take a Table Spoon of salt (15 ml) dissolve thoroughly in a cup of water in a good quality glass (pref overnight)
give it a shake
Hold up to sunlight.
The Tyndall effect will let you see suspended particles in the solution.
If you want more you can take out your handy dandy 20 micron filter (That's a coffee filter)
filter the solution through it.
See whats left behind.
Bonus points do this with whatever water you plan to use without the salt, to establish a b
Thresholds matter (Score:2)
Nothing about that. Microplastics could be nanograms or milligrams, and that is a massive difference.
It is a difference but it's unclear what effect such a difference might actually have. Once a toxicity threshold is reached the difference becomes to some degree academic. If nanograms of some substance is significantly toxic it doesn't really matter if there are milligrams present because you have the same problem either way. Drowning in an inch of water renders you just as dead as drowning in an ocean if you get what I'm saying. The problem is that we don't know what a safe amount is at this point. C
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the only problem they could observe is slightly increased buoyancy for fish when you're talking about grams in cubic centimetre, so incredibly high concentrations far beyond this study?
Does that confirm that there are no problems like those observed with plastic garbage, i.e. mechanical damage to digestive system and thorax?
So which is worse for you? (Score:2)
I'll take the research... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take the research with a grain of salt!
And if the research is correct then you'll also take it with a bit of plastic. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take the research... ...with a grain of salt!
And knowing what I do about plastic pollution I'll take your skepticism with a grain of plastic.
Actual amount is in nanogram (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Actual amount is in nanogram (Score:5, Insightful)
FUD? I think it does shed light on just how pervasive plastics are in our world now in ways we might not realize, especially when it comes to things that the people normally think are relatively pure and "clean", such as salt. It does show how unaware the effects on humans are - either at the micro level with table salt, or at the macro level when you combine all sources of uplastics in typical diets around the world.
Plastics contain more than just long-chain polymers. There are just gobs of different chemicals that can be locked up inside the structure of a given plastic which then slowly leach out over time. We've found that many of them are carcinogenic (or their breakdown products are carcinogenic), or even bio-mimics, such as BPA, and have been attributed to hormone-based diseases. We just don't know the extent of the deleterious effect all this has on ourselves, not to mention our food sources. So, the focus is not weird. It's actually really fsckin' important.
Re: (Score:1)
To get an idea of how dangerous this microplastics stuff is, compare it to something extremely lethal. For example, plutonium is quite lethal, and a 200 microgram dose is generally considered enough to cause cancer. That dose is probably 100-1000 times the amount of microplastics you'd get from a year's supply of salt, and microplastics (or whatever they contain or turn into in your body) are going to be much less toxic than plutonium!
dom
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So 99.99999% pure isn't pure enough?
I think the problem is when it's in _everything_ (Score:2)
Not saying "Everybody Panic!" but it does warrant further study.
Re:Actual amount is in nanogram (Score:4, Informative)
As I understand it the unit they use in the paper, "n/kg", refers to number of micro-particles per kg of salt. If you look at the supplemental materials [acs.org] (which I believe is accessible free of charge, not quite sure as I'm on a university network and also have access to the whole article) you can see in Table S1 listing of both n/kg and what they call "mean MP mass" which end up being in the range 0-70 mg/kg.
Your eating your own rollerblades (Score:1)
Bill Burr on the subject. [youtu.be] Watch the whole video if you want to hear his take on Steve Jobs.
take that (Score:4, Funny)
yeah! (Score:2)
Asia is a hot spot for plastic pollution, and Indonesia -- with 34,000 miles (54,720 km) of coastline -- ranked in an unrelated 2015 study as suffering the second-worst level of plastic pollution in the world.
That must mean ... something bad about Americans, somehow!
(Well, Americans who aren't me, that is ... I'm magically except from my anti-American rants)
Sea Salt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Health vs. Profit (Score:2)
"...Even though the study found that the average adult consumes approximately 2,000 microplastics per year through salt, it's not clear what the health consequences are."
Nor will it ever be made clear. US Capitalism will ensure profit is always prioritized over health, particularly when sickness and disease generates trillions for the Medical Industrial Complex. Deaths also help cull the population. Double bonus!
Ironically, hospitals are also a rather massive contributor to this pollution problem too.
Environment vs Production? (Score:2)
Were the microplastics in the environment, or did they come from the manufacturing/production process? Is it a mix? If so, what's the ratio?
Sick of letting polluters get away with this (Score:2)
There's one thing plastics do really, really well, even in small doses. Especially in fetal and juvenile mammals, they act like female hormones when they break down.
The fact that they're now found everywhere in the environment and there has been no serious effort to control this situation should be a lot more than just a mild cause for concern.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/
Dust (Score:2)
Can't Live in a Bubble (Score:2)
Yes you COULD live in a laboratory clean bubble that would ironicly be made of plastic for the rest of your life and be "Safe."
But you wouldn't enjoy life at all.
Does anyone know the name of the three safe salts? (Score:2)
They mention in the article the three brands that did not contain microplastics are from Taiwan (refined sea salt), China (refined rock salt), and France (unrefined sea salt produced by solar evaporation).
I've traditionally used salt from the French producer La Baleine because it's tastier than Morton's, the largest brand.
I'd love to know that on top of flavor, I'm also getting a healthier product.
Rock Salt? (Score:2)
Microplastics are in salt mined from deposits deep underground? That's really surprising and hard to believe. Even if they were of natural origin that salt was deposited there millions of years ago and plastics usually don't last that long.
This study might need replication and checks for contamination.
I only consume organic microplastics in salt (Score:2)
It keeps the salt vampires away, because the microplastics are lethal to them.
Re: (Score:3)
It might not necessarily be from the ocean or salt collection itself; could just be part of processing that is adding the micro plastic.
If that were true how would you explain that they found that sea salt consistently had a higher concentration vs rock salt and lake salt? If it's due to the dispenser how would the concentrations always be higher from sources that are known to have a higher concentration ot microplastics?
Also why would the concentrations be higher in salt from Asia?
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true how would you explain that they found that sea salt consistently had a higher concentration vs rock salt and lake salt?
We don't know that. We know the number of particles was different, but that is nothing about the concentration. What was the mass of the plastic? Would you rather eat 100 particles each of 100 ug size, or 10 particles each of 1 gram size? The number of particles is irrelevant; the dosage/mass matters - and that is not given.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true how would you explain that they found that sea salt consistently had a higher concentration vs rock salt and lake salt?
We don't know that. We know the number of particles was different, but that is nothing about the concentration. What was the mass of the plastic? Would you rather eat 100 particles each of 100 ug size, or 10 particles each of 1 gram size? The number of particles is irrelevant; the dosage/mass matters - and that is not given.
Uhm, if you read tfs of the actual study it does talk about ng/kg. NatGeo utterly fails on their article though.
Not that I expect the study is THAT much better...given who it's from.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is parts per kg not a concentration?
Re: (Score:2)
Also why would the concentrations be higher in salt from Asia?
Because most Asian nations still have bad treatment of waste water and garbage. The coasts there are much more littered with plastic then e.g. the Atlantic Ocean in France or the Northern Sea in Germany.
Grinding salt tableside is stupid (Score:2)
A lot of salts these days come with their own plastic grinder container. I noticed the grinders in those things shard off small pieces of plastic. So what I do is slice open the container with a knife and pour it into something else.
I never really understood what the point of grinding salt tableside is other than being a pretentious twat. Total waste of time and money. We grind pepper because it has a flavor impact (peppercorns are a fruit and once ground some of the aromatics evaporate) but there is no meaningful effect on salt which is just a rock. There is essentially no culinary advantage to grinding your salt in a cheap plastic disposable grinder and it wastes money on an unnecessary activity.
Re: it's not clear. (Score:4, Interesting)
Cancer yes, Autism, No.
The reason the microplastics are finding their way in, in the first place is due to plastic in the damn packaging. Salt, is just like sand, it will grind the coating off anything it touches, that includes plastic liners, pipes, cups, and so forth.
At the current point in time, I think news like this is just going to push people away from buying salt, but does nothing about commercial uses of salt (think pre-packaged cooked goods.)
Re: it's not clear. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh.
Cancer's what you die of if you don't die of anything else. Sure there are things that increase your chances of cancer (i.e. shit that kills you faster), but cancer rates increasing means nothing - it means you didn't die of all the other stuff, basically.
Autism - that's been around forever, but never been categorised and recorded. That's why all the graphs for diagnosis of it go up. It took until the late 90's to get a standardised definition that wasn't constantly having other things lumped into it (i.e. ASD instead of ten different conditions), or wasn't just an unspecified "psychiatric" condition. Plus there's evidence it's genetic.
Obesity rates are to do an overabundance of food and a lack of self-control. Grown adults filling fridges full of crap. You want to find the cause of that, open your own fridge.
What microplastics would have to do with any of them, I wouldn't be able to fathom. But, hey, I just have a degree in maths and can read papers and statistics properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on there. Especially
Obesity rates are to do an overabundance of food and a lack of self-control. Grown adults filling fridges full of crap. You want to find the cause of that, open your own fridge.
The obesity epidemic and all of the apologist for it are the epitome of unwillingness to accept blame. I say this being that myself was once obese, now just overweight and still working to reach some semblance of normal. I can fully attest that every single bit, every single pound over was without question my own doing.
Doesn't mean you should go chain smoke in China (Score:2)
a) Cancer isn't the default killer, heart failure is. Sorta. Lots of folks make it until their 100s without cancer. They're effectively immune. They die of heart failure. You're right it's one or the other though.
b) Just because something will eventually kill us doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop things that will kill us sooner.
c) If you can't fathom how Microplastics would cause issues go look up the "wonder material" that is as
utter BS (Score:2)
Sigh.
Cancer's what you die of if you don't die of anything else. Sure there are things that increase your chances of cancer (i.e. shit that kills you faster), but cancer rates increasing means nothing - it means you didn't die of all the other stuff, basically.
Obesity rates are to do an overabundance of food and a lack of self-control. Grown adults filling fridges full of crap. You want to find the cause of that, open your own fridge.
What microplastics would have to do with any of them, I wouldn't be able to fathom. But, hey, I just have a degree in maths and can read papers and statistics properly.
I'll keep it brief - both of these points are utter bullshit. Cancer rates increasing means nothing? They are a modern disease. As is obesity. There is not a scientist worth his microplastic-laden salt that would say obesity is because of an overabundance of food and self-control. There are ZERO scientific studies that support these knee-jerk 'theories'.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to find the cause of that, open your own fridge.
*opens 'fridge*
*is mostly empty space*
*what is there is relatively healthy compared to the crap most people eat*
Guess that's why I'm not obese. xD
Re: it's not clear. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Have you? My time is worth more than a Slashdot comment pays.
Tell me, do you have the same kind of evidence to the contrary? Or even anything that hints at that? Because something so pervasive (no dispute there) and damaging as you claim would show up, no?
I don't need to do your homework for you to hypothesise that this is a for-eyeballs article which - although probably true in the extent of microplastic invasion - is completely misleading... like the "you've breathed a molecule from Caesar's dying breathe" kinda thing.
There is zero evidence, for example, that such microplastic presence, even in a human body, has any significant statistical correlation whatsoever to anything. And it would be quite easy to test, and check historical data for that. It would show, I would hypothesise, in coastal populations, especially those who swim or drink seawater (refined or not) compared to those who drink from frreshwater sources, and increase rapidly from the 1950's onwards as plastics became mainstream.
Unfortunately for you, the rate for a decent scientist to perform such a study or analysis with any amount of rigour is outside your (and my) means.
Tell me, have you read every medical paper that doesn't mention microplastics to see if the effects measured could be down to microplastics? No? Why? Because that's fecking ridiculous argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Way to misunderstand the point. The point being made is that eventually, live long enough and you are likely to get and possibly eventually die from cancer. The same is not true for AIDS which is more or less completely preventable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is that they anonymize their results to avoid being sued by multinational corporations with enough money to spend on lawyers that they will bleed the researchers dry before they can win
That is nonsense. You usually have no costs during a running court suit. The losing party pays at the end.
The only plausible idea I have, why rock slat is contaminated at all is: they package it in the same plants. So it gets cross contaminated by sea salt. By definition rock salt can not contain plastic micro particles, unle
Re: (Score:1)
How many of those rock salt mines use plastic shovels and tubs to haul around the salt? Metal doesn't usually last too long around corrosive chemicals like salt.
I also wonder how many of the salts they tested cam in plastic bags or plastic lined cardboard boxes to keep out moisture. How much of the measured plastic content was abraded from the container?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You usually have no costs during a running court suit. The losing party pays at the end.
Your statement is nonsense without specifying a jurisdiction.