this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
82 points (95.6% liked)

Ask Lemmy

38865 readers
2333 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So people kind of knew asbestos was harmful wayyy before it mostly stopped being used in 1979 (USA). But, it was still used constantly in many industries and ended up everywhere. What do you think is an example of something we find out is DRASTICALLY harmful 10-50 years from now? My guess would be screen time.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world 14 points 7 hours ago

Microplastics is the obvious one. High fructose corn syrup. Palm oil is used in so many things (even juices and biscuits/cookies). Billionaires. Politicians.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

LLMs.

I'm sure the “AI” companies have plenty of studies proving they cause addiction, brain damage (probably irreversible), and psychosis, but they're keeping them to themselves, much like cigarette cartels did with studies proving their shit caused cancer.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

Oil extracted from the ground. That takes the trophy for the whole century.

[–] toad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Cars. I hope vroomers rots in hell

[–] tomselleck@sopuli.xyz 137 points 23 hours ago (5 children)
[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 26 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

I think so too. We don't really have conclusive studies yet on what microplastics do to our health, but we do know we have quite a lot of them inside our bodies. At the same time certain types of cancers are getting ever more common, and amongst younger people as well. Might not be connected, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Aren't at least some of those cancers thought to be from processed food and low fibre diets?

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If you're referring to the study blaming colon cancer on processed meats, it's a major reach.

It was an epidemiological study, which are notorious for poor controlling of variables. If the effect has a relative risk increase greater than 100% (i.e. doubles risk or more), then you can use the results of an epidemiologal study, but results less than that should be treated with a lot of skepticism. This particular study was only 18%, well within the error bounds of this type of study.

For contrast, the epidemiological studies used to establish a causal link between smoking and lung cancer had a risk increase in the ballpark of 10,000%

[–] dgdft@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

You’re totally on the money with your core thesis about epidemiological studies here, and I agree processed meats as a standalone variable are likely a massively overplayed factor in CRC research.

When it comes to the more general claims in the GP comment though, re: processed food and low fiber, there are literally hundreds of independent studies at different levels all pointing in similar directions. It’s pretty incontrovertible at this point.

See any recent review on CRC etiology for reference, e.g.: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elroy-Weledji/publication/377724506_Clinics_in_Oncology_The_Etiology_and_Pathogenesis_of_Colorectal_Cancer_OPEN_ACCESS/links/65b3f83e79007454973be66e/Clinics-in-Oncology-The-Etiology-and-Pathogenesis-of-Colorectal-Cancer-OPEN-ACCESS.pdf

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago

Thanks for an interesting source!

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 7 points 21 hours ago

Every year microplastic pieces get smaller and more numerous. The health effects of microplastics likely worsen over time

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 7 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

I legitimately think it'll be what kills humans off.

We can survive climate change, albeit at a greatly reduced population, but microplastics are already impacting fertility rates.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 3 points 18 hours ago

Nah, we’ll adapt. There are already bacteria that can break down and eat plastic. At some point, someone will have a genetic mutation in their gut bacteria that also causes it to breakdown and consume plastic and then the probiotic industry will be tripping all over itself to patent and sell it to us.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

There's no replacing plastic like we could do with asbestos. We're screwed

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 15 points 20 hours ago

There are bioplastics that are actually compostable and biodegradable, and I'm sure with enough research we could develop others with better properties.

But why would we research a way to make the world a better place when we can just pull oil out of the ground and burn it and make forever chemicals out of it instead?

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

In everything from clothes to blankets to tires. Everything including chewing gum.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 30 points 19 hours ago

Micro plastics

[–] cuboc@lemmy.world 86 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Don't know much about them.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 13 points 21 hours ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFAS

TL;DR - Teflon, plus other chemicals, but particularly Teflon

[–] Rubisco@slrpnk.net 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Here's a Veritasium deep dive (54min) on PFAS and their history. I thought I knew about PFAS, then this video taught me more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago
[–] 5too@lemmy.world 19 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Honestly? Oil usage. Everyone knows it's bad, and the only people really in a position to do anything about have a vested interest in leaving things as is.

This sounds exactly like Asbestos.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Strider@lemmy.world 14 points 19 hours ago

Got to say the obvious: sugar.

Industry sugar is just very bad for us for multiple reasons but it's used everywhere because of addictive properties.

Go research the sugar cartel and the sugar Vs fat thing which brought the US to fat free stuff which massively raised obesity.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 43 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (8 children)

For all the panicky people:

Microplastics are bad, but they're not remotely close to asbestos bad. Nobody is dying horribly from emphysema because they accidentally contacted microplastics two decades ago. The effects absolutely exist, but they're quite subtle and do not involve suffocating while you cough your lungs out in small pieces.

Gylphosate is bad, but it's mostly bad for the people working directly with it and ignoring every safety precaution (the Venn diagram of those two groups is pretty much a circle). Eating food that was once treated with gylphosate will not be remotely bad for you on any measurable scale.

Source: am chemist, work as a safety professional (independent, no large company is paying me for anything but an occasional audit that is mostly unrelated to chemistry)

But, I'll happily add something that's bad, but not on the level of asbestos. Indoor cooking on fire and/or with poor ventilation. It creates combustion products, releases particulate and smoke and many complex volatiles that are just drifting around in your house for pretty much the entire evening.

Edit: and growing your own food on local soil in a city. That dirt has been collecting pollution for a century, and the odds are pretty decent that it might actually qualify for remediation if you live near anywhere industrial or a big road that's been there for a while. Get your soil tested, or use raised beds if you're growing food.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Microplastics get smaller and likely more dangerous every year. We don't know how much present day cancer can be attributed to microplastics, there is no control group.

[–] mika_mika@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I feel bad for the poor humans on Sentinel Island that, despite being completely isolated from industrial society, still have our microplastics in them.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

That's okay they don't wear polyester, use teabags, use plastic pellet fertiliser or prepare food with plastic so their exposure is probably super low

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] forrgott@lemmy.zip 9 points 18 hours ago

Well, they literally tried to (partially) deregulate asbestos, as fucking obviously asinine and corrupt of a move as that would be, so...asbestos might end up being your answer. How fucked is that?

[–] Pirky@piefed.world 30 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

If you want a more literal, chemist answer: carbon fiber. Carbon fiber's chemical structure is surprisingly similar to Asbestos. Even though we barely use it for anything due to the difficulty in producing it, it's most likely just as harmful to us as asbestos.

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago

Interesting, I never knew that.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] JayleneSlide@lemmy.world 27 points 23 hours ago
  • The American industrialized food chain
  • Glyphosate
  • Modern technology-centric lifestyles
  • Dark patterns
  • Most social media
[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 6 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Crude oil and fossil fuel?
They harm the environment.

[–] Techromantik@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 23 hours ago (2 children)
[–] toad@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago
[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Definitely lungs are for air

[–] Akh@lemmy.world 15 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Look at the silicosis litigation that has started. Everyone wanted granite and quartz countertops, 30 years later, people cutting all that now have lung disease

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 16 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

3/4 of politicians will say porn. 1/4 will say marijuana. Gotta protect the children /s

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago

I think porn is equivalent to a drug/alcohol. Some people can do a glass of wine with dinner and relax. Others need to get hammered every time and punch a cop. Some people can get the poison out with some porn daily/weekly and be cool. Others end up gooning for hours a day and fucking themselves up. Regardless, I don't think access to any drug/legal porn should be restricted by the government.

[–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 7 points 20 hours ago

To be fair, asbestos is still all over the place. They did this fun thing where they just reclassified different asbestos structures into different categories and banned some of them.

My guess for another substance that isn't asbestos will be either PFAS or we'll finally find out what all these micro/nanoplastics are doing to us.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

You know that stinky smell on the streets and roads just after it starts raining? Yeah, that's a combination of asphalt, tire rubber dust, and asbestos brake pad dust.. What a lovely smell!

Asbestos never disappeared, it's still used in most brake pads to this day, though there is at least some recent motivation for vehicle manufacturers to switch to other materials.

A day late and a dollar short if you ask me, cuz I bet that unless you live under a rock, you've inhaled asbestos before. ☹️

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

Hottest take and speculative: Covid.

And it kind of depends on how you think about the scale of impacts. Aspestos is horribly damaging for a few people directly exposed. The rate of exposure to covid is orders of magnitude higher.

I think we've really only begun to see the long term impacts, and we know already of many of the long term issues related to decline in cognitive abilities, heart issues, all kinds of other stuff. But we right now, only know the small "near tail" behavior of those issues. It will take decades to find the "long tail" behavior of the disease.

So if asbestos exposure is 100x as damaging as covid exposure, say.. but 10,000x as many are exposed to covid... its overall impact is 100x that of asbestos.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] zout@fedia.io 5 points 22 hours ago

My likely candidates: Fossil fuels. Rising CO2 levels can lead to brain fog, right now indoor CO2 levels due to bad ventilation already lead to imaired cognivity. With rising atmospheric CO2 levels this will become more common. Nano particles, different materials are being used today with dimensions similar to those of asbestos particles, and it turns out they have the same effect. It's not the asbestos, it's how the body handles these particles. Think of stuff like mineral wool, carbon nanotubes, silica. Sitting. More and more people are sitting down (inside, so they also lack vitamin D) for long parts of the day, and it leads to all kinds of medical problems.

load more comments
view more: next ›