If it is, I assume it’s measured in thousandths of a gram or something, but are we all nevertheless a wee bit heavier than we ought to be?
If it is, I assume it’s measured in thousandths of a gram or something, but are we all nevertheless a wee bit heavier than we ought to be?
Physics says, most plastic is lighter than water. Your body’s overall density has decreased. That makes you a wee bit lighter.
Statistics says, sick people lose weight, and microplastic makes people sick. That makes our average weight even lighter.
This only applies if there’s plastic INSTEAD of tissue. In case there’s plastic IN ADDITION to tissue, then it makes you heavier, but it still makes you less dense, so you can float better in water.
This logic is flawed. If you stand on some scales and pick up a credit card, the scale will measure you are one credit card heavier. You don’t get lighter by adding mass (at least when that mass is also denser then air). And what evidence is there that this plastic in our bodies is additional mass or replaced mass? That is the assumption your logic is based on.
The example was about plastic in your brain.
Now, the volume inside your skull is limited. I had assumed that this was a matter of course. And that’s why I was talking about density.
Same goes for the rest of the body: I always assume that the microplastic is replacing body mass.
Your brain is not rigid though - it can collect fluids and swell a tiny bit. Which essentially increases pressure inside it and if happens too much can be fatal. But that means you can squish a little bit more into without replacing mass - at least for a little while. Bones also regrow constantly, and with genital pressure and a lot of time you can reshape them.
I dont think this is a valid assumption to make. I would see it more as your body working around the microplastics to do what it needs to do as best it can it does not have some limit as to the amount of mass it can use at any one point.
You are free to think so.
But if you say that my logic were flawed because you do not agree with my assumption, then it is rather your logic that is flawed.
Huh? Logic is only valid if the assumptions it is made under are also valid. That is how logic works. You cannot draw a conclusion for something based off a faulty assumption. And while I do not know if your is true or not I don’t see good reason to consider it a good assumption to make and can easily see if being a false assumption here. Which makes your arguments hard to rely on without more proof that your assumptions do hold ground.
oh, my sweet summer child
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Definition
I’ve been eating plastic straws nonstop for days and I’m pretty sure I just levitated for a couple seconds
So what has brought you back down?
What goes in, eventually comes out the other end.
I ate some hippies, plastics’ natural enemies.