One doesn't reduce the use of plastics without using something else as a replacement.

If we replace all plastic cups with glass cups, might we get micro-glass inside ourselves instead?

Glass, mostly silicon dioxide, might sound harmless, but glass can chip off in microscopic sharp fragments (think fiberglass dust - which some suggest might be as bad as asbestos). Glass also slightly dissolves in water (this is how glasses start to look frosty after enough dishwashing - they're dissolving), and slightly evaporates (everything has a vapour pressure!). And obviously the glass isn't pure - there can be all kinds of deliberate and accidental additives.

Am I worried about glass? No. But it seems naive to wholesale replace plastic with something else until there is a decent understanding of the replacement.

This is completely inaccurate and disingenuous. Glass suffers from no such thing as "microglass", unlike plastic. Plastic actively sheds micro/nanoplastics into bottled water, with hundreds of thousands of particles (and probably more depending on its handling) floating in the water, along with any chemicals used to make plastic moldable, fire-retardant, etc. Glass bottles have no additives that leach out in anything but the most minute quantities, even in an alkaline solution. The same can't be said for plastic containers.

Also, while glass does dissolve in water, it is an extremely slow process that does not affect containers at room temperature in any significant way. As for the claim about glass evaporating due to vapor pressure, while technically true, the vapor pressure of glass at room temperature is so infinitesimally small that it's completely irrelevant for practical purposes. This process occurs at such a slow rate that it would take far longer than the age of the universe to have any measurable effect on a glass container.

> disingenuous

How about we leave the silly accusations of malice at whatever low rent other website they were learned at. You don't know motivations.

The term 'disingenuous' isn't about malice, it's about misleading comparisons. Equating the well-documented issue of micro/nanoplastics with hypothetical (and inaccurate) risks from glass muddies the water on a serious environmental problem. If you want to dispute the facts I presented about glass versus plastic safety, let's focus on that instead of tone policing.

Saying you don't know someone was being disingenuous isn't tone policing. It's nothing to do with tone.

Ok, disingenuous and/or stupid.

I think we can find and should seek out easy wins. That is we should identify the major sources of microplastics and eliminate them. From my personal observation it seems the major issue could be textiles made from plastic. Clothes and carpets made from polyester, nylon, I would guess these are subject to a lot of wear and tear and rubbing which produces plastic dust that may be breathed.

The clothes dryer is a major culprit, as it turns fabric into lint especially when the fabric is mostly dry. The appropriate care for plastic clothing is to at least end the drying on a clothes horse or clothesline. The horse is a great way to get cotton relatively wrinkle free and not turn your favorite shirts into dryer lint. But it's a bit more labor-intensive to set up that drying, so it's unlikely to catch on.

I disagree that replacing plastic without a decent understanding of a replacement is any more naive than continuing to use plastic without a decent understanding of the implications of plastic. Glass for one has been used for at least an order of magnitude longer than plastic has, without the mentioned issues of microscopic sharp fragments, dissolution in water, evaporation etc. causing harm. It seems clear to say that going back to glass and ceramics would be - on the balance of probabilities - likely safer, as they don't cause bioaccumulation to anywhere near the same extent, and history hasn't shown any comparable dangers which persist today.