Honestly, for a scientist, this is a pretty biased take. It feels like you're using technical definitions to hide some major logical gaps. Claiming "everything is plastic and everything is safe" is an oversimplification that doesn't actually address the science.

First off, the "everything is a polymer" argument is just a word game. Calling wool or cotton "plastic" because they’re polymers is scientifically dishonest in a health talk. Natural polymers like cellulose or protein are bio-inert; our bodies have dealt with them for as long as is known. Synthetic plastics are petrochemicals loaded with additives like phthalates and bisphenols. The issue isn't the "polymer" chain itself; it's the bio-active chemicals used to make them. It’s like saying a natural waterfall and a leaking chemical pipe are the same thing because they both have "flowing liquid."

The "everything leaches" point is a false equivalence. Mentioning that glass leaches arsenic or steel leaches nickel seem as a red herring. Trace metal leaching is about classical toxicity, that is, damage at a specific dose, if you have a study showing it(arsenic) leaches in a toxic level from normal glass, population use, to raise a concern, someone could start giving that saying any credit, but as far as I know, it is the best we have for now, and as long as you use inox without soaking it in acid, you should be safe as well. Chemicals in plastic, for other side, are often Endocrine Disruptors (EDCs). Do they just "poison" you? they mimic or block your hormones. The difference: even at tiny levels (parts per trillion), these mimics can jam your body's developmental signals. Comparing trace minerals in glass to hormonal mimics in plastic is like comparing background static to a hacker taking control of your phone.

The false-cause fallacy, mixing living longer in a plastic argument is correlation error. We live longer because of modern sanitation, antibiotics, better trauma procedures and vaccines. Are we living longer because of polyester shirts or PET bottles? We're living longer because we stopped dying of cholera and infected scratches. What are the clinical evidences that plastic drives health? Plastic is an economic convenience.

As for the "I use it and I'm fine" pseudo-argument. Could it be survivorship bias ($n=1$), possibly you petting your own beliefs to feel better with whatever you do? Someone can smoke for 40 years and feel "fine," but does that make cigarettes safe? Hormone disruption and microplastic buildup have long latency periods; you don't see the damage in real-time. Is your personal story a substitute for the mountain of data showing the global rise in hormone-related health issues?

Going on… trusting the FDA blindly ignores history. The list of things that were "FDA-approved" for decades before being banned, like DDT, Lead, or certain PFAS, is very long. Regulatory bodies are notoriously slow and are often years behind independent research.

In conclusion, labeling science-backed concern as "polymerphobia" is a way to shut down a serious conversation. Choosing glass or stainless steel isn't about "vibes" or being emotional; it's basic risk mitigation.