5 ms·

Do we know much about the impact this has on our bodies? This is certainly something to be concerned about, but without that context it's hard to know what thi

Do we know much about the impact this has on our bodies? This is certainly something to be concerned about, but without that context it's hard to know what this really means. The article says a "microplastic particle" is any peice of plastic smaller than 5mm. That's bigger than some pills - I would definitely notice chewing on something that size. So how big are these really and what are they doing to me? For reference, the US and EU both regulate that 10 micrograms per liter of arsenic in drinking water is safe. Using my rusty high school chemistry (please correct me if I'm wrong), this is on the order of ~10^20 particles (atoms) of arsenic per year. That's way way more than 100k and arsenic is more inherently harmful to humans than plastic. This could easily be genuine epidemic levels of awful, or it could be completely nothing. Does anyone know more?

Steel_Phoenix 7y ago
I always wonder more about the airborne stuff. Blankets, carpets, clothing, furniture. In a sun beam you can see all the little fibers floating around. I bet I inhale and swallow way more plastic every year than I eat, but I never see it mentioned.
kccqzy 7y ago
Well for one, a microplastic particle is certainly much bigger than an atom.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  If you like, we could divide all our arsenic atoms into 'microparticles' that each contain: ~100000000000000 atoms. At that point your arsenic particle and plastic particle intake would be the same. My whole point is that we are dealing with crazy big and crazy small numbers. Without more context they are all meaningless.
jdietrich 7y ago
>So how big are these really and what are they doing to me? According to the paper, a) they're mostly microscopic pieces of lint from synthetic textiles and b) we don't know. Given the amount of research that has looked for health harms related to plastics exposure, I operate on the assumption that if it was a big deal, we would have found something by now. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517
- userbinator 7y ago
  and b) we don't know If the claims of consumption are true, then people have been ingesting plastics for a long time and there have been no observed ill effects attributable to it, and I'd say it's more like "we have plenty of evidence that it's not really harmful" than "we don't know" --- but of course, the latter makes for more sensational reporting and fearmongering... This somewhat reminds me of the paranoia surrounding radio waves and non-ionising radiation --- surely there would be some obviously noticeable negative effects by now, after well over a century of use, but the evidence strongly says that beyond known effects like heating, there's nothing else to worry about. It's like those articles that claim (and likely are true) that people ingest X insects/spiders/other-disgusting-thing every year; it's sensational, but not really something to worry about (personally, I'd rather ingest the plastic...) I've noticed there's a bit of an anti-plastic movement going on lately, with plenty of FUD articles like this being spread (not just on HN, but elsewhere), and I wonder if there's an ulterior motive...
  - 7952 7y ago
    Just because we can't measure an effect, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. This seems like a really unscientific thing to say. But remember that the world is not a lab where you can exactly control conditions. There is no control group, and the null hypothesis cannot be proven. But we still have to deal with that complex world and make choices. To believe that a novel substance is benign until proven otherwise is just a form of bias. There is no objective reason why a substance should be innocent until proven guilty. We just have to adopt that policy out of practicality!
  - alexandercrohde 7y ago
    I just have to downvote this mentality.... For example men's spermcounts have been going down steadily and predictably for over 30 years, and are now HALF what they were 30 years ago. Scientists have done thousands of studies and haven't identified a root cause. (I bring this up because many plastics are made flexible with a xenoestrogen named BPA) We can't say "Plastics must be fine," we have no control group to compare against. For all you know the increases in allergies, nearsightedness, autoimmune disorders, or reduced sperm count are related. --- Remember when leaded gasoline reduced a whole generation's IQ by a few points and caused a crimewave? Sometimes the negative effects of an enviromental choice take decades to figure out. It's past time to switch into a "cautious until proven safe" way of thinking when it comes to health and environment.
idDriven 7y ago
> The article says a "microplastic particle" is any peice of plastic smaller than 5mm I double checked the article and you are right, this is why the use of the apothocary symbols are not used in medicine any more it should be "5 and 20 μm polystyrene micro-particles elicited somewhat similar pathological and physiological changes in mice. These, particularly the 5 μm micro-particles, could be detected in histological sections of the gut, liver and kidney." The symbol means micro or an order of a million times smaller than a gram/meter so the particulate size appears misstated and is actually an order of 1000 times smaller than a millimeter. > This could easily be genuine epidemic levels of awful, or it could be completely nothing. Does anyone know more? It has been shown microplastic contamination is very significant in plastic-bottled single-use drinking water. Avoiding exposure as much as possible is 100% best medical advice, avoid drinking from single-use plastic bottles whenever possible. An infographic from WHO: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/16/study-finds-microplastics-in-93-percent-of-bottled-water-infographic/#44e1454073fa https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/16/study-... As for health effects microplastics definitely bioaccumulate in the gut, liver and kidneys in mice. Mice are not human but as this is a basic physiology issue it is very highly likely that they also bioaccumulate in humans. It is not clear whether humans or mice can ever clear these particles, it is likely they can damage these organs over time, they do cause biomarker and endocrine changes short term. This can indicate damage, possible scaring and a propensity to weight gain respectively. Also other unknown fun stuff. It is probably dose-dependent so if you avoid single use plastic bottled water thats key. The food supply issue (seafood) is less significant from a human health standpoint. Second source:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00063/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2017.0006...
- mrob 7y ago
  Microplastics were found in bottled water, but I see no evidence that they actually came from the bottles, and I can't think of any mechanism that could cause particles to break off from the insides of the bottle under normal storage conditions. It seems more likely that they were already present in the water when the bottles were filled.
  - 7y ago
sametmax 7y ago
The problem with this is that it could take decades to become dangerous. Maybe accumulation is a factor. Maybe interaction with other things is. It's hard to assess, and I'd find it saner to assume ingesting regularly inorganic synthetic materials our body did't evolve with to be risky and take measure before we know for sure. Even if it's just because of intertia: it took almost a century between knowing that asbestos was dangerous and ban. So let's not wait.

Steel_Phoenix 7y ago

I always wonder more about the airborne stuff. Blankets, carpets, clothing, furniture. In a sun beam you can see all the little fibers floating around. I bet I inhale and swallow way more plastic every year than I eat, but I never see it mentioned.

kccqzy 7y ago

Well for one, a microplastic particle is certainly much bigger than an atom.

dahfizz 7y ago
If you like, we could divide all our arsenic atoms into 'microparticles' that each contain: ~100000000000000 atoms. At that point your arsenic particle and plastic particle intake would be the same. My whole point is that we are dealing with crazy big and crazy small numbers. Without more context they are all meaningless.

jdietrich 7y ago

>So how big are these really and what are they doing to me? According to the paper, a) they're mostly microscopic pieces of lint from synthetic textiles and b) we don't know. Given the amount of research that has looked for health harms related to plastics exposure, I operate on the assumption that if it was a big deal, we would have found something by now. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517

userbinator 7y ago
and b) we don't know If the claims of consumption are true, then people have been ingesting plastics for a long time and there have been no observed ill effects attributable to it, and I'd say it's more like "we have plenty of evidence that it's not really harmful" than "we don't know" --- but of course, the latter makes for more sensational reporting and fearmongering... This somewhat reminds me of the paranoia surrounding radio waves and non-ionising radiation --- surely there would be some obviously noticeable negative effects by now, after well over a century of use, but the evidence strongly says that beyond known effects like heating, there's nothing else to worry about. It's like those articles that claim (and likely are true) that people ingest X insects/spiders/other-disgusting-thing every year; it's sensational, but not really something to worry about (personally, I'd rather ingest the plastic...) I've noticed there's a bit of an anti-plastic movement going on lately, with plenty of FUD articles like this being spread (not just on HN, but elsewhere), and I wonder if there's an ulterior motive...
- 7952 7y ago
  Just because we can't measure an effect, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. This seems like a really unscientific thing to say. But remember that the world is not a lab where you can exactly control conditions. There is no control group, and the null hypothesis cannot be proven. But we still have to deal with that complex world and make choices. To believe that a novel substance is benign until proven otherwise is just a form of bias. There is no objective reason why a substance should be innocent until proven guilty. We just have to adopt that policy out of practicality!
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  I just have to downvote this mentality.... For example men's spermcounts have been going down steadily and predictably for over 30 years, and are now HALF what they were 30 years ago. Scientists have done thousands of studies and haven't identified a root cause. (I bring this up because many plastics are made flexible with a xenoestrogen named BPA) We can't say "Plastics must be fine," we have no control group to compare against. For all you know the increases in allergies, nearsightedness, autoimmune disorders, or reduced sperm count are related. --- Remember when leaded gasoline reduced a whole generation's IQ by a few points and caused a crimewave? Sometimes the negative effects of an enviromental choice take decades to figure out. It's past time to switch into a "cautious until proven safe" way of thinking when it comes to health and environment.

idDriven 7y ago

> The article says a "microplastic particle" is any peice of plastic smaller than 5mm I double checked the article and you are right, this is why the use of the apothocary symbols are not used in medicine any more it should be "5 and 20 μm polystyrene micro-particles elicited somewhat similar pathological and physiological changes in mice. These, particularly the 5 μm micro-particles, could be detected in histological sections of the gut, liver and kidney." The symbol means micro or an order of a million times smaller than a gram/meter so the particulate size appears misstated and is actually an order of 1000 times smaller than a millimeter. > This could easily be genuine epidemic levels of awful, or it could be completely nothing. Does anyone know more? It has been shown microplastic contamination is very significant in plastic-bottled single-use drinking water. Avoiding exposure as much as possible is 100% best medical advice, avoid drinking from single-use plastic bottles whenever possible. An infographic from WHO: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/16/study-finds-microplastics-in-93-percent-of-bottled-water-infographic/#44e1454073fa https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/16/study-... As for health effects microplastics definitely bioaccumulate in the gut, liver and kidneys in mice. Mice are not human but as this is a basic physiology issue it is very highly likely that they also bioaccumulate in humans. It is not clear whether humans or mice can ever clear these particles, it is likely they can damage these organs over time, they do cause biomarker and endocrine changes short term. This can indicate damage, possible scaring and a propensity to weight gain respectively. Also other unknown fun stuff. It is probably dose-dependent so if you avoid single use plastic bottled water thats key. The food supply issue (seafood) is less significant from a human health standpoint. Second source:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00063/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2017.0006...

mrob 7y ago
Microplastics were found in bottled water, but I see no evidence that they actually came from the bottles, and I can't think of any mechanism that could cause particles to break off from the insides of the bottle under normal storage conditions. It seems more likely that they were already present in the water when the bottles were filled.
- 7y ago

sametmax 7y ago

The problem with this is that it could take decades to become dangerous. Maybe accumulation is a factor. Maybe interaction with other things is. It's hard to assess, and I'd find it saner to assume ingesting regularly inorganic synthetic materials our body did't evolve with to be risky and take measure before we know for sure. Even if it's just because of intertia: it took almost a century between knowing that asbestos was dangerous and ban. So let's not wait.