3 ms·

>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)

>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.
  - hammock 7y ago
    BPA is not used to make plastics more flexible. It is commonly used in all sorts of places though. Phthalates are commonly used to make plastics more flexible. They are also estrogenic. Parabens, PCBs, and pesticides are all other common entrants into the body with estrogenic effects. ( Reduced sperm count and sperm quality)
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      Do you have sources?
      - ddebernardy 7y ago
        You'll find some good links here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/toxic-chemicals-everyday-items-us-pesticides-bpa https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/toxic-chemic... The entire series is a good read, too: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/toxic-america https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/toxic-america
        chrisco255 7y ago
        The Guardian is an online news site (with all the sensationalism that entails), not a serious scientific publication.
idDriven 7y ago
I couldn't access the article because paywall, however 'a)... synthetic textiles' would make more sense for inhalation vs ingestion. Also American Chemical Society may be biased, despite the lovable name https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Chemical_Society https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Chemical_Soci...

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.
- hammock 7y ago
  BPA is not used to make plastics more flexible. It is commonly used in all sorts of places though. Phthalates are commonly used to make plastics more flexible. They are also estrogenic. Parabens, PCBs, and pesticides are all other common entrants into the body with estrogenic effects. ( Reduced sperm count and sperm quality)
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Do you have sources?
    - ddebernardy 7y ago
      You'll find some good links here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/toxic-chemicals-everyday-items-us-pesticides-bpa https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/toxic-chemic... The entire series is a good read, too: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/toxic-america https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/toxic-america
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        The Guardian is an online news site (with all the sensationalism that entails), not a serious scientific publication.

idDriven 7y ago

I couldn't access the article because paywall, however 'a)... synthetic textiles' would make more sense for inhalation vs ingestion. Also American Chemical Society may be biased, despite the lovable name https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Chemical_Society https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Chemical_Soci...