5 ms·

See also: * Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16793888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item

See also: * Microplastics found in 93% of bottled water tested in global study https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16793888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16793888 * Microplastics found in 90 percent of table salt https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18248471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18248471 * Microplastics Are Blowing in the Wind https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19672514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19672514 * Microplastics found in supermarket fish, shellfish https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14245133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14245133 I think people around the world have been ingesting microplastic for 30 years or longer, yet there's no reported case of any direct toxic effects. So I guess microplastic doesn't have immediately effects on health, but I won't be surprised if future studies find longterm effects, such as increasing the risk of cancer, damage to the circulatory system or the brain. Overall, I think we must take actions immediately for solutions, but I won't particularly worry about this problem and I'll continue buying bottled water. It's not unlike the air pollution in the 20th century, one has to live with it. Nevertheless, "microplastic is going to kill all of us" surely is going to be the trope of the next decade.

fouc 7y ago
It's possible the microplastics could be to blame for the decline in male fertility.
- carlesfe 7y ago
  There are some preliminary findings that specific types of plastics, when ingested, reduce fertility in both humans and dogs: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9
- dd36 7y ago
  They need to test blood and urine.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  Well, the problem would solve itself. And that's not actually a joke. A book from a very popular author (no name because spoiler) creates a world where this is a reality. The movie changed the ending and thereby the whole book (I'm still pissed), but the book has this, and having a third of the world population be infertile for a generation might help us quite a bit. When the deed is already done by a mad scientist, the leading people in the book are wondering whether they should actually want to revert it. (You probably won't recognize the book until you're near or at the end, so I don't think this should spoil it for anyone.) I'm not sure if in the real world it would work as well as it did in the story, but hypothetically, it's interesting to talk about. Killing people, we won't support. But what about restricting kids? It creates a livable world for the kids that we do bring into the world. We'll still have a huge climate issue, but it'll greatly increase our chances of managing it. (This is one of the reasons I'm not getting kids.)
  - e12e 7y ago
    > A book from a very popular author (no name because spoiler) The author's name is a spoiler? Are you talking about P. D. James' The Children of Men?
    - lucb1e 7y ago
      > The author's name is a spoiler? Yeah because it would spoil the book. By mentioning the book nor the author, you don't realize that you know the spoiler until you've already read 90% of the book. In case someone does want to know, in rot13: vasreab ol qna oebja
      - e12e 7y ago
        How would you buy or borrow this book without knowing the name? Ed: having rot13 that, I still don't see how it's a spoiler...
        lucb1e 7y ago
        You wouldn't be able to get the book, that wasn't the point of the comment. I'd have liked to be able to recommend the book, but then we can't talk about its conclusion, and the book also isn't that much in depth (it's mostly entertainment). If I wanted to mention the author or title, I'd have to put the situation description behind some kind of spoiler protection and only those who want to be spoiled or read it already would be able to take part in the discussion. I don't understand what's unclear about spoilers: what I described (a part of the world population infertile) is only revealed in the final like 10 pages of the book. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that there is a book at all, since it isn't super in depth anyway. But I also don't want to pass it off as an idea of my own.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Assuming there’s a lack of toxic effects because a human has not yet named any is fallacious. Safety is inherently impossible to demonstrate with certainty.
- Varriount 7y ago
  But they never said that microplastic had "no" toxic effects, just no immediately visible ones.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Just curious, what does “immediately visible” mean?
    - Varriount 7y ago
      > I think people around the world have been ingesting microplastic for 30 years or longer, yet there's no reported case of any direct toxic effects. So I guess microplastic doesn't have immediately effects on health In this case, 30 years? Or, taken in another light, it doesn't have effects that are visible on the time-scale of known substances such as lead, arsenic, mercury, etc. In addition, the parent also stated this: > I won't be surprised if future studies find longterm effects, such as increasing the risk of cancer, damage to the circulatory system or the brain.

fouc 7y ago

It's possible the microplastics could be to blame for the decline in male fertility.

carlesfe 7y ago
There are some preliminary findings that specific types of plastics, when ingested, reduce fertility in both humans and dogs: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9
dd36 7y ago
They need to test blood and urine.
lucb1e 7y ago
Well, the problem would solve itself. And that's not actually a joke. A book from a very popular author (no name because spoiler) creates a world where this is a reality. The movie changed the ending and thereby the whole book (I'm still pissed), but the book has this, and having a third of the world population be infertile for a generation might help us quite a bit. When the deed is already done by a mad scientist, the leading people in the book are wondering whether they should actually want to revert it. (You probably won't recognize the book until you're near or at the end, so I don't think this should spoil it for anyone.) I'm not sure if in the real world it would work as well as it did in the story, but hypothetically, it's interesting to talk about. Killing people, we won't support. But what about restricting kids? It creates a livable world for the kids that we do bring into the world. We'll still have a huge climate issue, but it'll greatly increase our chances of managing it. (This is one of the reasons I'm not getting kids.)
- e12e 7y ago
  > A book from a very popular author (no name because spoiler) The author's name is a spoiler? Are you talking about P. D. James' The Children of Men?
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    > The author's name is a spoiler? Yeah because it would spoil the book. By mentioning the book nor the author, you don't realize that you know the spoiler until you've already read 90% of the book. In case someone does want to know, in rot13: vasreab ol qna oebja
    - e12e 7y ago
      How would you buy or borrow this book without knowing the name? Ed: having rot13 that, I still don't see how it's a spoiler...
      - lucb1e 7y ago
        You wouldn't be able to get the book, that wasn't the point of the comment. I'd have liked to be able to recommend the book, but then we can't talk about its conclusion, and the book also isn't that much in depth (it's mostly entertainment). If I wanted to mention the author or title, I'd have to put the situation description behind some kind of spoiler protection and only those who want to be spoiled or read it already would be able to take part in the discussion. I don't understand what's unclear about spoilers: what I described (a part of the world population infertile) is only revealed in the final like 10 pages of the book. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that there is a book at all, since it isn't super in depth anyway. But I also don't want to pass it off as an idea of my own.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

Assuming there’s a lack of toxic effects because a human has not yet named any is fallacious. Safety is inherently impossible to demonstrate with certainty.

Varriount 7y ago
But they never said that microplastic had "no" toxic effects, just no immediately visible ones.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Just curious, what does “immediately visible” mean?
  - Varriount 7y ago
    > I think people around the world have been ingesting microplastic for 30 years or longer, yet there's no reported case of any direct toxic effects. So I guess microplastic doesn't have immediately effects on health In this case, 30 years? Or, taken in another light, it doesn't have effects that are visible on the time-scale of known substances such as lead, arsenic, mercury, etc. In addition, the parent also stated this: > I won't be surprised if future studies find longterm effects, such as increasing the risk of cancer, damage to the circulatory system or the brain.