29 ms·
Visualising the amount of microplastic we eat
- Dirlewanger 7y agoAre there any like X-ray/etc. images of microplastics actually accumulating in peoples' bodies? I know that plastics are a huge problem, and there's been a lot of talk about microplastics in the past couple years, but I haven't seen any definitive proof of it being a problem in our bodies.
- throwaway_tech 7y ago> but I haven't seen any definitive proof of it being a problem in our bodies. Plastic can be toxic...see BPA a building block for certain plastics. BPA is a known endocrine disruptor, and numerous studies have found that laboratory animals exposed to low levels of it have elevated rates of diabetes, mammary and prostate cancers, decreased sperm count, reproductive problems, early puberty, obesity, and neurological problems.
- rb808 7y ago> BPA is a known endocrine disruptor, and numerous studies have found that laboratory animals... the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said that BPA is safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods. This assessment is based on review of hundreds of studies... https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/bpa/faq-20058331 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
- forgotmypwd123 7y agoSorry, but the FDA isn't really trustworthy to the rest of the world anymore...
- aaronax 7y agoWhose claims DO you believe about BPA, and what are those claims?
- DiabloD3 7y agoBPA is, indeed, a building block for plastics. The media loves to misquote it as a plasticizer, but its not, it's one of the ingredients that produces the plastic. The BPA found in plastics that use it (not all do, or can) is actually unreacted BPA, BPA that did not polymerize into plastic. BPA is a xenoestrogen, not the only one to be found in plastic manufacturing, not the worst one (many BPA alternatives have higher estrogenic activity), and is also not the only type of chemical to look out for; phthalates, for example, fuck with testosterone metabolism, and are often found in plastics, too. So, yeah, there is definitive proof of it being a problem, and studies have been published in depth for quite some time. You kinda missed the boat on this by about a decade.
- reeeeee 7y agoI wonder what the long term healh implications are going to be...
- onreact 7y agoTasty! That's a lot indeed. Which types of diet contain more plastic than others? I'm a vegan for example. Does this mean more or less plastic than average? Which materials do not end up as microplastic? I assume natural fibres don't but besides them?
- DiabloD3 7y agoAre you a vegan that eats an exceedingly safe and clean diet? Like, I'm pretty strictly Paleo, which means heavy on the whole foods, heavy on the real ingredients from organic and safe sources, local if possible, the only major difference between us should be just that I eat meat and you don't. Reason I say this is, I know vegans out there who eat fake food because its vegan... but its still fake food. If you are one of the vegans that eats like me, people like us should be avoiding most of the plastic in the diet just by our choices in where the food comes from. You can't escape it due to the whole "biodegradable/recyclable plastic will save the world" bullshit movement (which is where most of the microplastic is coming from, sadly), but we should be avoiding most of it.
- onreact 7y agoI guess by fake foods you refer to processed foods etc. but I'm not sure you are right. As far as I understand organic fruits and vegetables growing exposed to air and rain would end up polluted a lot more than indoor farming products for example. Eating local also depends on where you live. Apparently most of the microplastic that is around stems from car tires so that produce farmed near highways or cities will be more polluted with microplastic than the one they transport by plane from New Zealand.
- DanBC 7y ago> should be avoiding most of the plastic in the diet just by our choices in where the food comes from. We used to put microplastics into cosmetic products. Microbeads are caught in sewage treatment plants, and the sludge is used as fertilizer which is how these microbeads end up in food. https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-proposes-to-restrict-intentionally-added-microplastics https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-proposes-to-restrict-intention... > ECHA’s assessment found that intentionally added microplastics are most likely to accumulate in terrestrial environments, as the particles concentrate in sewage sludge that is frequently applied as fertiliser. A much smaller proportion of these microplastics is released directly to the aquatic environment. Some microplastic (mostly fibres from clothing) is so fine it's blown into the sky by wind, and brought down by rain.
- wodenokoto 7y agoup to 5mm long pieces are called microplastic. That seems huge to me. I'd expected microplastic to be microscopic in size. I was imagining things like plastic molecules wearing off the inside of an overused water bottle and consumed with the water
- huhtenberg 7y agoMonsieur Lotito would like to have a word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito
- inertiatic 7y agoI wish I had more options to consume less plastic. I'm pretty sure most of the plastic I use doesn't get recycled for various reasons, although I can estimate 90% of it by weight I do put in the proper recycling can. I also care enough to avoid plastic if given a reasonable alternative. However for a bunch of consumer goods there is no reasonably priced alternative. I wish I could vote with my wallet and spend a significant (but not prohibitive) percentage more for detergent or shampoo or whatever in another container. I can't help but feel like policy could help here.
- protonimitate 7y agoFwiw Seventh Generation makes a laundry detergent that comes in a cardboard bottle. I can get it at Stop And Shop here in the states.
- fiter 7y agoThere is a plastic cap and a plastic bag inside this cardboard bottle, of course. If I purchase these I make sure to separate the cardboard so it can be recycled but I believe many places the cap/bag will not be recycled.
- jjeaff 7y agoHave you checked if your local waste disposal is actually recycling cardboard anymore? Most are just landfilling it like everything else.
- fiter 7y agoI could not find positive confirmstion that Berkeley, CA recycles the cardboard, but a the city's related buyback center does buy cardboard by the pound indicating that it is possible.
- melling 7y ago“ However for a bunch of consumer goods there is no reasonably priced alternative.” We only started using plastic in large quantities 50 years ago. We have a Tragedy of the Commons with plastic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- devenson 7y ago5g of accidental plastic consumption per week sounds bogus to me. No link to the actual study. Probably BS.
- ekianjo 7y ago> In our lifetime, 20kg of plastic Yeah and you can be pretty sure that kind of quantity does not stay in the human body over 50 years+. So there is a factor of how much is in, and how much gets out. This, and not all plastics are equal, and some (most?) of hydrocarbons are fundamentally inert and unreactive and whether or not they cause harm is a big question mark.
- maerF0x0 7y agoThe dumpster was a stark and seemingly intentional choice. They're trying to communicate "we're trashing the planet, and our bodies"
- rmah 7y agoThe Reuters article is based on an article published by the WWF about a study they commissioned at the U. of Newcastle (Australia). Press release is here (https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?348337 https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?348337) and the summary is here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxvyl3v5s9d0a1v/PLASTIC%20INGESTION%20Web%20spreads.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxvyl3v5s9d0a1v/PLASTIC%20INGESTIO...). If I'm reading this right, the study itself was a analysis of 50 other studies, not original work. A brief about the methodology is here (https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-ingestion-by-people-could-be-equating-to-a-credit-card-a-week/how-much-microplastics-are-we-ingesting-estimation-of-the-mass-of-microplastics-ingested https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-inges...). And, given the language "people could be ingesting...", "suggests people are consuming...", I'm a bit suspicious of the numbers given. The study itself is said to be under review for publication and has been for over six months now. Anyone know if that's a long time, normal or short? Not sure if this matters, but the naive math doesn't really work... they say "about 2000 pieces a week" and that they were "fibers", and "about 5 grams". The pieces are stated to be < 1mm in size. Assuming an average of 1mm x 0.1mm x 0.1mm "fibers" (rather large IMO), that's 20 cu mm or 0.02cc. Given plastic's density that's 0.03g, not 5g. I wonder if someone misplaced a decimal point or confused mg with g.
- professorTuring 7y agoNot long ago I watched a tv show from Spain that wanted to make some awareness about this topic. They bought some fish and prawns and more seafood that should contain "lots of microplastics". They took all of it to a laboratory and the laboratory found nothing at all. The presenter told the audience that it was surprising for him, and that they thought that the results were a letdown for the purpose of the documentary but that it was "good news" that we can still enjoy food without microplastics... I would say that the results will vary vastly depending on the place you obtain the samples, but anyway, we should change our relationship with plastic...
- flak48 7y agoKudos to the show for still airing the episode anyway (whatever their reasons might have been)
- amelius 7y agoI'd like to see how much of it doesn't leave our digestive systems.
- k__ 7y agoThis. Obviously, my grandma isn't 40% plastic.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoFrom the article: "but the scientific community is still only scratching the surface of understanding just how much plastic we consume and how harmful it could be." Zero harm, so far. That's phrased like they're racking up lists of harm it causes. But so far, zero. So 'scratching the surface' means 'haven't found anything'?
- dehrmann 7y agoAt the very least, we know it's order of magnitude less harm than, say, lead poisoning. Look at how bad and obvious the issues in Flint, Michigan were. There just isn't that from humans and microplastics. Hopefully scientists are feeding mice diets with 1% plastic content to see if anything interesting pops up.
- guelo 7y agoLead poisoning makes you slightly dumber, it's not a big obvious poisoning, that's why it took centuries before humans noticed that they were poisoning themselves with lead. Hopefully it doesn't take that long to figure out how much damage plastic does to us.
- justin66 7y agoI'd guess that that is actually also why it is taking us so long to fix the problems caused by lead existing in the environment where it can affect humans. We know now that tetraethyllead in gasoline caused a great deal of harm and we've quantified it pretty well, for example, but people knew how dangerous that chemical was much longer. People who demand a big obvious poisoning, as you said, before accepting the reduction of obviously dangerous substances in the environment is needed are the worst.
- phyzome 7y agoLead poisoning can be much more obvious than that, and we've known for centuries that lead was poisonous. The Romans knew it, and they still used it in their pipes and even in their drinks.
- egdod 7y agoThe numbers in this article don’t pass the smell test, and there’s no evidence of harm anyway. The sky is not falling.
- aszantu 7y agoI wonder how much that would be on the carnivore diet, if you eat unprocessed, it's probably less than anyone else consumes in plastic parts.
- aoner 7y agoWould be more than a plant based diet since there are more chains in between where plastic can accumulate (similar to heavy metals in fish)
- knolax 7y agoHas there ever been any case studies on people who have deliberately consumed large quantities of plastic?
- guelo 7y agoI'm more concerned about dissolved plastic residues than the bigger plastic particles. The particles have more of a chance of passing through your body untouched. The unstudied plastic residues dissolved in your hot coffee are much more likely going to be absorbed into your body.
- hateful 7y agoHaving just watched them movie Dark Waters[1], I'm surprised I hear more about this than I do of that [2]. That said, while I'm glad that they're doing these studies, I'd like to here something more conclusive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
- rgovostes 7y agoIt's unlikely that I wouldn't notice eating a piece of plastic the size of a sesame seed. Maybe occasionally, sure, but I sure notice tiny fish bones or the slightest bit of grit in clam chowder, or egg shell in a cookie. If I'm eating a bottle cap worth of plastic a week I would notice on a daily basis.
- inetknght 7y agoMicroplastics are generally smaller than sesame seed. Think of getting a drink from fast food in a styrofoam cup. The acidity of tea or, particularly, soda will eat away the styrofoam into microparticles which you then drink. Tasty drink, yes?
- icelancer 7y ago>> a drink from fast food in a styrofoam cup This is effectively not a thing in the United States. The war on styrofoam is nearly complete here.
- inetknght 7y ago> This is effectively not a thing in the United States. The war on styrofoam is nearly complete here. Maybe in your part of the United States. Not in all of it and certainly not in mine.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoMaybe in a single oddball city in the USA like Portland (though I would still be surprised). Unfortunately, styrofoam is alive and well ubiquitously in the USA outside of whatever bubble you're writing in from. From the cups stacked at the free coffee booth in the lobby of a bank branch to the vessel that a pho restaurant will use when you ask to take home the rest of your soup to the McCafe I just bought this morning.
- neilwilson 7y agoWe also consume a great deal of sand, dirt and indigestible organic matter. The microplastic has been in the environment for a long time - reacting with the ecosystem and potentially passing through quite a lot of digestive systems before it gets to us. The question is whether environmental micro plastic is any more harmful than the micro quartz crystals we've been digesting and expelling since the dawn of time. Trying to trigger the yuck factor with visualisations isn't science. What's the actual risk here?
- titzer 7y agoMicroplastics tend to attract other persistent pollutants [1] to their surface and are linked to endocrine disruptors like BPA which have an undeniably negative effect on human health. And the fact that microplastics (which generally used to be macroplastics) have indeed passed through lots of other digestive systems doesn't make them safer. It means the same microplastic particles can kill over and over and over [2]. [1] https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Ocean-Plastics-Soak-Pollutants.html https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Ocean-Plastics-S... [2] https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/seabirds/laysan-albatrosses-plastic-problem https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/seabirds/laysan-albatrosses-...
- neilwilson 7y agoThe first article is full of 'could'. Where's the 'undeniable' bit at the quantities we're talking about? The second article is large pieces of plastic, not small pieces?
- titzer 7y agoWe could have a really long exchange about this but instead I'll just ask you what you think happens to big pieces of plastic over time. The answer is that they just keep getting ground down, killing over and over as they work their way down the foodchain, killing smaller and smaller organisms, until they eventually end up nanometer-sized. Nothing digests them. Who knows what those do to individual cells. You should be worried.
- booboolayla 7y agoJust another in what seems like a never ending stream of lies and exaggerations designed to make the population fearful, anxious and depressed. It's been more than a decade now, of this fear mongering on a global scale. First it has to completely stop, and then we have to seek out those responsible. The damage they've done is immeasurable.
- velox_io 7y agoIt would be interesting to see how micro-plastics differ from silica/ sand. Something most of us have been exposed to, especially if you live near a beach or other sandy environment. One thing I do know is that not all sand is alike. There's the normal sand that has been ground & rounded over millennia and 'sharp sand' used in construction. Getting normal sand on your skin is a minor annoyance, and I'm not aware of any real damage if some are inhaled. Sharp-sand is much more irritating to the skin/ eyes, it feels more like fibreglass than the beach variety, and I believe the sharp particles are the reason for silicosis as they are not easily removed by mucus. It would be interesting to know which category microplastics fall into. You would think (hope) micro-plastic would be more like the natural 'soft' sand variety than the more troublesome sharp sand.
- GuB-42 7y agoIs eating plastic really a problem? Plastic is inert, that's actually the reason why there is so much of it in the oceans. But it also means that it should go straight through our body, untouched. The problem about microplastics seem to be more about its effects on marine microorganisms than the fact that we are eating them.
- DanBC 7y agoThe plastic is inert, but the stuff stuck to the plastic might not be safe. Microplastic is a lot of tiny pieces, which means it has a high surface area. That can attract pollutants that stick to it. Also, some of it is pretty small. It can be small enough to enter the bloodstream when eaten, and we don't know what that will do. So far we don't know if it's a problem or not.