4 ms·

We 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 e

We 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 ago
Microplastics 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    We 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.
    - neilwilson 7y ago
      We need to have a long exchange over this. My null-hypothesis - supported by the evidence you have provided - is that the large plastic is doing the killing and when it gets small it passes through with little effect - like grains of sand. Because clearly grains of sand are bigger than nanometer and they don't block up digestive tracts. The albatross didn't die from endocrine disruption did it. That's how science works. From your evidence my null hypothesis is proven. We should know what it does to individual cells - particularly if we are creating scare stories around it.
justin66 7y ago
> 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. That's nonsense, it's understood that microplastics contain and secrete endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are damaging to human health. It's a question of quantifying the problem and how much damage it's doing. To be clear, if you eat something containing a bit of quartz you'll poop it out shortly, barring some specific digestive problem like diverticulitis that traps it. Your body won't do anything with it. This is not true of the chemicals in plastics.
- neilwilson 7y ago
  Where is it understood that, at what quantities and for how long after they have been exposed to the environment? Is it a catalyst or is it 'used up' (ie extracted) by other organisms interacting with the microplastic. If you read my note again, you'll find what you reactively typed out is the question I'm asking. This is why Hacker News is degrading. You can no longer question anything.
  - justin66 7y ago
    > This is why Hacker News is degrading. You can no longer question anything. It's flattering that you think I'm responsible for "degrading" Hacker News, but when you say things as deeply silly as "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" you should expect a negative reaction. The hey I'm going to reason from first principles and show that the so-called experts aren't so smart! attitude you've exhibited is perhaps a little more emblematic of message board silliness, although I would not go nearly so far as to call it "degrading." If you honestly want to know about why microplastics in the environment are increasingly alarming to scientists, use google, PLOS, Nature, arxiv, etc. (and if you find a mainstream scientific paper that actually supports the idea that the risk of microplastics is being highly overblown, or that organisms and microorganisms in the environment are mitigating all that risk for us, please do share the article)
    - 7y ago

titzer 7y ago

Microplastics 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 ago
The 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 ago
  We 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.
  - neilwilson 7y ago
    We need to have a long exchange over this. My null-hypothesis - supported by the evidence you have provided - is that the large plastic is doing the killing and when it gets small it passes through with little effect - like grains of sand. Because clearly grains of sand are bigger than nanometer and they don't block up digestive tracts. The albatross didn't die from endocrine disruption did it. That's how science works. From your evidence my null hypothesis is proven. We should know what it does to individual cells - particularly if we are creating scare stories around it.

justin66 7y ago

> 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. That's nonsense, it's understood that microplastics contain and secrete endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are damaging to human health. It's a question of quantifying the problem and how much damage it's doing. To be clear, if you eat something containing a bit of quartz you'll poop it out shortly, barring some specific digestive problem like diverticulitis that traps it. Your body won't do anything with it. This is not true of the chemicals in plastics.

neilwilson 7y ago
Where is it understood that, at what quantities and for how long after they have been exposed to the environment? Is it a catalyst or is it 'used up' (ie extracted) by other organisms interacting with the microplastic. If you read my note again, you'll find what you reactively typed out is the question I'm asking. This is why Hacker News is degrading. You can no longer question anything.
- justin66 7y ago
  > This is why Hacker News is degrading. You can no longer question anything. It's flattering that you think I'm responsible for "degrading" Hacker News, but when you say things as deeply silly as "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" you should expect a negative reaction. The hey I'm going to reason from first principles and show that the so-called experts aren't so smart! attitude you've exhibited is perhaps a little more emblematic of message board silliness, although I would not go nearly so far as to call it "degrading." If you honestly want to know about why microplastics in the environment are increasingly alarming to scientists, use google, PLOS, Nature, arxiv, etc. (and if you find a mainstream scientific paper that actually supports the idea that the risk of microplastics is being highly overblown, or that organisms and microorganisms in the environment are mitigating all that risk for us, please do share the article)
  - 7y ago