4 ms·

Microplastics tend to attract other persistent pollutants [1] to their surface and are linked to endocrine disruptors like BPA which have an undeniably negative

by 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.

by titzer 7y ago

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.