6 ms·

> 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 ti

> 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)
  - neilwilson 7y ago
    How do you know somebody who calls themselves an expert are 'smart'. Isn't that a religious belief, when you accept what somebody says without question? I don't accept your experts. I reject them. I will not treat them as though they are priests emitting the gospel. Just as I did with the 'experts' who pushed the lipid hypothesis using precisely the same 'peer review' and 'scientific journals'. Over time that turned out to be a fallacy. Why is this any different? You have to be very sceptical of anything that is not subject to double blind testing. Belief and bias affects everybody.
    - justin66 7y ago
      > Just as I did with the 'experts' who pushed the lipid hypothesis using precisely the same 'peer review' and 'scientific journals'. Over time that turned out to be a fallacy. The lipid hypothesis is still accepted, mainstream medicine.

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)
- neilwilson 7y ago
  How do you know somebody who calls themselves an expert are 'smart'. Isn't that a religious belief, when you accept what somebody says without question? I don't accept your experts. I reject them. I will not treat them as though they are priests emitting the gospel. Just as I did with the 'experts' who pushed the lipid hypothesis using precisely the same 'peer review' and 'scientific journals'. Over time that turned out to be a fallacy. Why is this any different? You have to be very sceptical of anything that is not subject to double blind testing. Belief and bias affects everybody.
  - justin66 7y ago
    > Just as I did with the 'experts' who pushed the lipid hypothesis using precisely the same 'peer review' and 'scientific journals'. Over time that turned out to be a fallacy. The lipid hypothesis is still accepted, mainstream medicine.