8 ms·

> Of all our environmental problems, atmospheric CO2 is the biggest one, right? We honestly don't know how bad micro-plastic is. Our experience with asbestos,

> Of all our environmental problems, atmospheric CO2 is the biggest one, right? We honestly don't know how bad micro-plastic is. Our experience with asbestos, another fibre that can penetrate cells, suggests "very bad" is on the list of potentials. We do know that it's in literally everything from dirt to water to air, and that it has circled the globe and got to places no human sets foot. Like soil depletion and loss of insects, it's on the list of problems which aren't trendy to focus on right now, but might end up being really serious.

dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
Yeah microplastics might indeed be worse. I didn’t know microplastics potentially had so much in common with asbestos.
- joecool1029 5y ago
  >Yeah microplastics might indeed be worse. Doubtful, not saying it's harmless but microplastics are everywhere, asbestos is not. We should research it but should not jump to the conclusion that it might be worse than a known horrible material. Asbestos had clear links to various kinds of horrible conditions known all the way back to the early 1900s. Microplastics might increase some kinds of cancer and screw with some hormone signalling but we haven't seen such clear links yet to the same kinds of conditions.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    And microplastics are still hydrocarbons that can be broken down into relatively harmless constituents, even if it takes some effort and energy. Asbestos pretty much stays asbestos forever.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    The hunch that asbestos is really bad for human health is very old. The Greek geographer Strabo and the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder both reported a sickness of the lungs in the slaves who wove asbestos into cloth.
Symmetry 5y ago
Microplastics are a good reason to make sure your plastic makes it to a landfill instead of the ocean more than a reason to give up plastic entirely. Of course, not every country has government provided waste disposal so to the extent that our rich world preferences get foisted onto developing countries by default I guess that is a valid reason to want to reduce plastic use. But on the third hand locking up hydrocarbons in plastics while we're dealing with global warming seems like a positive good.
- cronix 5y ago
  From what I understand, most microplastics in the environment are from washing clothing made of synthetic fibers[1] instead of natural products like cotton. It's rare to find something made from 100% cotton - it's usually a blend of mostly synthetic and sometimes natural fibers. Every time you wash them millions of microfiber plastics are released into the sewer system and there is no filter system capable of removing them so they end up permanently in the water cycle. They even end up in rain and snowfall[2], and have been found in organs of the human body[3] and of course wildlife. > Microplastic pollution caused by washing processes of synthetic textiles has recently been assessed as the main source of primary microplastics in the oceans. [1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43023-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43023-x [2]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/microplastics-found-in-arctic-snow https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/micro... [3]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/17/microplastic-particles-discovered-in-human-organs https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/17/micropla...
  - conceptme 5y ago
    It is not so rare to find 100% cotton clothing, most websites have an option to filter on the fabric. In physical stores this becomes harder though.
  - brandmeyer 5y ago
    Rephrased for impact: The dominant source of microplastics is lint. Fuzzy blanket (synthetic)? Microplastics. Cozy sweater (synthetic or blend, but lets face it: usually synthetic)? Microplastics. Microfiber towel? Microplastics. Plastic straws, bags, and packaging? Landfill.
rstuart4133 5y ago
> Our experience with asbestos, another fibre that can penetrate cells, suggests "very bad" is on the list of potentials. On the other hand, the issue seems to be animals ingest microplastics, mistaking them for food. The thing is, the vast majority of any environment is "not food". Tiny sand particles, dust, lignin, volcanic ash. If there is one thing life is phenomenally good at, it's distinguishing "not food" from food. Introducing a poison like pesticides into the environment, or wholesale environmental change like CO2 is doing - that could and indeed is wiping out a lot of species. But I have a hard time believing another source of "not food" will cause the same scale of damage.

dmitryminkovsky 5y ago

Yeah microplastics might indeed be worse. I didn’t know microplastics potentially had so much in common with asbestos.

joecool1029 5y ago
>Yeah microplastics might indeed be worse. Doubtful, not saying it's harmless but microplastics are everywhere, asbestos is not. We should research it but should not jump to the conclusion that it might be worse than a known horrible material. Asbestos had clear links to various kinds of horrible conditions known all the way back to the early 1900s. Microplastics might increase some kinds of cancer and screw with some hormone signalling but we haven't seen such clear links yet to the same kinds of conditions.
- beerandt 5y ago
  And microplastics are still hydrocarbons that can be broken down into relatively harmless constituents, even if it takes some effort and energy. Asbestos pretty much stays asbestos forever.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  The hunch that asbestos is really bad for human health is very old. The Greek geographer Strabo and the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder both reported a sickness of the lungs in the slaves who wove asbestos into cloth.

Symmetry 5y ago

Microplastics are a good reason to make sure your plastic makes it to a landfill instead of the ocean more than a reason to give up plastic entirely. Of course, not every country has government provided waste disposal so to the extent that our rich world preferences get foisted onto developing countries by default I guess that is a valid reason to want to reduce plastic use. But on the third hand locking up hydrocarbons in plastics while we're dealing with global warming seems like a positive good.

cronix 5y ago
From what I understand, most microplastics in the environment are from washing clothing made of synthetic fibers[1] instead of natural products like cotton. It's rare to find something made from 100% cotton - it's usually a blend of mostly synthetic and sometimes natural fibers. Every time you wash them millions of microfiber plastics are released into the sewer system and there is no filter system capable of removing them so they end up permanently in the water cycle. They even end up in rain and snowfall[2], and have been found in organs of the human body[3] and of course wildlife. > Microplastic pollution caused by washing processes of synthetic textiles has recently been assessed as the main source of primary microplastics in the oceans. [1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43023-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43023-x [2]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/microplastics-found-in-arctic-snow https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/micro... [3]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/17/microplastic-particles-discovered-in-human-organs https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/17/micropla...
- conceptme 5y ago
  It is not so rare to find 100% cotton clothing, most websites have an option to filter on the fabric. In physical stores this becomes harder though.
- brandmeyer 5y ago
  Rephrased for impact: The dominant source of microplastics is lint. Fuzzy blanket (synthetic)? Microplastics. Cozy sweater (synthetic or blend, but lets face it: usually synthetic)? Microplastics. Microfiber towel? Microplastics. Plastic straws, bags, and packaging? Landfill.

rstuart4133 5y ago

> Our experience with asbestos, another fibre that can penetrate cells, suggests "very bad" is on the list of potentials. On the other hand, the issue seems to be animals ingest microplastics, mistaking them for food. The thing is, the vast majority of any environment is "not food". Tiny sand particles, dust, lignin, volcanic ash. If there is one thing life is phenomenally good at, it's distinguishing "not food" from food. Introducing a poison like pesticides into the environment, or wholesale environmental change like CO2 is doing - that could and indeed is wiping out a lot of species. But I have a hard time believing another source of "not food" will cause the same scale of damage.