3 ms·

There is. Let me show you this neat search engine for such things. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=microplastic+effects+on+humans&btnG=

There is. Let me show you this neat search engine for such things. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=microplastic+effects+on+humans&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=micr...

brigandish 5y ago
2 of the first 3 results had the word "potential" in the preview. I had to follow the link to see what was in the other one, it had these: > The knowledge on the adverse effects on human health due to the consumption of marine organisms containing microplastics is very limited, difficult to assess and still controversial. I'm not sure that really answers the question you responded to.
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  That’s just careful wording. Scientists are wary of making hard statements, unless they have absolute proof, which in this case requires massive epidemiological studies over many decades. It doesn’t mean there isn’t any reason to look at the potential risks; on the contrary, the sooner we acknowledge the risks and take steps to mitigate them, the sooner we have pre-empted any possible health outcomes, independent of what exactly the cause and effect turns out to be. That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    > That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you. This is excluding the middle. Scientists aren't careful because that's some natural state of scientists that has no meaning in the real world. They're careful because drawing noncareful conclusions (or fallacious ones such as excluded middle) is just making stuff up.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    I'm fully aware of careful wording. I'm also aware that to presume some meaning other than what the wording explicitly states as if that is the most likely possibility is not careful. Not only that, to infer something stronger and then imply that it is the actual meaning of that careful wording is simply an assumption not merited by the facts. > It doesn’t mean there isn’t any reason to look at the potential risks Yes, that is what the careful wording actually implies. If you'd been more careful with your reading then you could've saved writing the first 2 paragraphs. > That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you. You provided some evidence (that is a generous description) wrapped in some snark that didn't back up your claims. What I believe has nothing to do with that, and to intimate that my assessment is based on belief is absurd, I read the results you "provided" - believers don't tend to bother with facts that might contradict them. Be more careful with your words in future, that'd be my advice.
WithinReason 5y ago
I couldn't find anything on reduced life expectancy.
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  I think increased incidence of cancer, hormone disruption and general inflammation count, no?
  - evgen 5y ago
    Please cite your sources for these claims. No one is claiming it is good thing, but when you start to spray FUD around you run the risk of having a few of your wilder claims (cancer, really?) shown to be complete bullshit and then no one cares about any other claims you might make.
    - eurasiantiger 5y ago
      ”The potential hazardous effects on humans by alternate ingestion of microparticles can cause alteration in chromosomes which lead to infertility, obesity, and cancer” (”Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human health: a short review” by Shivika Sharma, Subhankar Chatterjee; Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24 (27), 21530-21547, 2017) ”In all biological systems, microplastic exposure may cause particle toxicity, with oxidative stress, inflammatory lesions and increased uptake or translocation. The inability of the immune system to remove synthetic particles may lead to chronic inflammation and increase risk of neoplasia. Furthermore, microplastics may release their constituents, adsorbed contaminants and pathogenic organisms.” (”Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects” by Joana Correia Prata, João P da Costa, Isabel Lopes, Armando C Duarte, Teresa Rocha-Santos; Science of the Total Environment 702, 134455, 2020)
      - evgen 5y ago
        "Might", "possible", "may", "potential" all seem to be the most damning terms applied to this issue in those papers. Lots of suggestions, no proof. Given the ubiquity that the original research is suggesting the effects should be obvious and pervasive, particularly in animals with shorter lifecycles. At this point I am going to assume that if this is the best you have the answer to the question is 'no, there is no evidence but we are still looking' and that the rest of your grand claims are equally suspect.

brigandish 5y ago

2 of the first 3 results had the word "potential" in the preview. I had to follow the link to see what was in the other one, it had these: > The knowledge on the adverse effects on human health due to the consumption of marine organisms containing microplastics is very limited, difficult to assess and still controversial. I'm not sure that really answers the question you responded to.

eurasiantiger 5y ago
That’s just careful wording. Scientists are wary of making hard statements, unless they have absolute proof, which in this case requires massive epidemiological studies over many decades. It doesn’t mean there isn’t any reason to look at the potential risks; on the contrary, the sooner we acknowledge the risks and take steps to mitigate them, the sooner we have pre-empted any possible health outcomes, independent of what exactly the cause and effect turns out to be. That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you. This is excluding the middle. Scientists aren't careful because that's some natural state of scientists that has no meaning in the real world. They're careful because drawing noncareful conclusions (or fallacious ones such as excluded middle) is just making stuff up.
- brigandish 5y ago
  I'm fully aware of careful wording. I'm also aware that to presume some meaning other than what the wording explicitly states as if that is the most likely possibility is not careful. Not only that, to infer something stronger and then imply that it is the actual meaning of that careful wording is simply an assumption not merited by the facts. > It doesn’t mean there isn’t any reason to look at the potential risks Yes, that is what the careful wording actually implies. If you'd been more careful with your reading then you could've saved writing the first 2 paragraphs. > That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you. You provided some evidence (that is a generous description) wrapped in some snark that didn't back up your claims. What I believe has nothing to do with that, and to intimate that my assessment is based on belief is absurd, I read the results you "provided" - believers don't tend to bother with facts that might contradict them. Be more careful with your words in future, that'd be my advice.

WithinReason 5y ago

I couldn't find anything on reduced life expectancy.

eurasiantiger 5y ago
I think increased incidence of cancer, hormone disruption and general inflammation count, no?
- evgen 5y ago
  Please cite your sources for these claims. No one is claiming it is good thing, but when you start to spray FUD around you run the risk of having a few of your wilder claims (cancer, really?) shown to be complete bullshit and then no one cares about any other claims you might make.
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    ”The potential hazardous effects on humans by alternate ingestion of microparticles can cause alteration in chromosomes which lead to infertility, obesity, and cancer” (”Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human health: a short review” by Shivika Sharma, Subhankar Chatterjee; Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24 (27), 21530-21547, 2017) ”In all biological systems, microplastic exposure may cause particle toxicity, with oxidative stress, inflammatory lesions and increased uptake or translocation. The inability of the immune system to remove synthetic particles may lead to chronic inflammation and increase risk of neoplasia. Furthermore, microplastics may release their constituents, adsorbed contaminants and pathogenic organisms.” (”Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects” by Joana Correia Prata, João P da Costa, Isabel Lopes, Armando C Duarte, Teresa Rocha-Santos; Science of the Total Environment 702, 134455, 2020)
    - evgen 5y ago
      "Might", "possible", "may", "potential" all seem to be the most damning terms applied to this issue in those papers. Lots of suggestions, no proof. Given the ubiquity that the original research is suggesting the effects should be obvious and pervasive, particularly in animals with shorter lifecycles. At this point I am going to assume that if this is the best you have the answer to the question is 'no, there is no evidence but we are still looking' and that the rest of your grand claims are equally suspect.