5 ms·

Is there any research on proven negative effects? This paper is only about "potential" negative effects. From the conclusion: Following the intake of microplas

Is there any research on proven negative effects? This paper is only about "potential" negative effects. From the conclusion: Following the intake of microplastics into the human body, their fate and effects are still controversial and not well known. [...] Not enough information is available to fully understand the implications of microplastics for human health;

EGreg 5y ago
As it accumulates more and more — probably ! Like acidification of the oceans is alright until it’s not
giantg2 5y ago
"effects are still controversial and not well known" That's probably what the Romans were saying back then. Or when uranium plates were used. Or when PFOAs were/are used in good contact.
- parineum 5y ago
  > That's probably what the Romans were saying back then You can use that argument to support the implication that everything might be dangerous.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Technically everything does contain some level of danger. We just say that something isn't dangerous when it falls below some level (subjective or objective).
- itslennysfault 5y ago
  I mean.... not just the Romans. We used Lead too. In pipes, in paint, in gasoline. Everyone was literally breathing it daily in all major cities until the mid 80s.
- likpok 5y ago
  The Romans knew about and documented the risks of asbestos, so don't be so sure. They also knew about some of the risks of lead. Vitruvius (during Augustus) wrote that water through clay pipes is better and purer, and others comment about how the care you need to take when preparing food in leaden vessels. e.g. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wi...
- WithinReason 5y ago
  You could make the opposite argument about just as many things. Remember COVID vaccines?
jahewson 5y ago
The Romans asked the same question.
bamboozled 5y ago
What do you think the likelihood of there being no negative impacts will be ? Honestly? I mean, there’s a reason why you don’t eat plastic packaging and I’m sure it could be made to taste nice...
istorical 5y ago
Have you tried a cursory Google search? I don't know if you refer specifically to the negative effects of microplastics in lungs or microplastic exposure in general, but a search for "microplastics human effects" will provide you with weeks of reading material if you'd like to be depressed.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  Microplastics in general. Maybe my googling skills are failing me, but all I can find is about "potential" risks, "possible" harm and unquantified in vitro studies, nothing showing actual harm. Which leads me to believe that if so many people are looking so hard for so long, maybe there is nothing to find.
  - headmelted 5y ago
    That seems incredibly optimistic. Asbestos exposure often takes up to 50 years to have a detectable impact, then kills in short order. Lead poisoning can take an incredibly long time to identify unless you find the source of exposure up front. Plastics haven’t even existed for a century, and have been ubiquitous only in the last few decades.

EGreg 5y ago

As it accumulates more and more — probably ! Like acidification of the oceans is alright until it’s not

giantg2 5y ago

"effects are still controversial and not well known" That's probably what the Romans were saying back then. Or when uranium plates were used. Or when PFOAs were/are used in good contact.

parineum 5y ago
> That's probably what the Romans were saying back then You can use that argument to support the implication that everything might be dangerous.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Technically everything does contain some level of danger. We just say that something isn't dangerous when it falls below some level (subjective or objective).
itslennysfault 5y ago
I mean.... not just the Romans. We used Lead too. In pipes, in paint, in gasoline. Everyone was literally breathing it daily in all major cities until the mid 80s.
likpok 5y ago
The Romans knew about and documented the risks of asbestos, so don't be so sure. They also knew about some of the risks of lead. Vitruvius (during Augustus) wrote that water through clay pipes is better and purer, and others comment about how the care you need to take when preparing food in leaden vessels. e.g. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wi...
WithinReason 5y ago
You could make the opposite argument about just as many things. Remember COVID vaccines?

jahewson 5y ago

The Romans asked the same question.

bamboozled 5y ago

What do you think the likelihood of there being no negative impacts will be ? Honestly? I mean, there’s a reason why you don’t eat plastic packaging and I’m sure it could be made to taste nice...

istorical 5y ago

Have you tried a cursory Google search? I don't know if you refer specifically to the negative effects of microplastics in lungs or microplastic exposure in general, but a search for "microplastics human effects" will provide you with weeks of reading material if you'd like to be depressed.

WithinReason 5y ago
Microplastics in general. Maybe my googling skills are failing me, but all I can find is about "potential" risks, "possible" harm and unquantified in vitro studies, nothing showing actual harm. Which leads me to believe that if so many people are looking so hard for so long, maybe there is nothing to find.
- headmelted 5y ago
  That seems incredibly optimistic. Asbestos exposure often takes up to 50 years to have a detectable impact, then kills in short order. Lead poisoning can take an incredibly long time to identify unless you find the source of exposure up front. Plastics haven’t even existed for a century, and have been ubiquitous only in the last few decades.