3 ms·
Asbestos is also chemically quite inert. But in small fibers, it can physically interfere with cellular processes. I'm not aware of evidence that microplastics
by SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
Asbestos is also chemically quite inert. But in small fibers, it can physically interfere with cellular processes. I'm not aware of evidence that microplastics behave in the same way, but a number of other small nonreactive particles do have biological effects, so "chemically inert" doesn't seem like a good heuristic for "harmless".
- Eisenstein 4y agoI don't think that is a helpful comparison. Of course being 'inert' is not a good heuristic for harmless -- a bullet made out of teflon fired into you will harm you quite severely despite teflon's inertness. My implication was that without further evidence there is no reason to assume harm by default, because inert things are non-reactive and there is no known mechanism for microplastics having a mechanically harmful effect on mammals.