3 ms·

You do these proofs of concept to prove the problem exists. Until there is hard science it can be hard to spur action. I could say, ya know, I believe that if

You do these proofs of concept to prove the problem exists. Until there is hard science it can be hard to spur action. I could say, ya know, I believe that if any of these so called microplastics (subtly doubting existence) they would not be absorbed by my body and will simply exit may waste chute (doubting the problem). Now you can say, ya know, akssssssssshuallly studies show that yadda yadda. And then I could say ya IN MICE! And then you could be like oh ya fucko and start forcefeeding me shredded up milk cartons until you dissect my brain a few hours later. Now you've gone ahead and reproduced OP document and thats called SCIENCE!

dmbche 4y ago
I understand, but this experiment doesn't prove that the problem exists - I don't know if humans have plastics in their brain. I'm not a scientist, but couldn't we check cadavers for microplastics? Wouldn't that be more concluent?
- peteradio 4y ago
  No no I'm the one who was supposed to rebut with "In MICE!" You're right about the cadavers! Maybe such a study exists and we could skip ahead to agreeing its a problem or perhaps we enter the next phase: "are we sure these plastics in my brain are akshuuuaallly a problem, perhaps they are making me less stupid and more healthy MR SCIENTISTS"
- kergonath 4y ago
  We can do that as well, and I am confident some studies are in the works. But we still need to understand what is happening, which require controlled environments and simplified situations where we can study the effect of each parameter one after another. One does not prevent the other.
  - dmbche 4y ago
    I see. I think I'm arguing that we should be more critical of animal studies, as I'm having problems seeing what usable data was extracted from these mice that wouldn't have been found some other way. Anyhoot!
    - kergonath 4y ago
      > we should be more critical of animal studies Definitely! That is completely legitimate and suffering must be avoided as much as possible. But sometimes such experiments are necessary and cannot be easily avoided. The alternatives are not understanding what is happening (which is ok if the thing is harmless; I don’t think that this is the default hypothesis for nano-plastics), or doing the analytical experiments in humans. > I'm having problems seeing what usable data was extracted from these mice that wouldn't have been found some other way Off the top of my head, in this setting we control exactly the amount of particles and their size, which is important to assess the mechanisms by which they penetrate the tissues. Looking at dead humans has a huge sampling bias (people giving their body are not representative of the population as a whole), and we have no idea about the kind of particles they were exposed to, or of any other factor that could affect what we want to quantify. Maybe some kinds of substances can increase or decrease penetration rates (things that affect blood pressure, for example). In a controlled setting, we know that all mice were exposed to exactly the same conditions.
- titzer 4y ago
  You know, you too can search the internet. Microplastics are in human blood: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/microplastics-found-in-human-blood-for-first-time https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/micropla... The study in question found microplastic in 80% of test subjects. The presence of these particles is likely not new, just that it's been difficult to detect them until now. Buckle up, we're not likely to find out that they give us superhuman abilities.
  - dmbche 4y ago
    I'm sorry - I'm refering to the experiment. I personally know that there are microplastics in our blood - I'm saying that this experiment is redundant, as your link arguably supports.
  - dmbche 4y ago
    I'm obviously not arguing that microplastics aren't an issue - I'm saying we didn't have to force feed mice plastic to get actionable data to solve the issue.
    - titzer 4y ago
      I have not idea what you are arguing anymore, and frankly, it's just a lot of noise at this point. The way we figure out stuff is with experiments, sometimes experiments on animals. You're out here "no need for experiments, this is a waste of money, blah blah blah unethical, I could have told you that, everyone's embezzling money from the government, those rich scientists huminah huminah." I mean, I could argue these points, or you could just stop trolling.
      - dmbche 4y ago
        I think there is too little oversight on animal testing and that this experiment is a flagrant example of that. While I understand that some experiment "require" animal testing, I don't see how this one arguably does. That's not been argued, we're arguing the salaries of the scientists instead - not certain why. I haven't talked abount embezzeling anything or that experiments are useless - just that I can't see why this one was done, and it makes me weary of most experiments on animals, even more than I normaly am, as they seem much more arbitrary than I would have liked to think. Thanks for your insight and snarkiness anyway.

dmbche 4y ago

I understand, but this experiment doesn't prove that the problem exists - I don't know if humans have plastics in their brain. I'm not a scientist, but couldn't we check cadavers for microplastics? Wouldn't that be more concluent?

peteradio 4y ago
No no I'm the one who was supposed to rebut with "In MICE!" You're right about the cadavers! Maybe such a study exists and we could skip ahead to agreeing its a problem or perhaps we enter the next phase: "are we sure these plastics in my brain are akshuuuaallly a problem, perhaps they are making me less stupid and more healthy MR SCIENTISTS"
kergonath 4y ago
We can do that as well, and I am confident some studies are in the works. But we still need to understand what is happening, which require controlled environments and simplified situations where we can study the effect of each parameter one after another. One does not prevent the other.
- dmbche 4y ago
  I see. I think I'm arguing that we should be more critical of animal studies, as I'm having problems seeing what usable data was extracted from these mice that wouldn't have been found some other way. Anyhoot!
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > we should be more critical of animal studies Definitely! That is completely legitimate and suffering must be avoided as much as possible. But sometimes such experiments are necessary and cannot be easily avoided. The alternatives are not understanding what is happening (which is ok if the thing is harmless; I don’t think that this is the default hypothesis for nano-plastics), or doing the analytical experiments in humans. > I'm having problems seeing what usable data was extracted from these mice that wouldn't have been found some other way Off the top of my head, in this setting we control exactly the amount of particles and their size, which is important to assess the mechanisms by which they penetrate the tissues. Looking at dead humans has a huge sampling bias (people giving their body are not representative of the population as a whole), and we have no idea about the kind of particles they were exposed to, or of any other factor that could affect what we want to quantify. Maybe some kinds of substances can increase or decrease penetration rates (things that affect blood pressure, for example). In a controlled setting, we know that all mice were exposed to exactly the same conditions.
titzer 4y ago
You know, you too can search the internet. Microplastics are in human blood: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/microplastics-found-in-human-blood-for-first-time https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/micropla... The study in question found microplastic in 80% of test subjects. The presence of these particles is likely not new, just that it's been difficult to detect them until now. Buckle up, we're not likely to find out that they give us superhuman abilities.
- dmbche 4y ago
  I'm sorry - I'm refering to the experiment. I personally know that there are microplastics in our blood - I'm saying that this experiment is redundant, as your link arguably supports.
- dmbche 4y ago
  I'm obviously not arguing that microplastics aren't an issue - I'm saying we didn't have to force feed mice plastic to get actionable data to solve the issue.
  - titzer 4y ago
    I have not idea what you are arguing anymore, and frankly, it's just a lot of noise at this point. The way we figure out stuff is with experiments, sometimes experiments on animals. You're out here "no need for experiments, this is a waste of money, blah blah blah unethical, I could have told you that, everyone's embezzling money from the government, those rich scientists huminah huminah." I mean, I could argue these points, or you could just stop trolling.
    - dmbche 4y ago
      I think there is too little oversight on animal testing and that this experiment is a flagrant example of that. While I understand that some experiment "require" animal testing, I don't see how this one arguably does. That's not been argued, we're arguing the salaries of the scientists instead - not certain why. I haven't talked abount embezzeling anything or that experiments are useless - just that I can't see why this one was done, and it makes me weary of most experiments on animals, even more than I normaly am, as they seem much more arbitrary than I would have liked to think. Thanks for your insight and snarkiness anyway.