3 ms·

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-bl

by 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.

by titzer 4y ago

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.