4 ms·

The article is only presenting that: 1. nano/microplastics kill kidney cells in a lab environment 2. nano/microplastics come from microwaving containers Rega

The article is only presenting that: 1. nano/microplastics kill kidney cells in a lab environment 2. nano/microplastics come from microwaving containers Regardless of whether you agree with the conclusion _you_ are drawing from reading the article, the article is saying those things. In order to make a real-world-ish experiment, we'd have to start experimenting on children. I feel that while you're expressing outrage at a potentially real thing, you're also being unreasonable in that. Sorry in advance if this comes off as harsh.

toweriewrwer 3y ago
[flagged]
jahsome 3y ago
I have a feeling there is a good number of parents willing to volunteer a child. They start getting mouthy around 3. /s kinda
earthbee 3y ago
I don't think anything Auronis was expressing outrage, nothing they wrote even hints at it to me. They just seem to be expressing a line of reasoning.
cowl 3y ago
In fact no. The parent comment is right in emphasizing the "exposure to concentrations equivalent to accumulations over several days and sources". So while your point 1. is technically true, it comes with the caveat of heavy concentrations. We know of thousands of "factors" that become dangerous or toxic in big concentrations but are innocuous or even beneficial in small doses. I'm not saying that plastic is either of these but to leave out the dose concentration is clearly misrepresenting from your part. So I don't know if you haven't read the article till the end (because this caveat of the concentration comes later after the sensational part you emphasized) or you are purposely trying to mislead others. The discrepancy of their result ("three-quarters of cultured embryonic kidney cells had died") with reality also clearly points to something very wrong with this study. That high level of cell mortality is not observed anywhere in reality.
stubish 3y ago
The article does state though that 'Many studies, including ours, are demonstrating that the toxicity of micro- and nanoplastics is highly linked to the level of exposure'. But it doesn't provide evidence that the amount being ingested is enough to cause harm, so the bit about killing kidney cells seems to be fear mongering (I'm sure there are lots of things babies eat that would kill kidney cells if you instead injected them). What would be more interesting if there was detectable levels of microplastics in blood streams, or how the levels compare to things already studied such as bottled water.
jxramos 3y ago
yah so they have this HEK cells I'm guessing and they subject them to fluids that were cooked in a microwave in a plastic container which thereby released a bunch of these nanoparticles. That fluid was applied to the HEK cells in vitro and they basically died and stoped dividing and migrating and doing all they would do. I suppose the connection would be lots of blood passes through the kidneys being a blood filtering tissue and what not that should nanoparticles enter the bloodstream they could take a toll on the kidneys. So if we were to be intravenously injected with these things it wouldn't be surprising to see stuff die I suppose. But the real world scenario never just dumps chemicals on certain tissues, they have to first reach those tissues and cross barriers and survive past the liver etc etc, lots of obstacles. But these in lab conditions kind of give a toxicity clue for what the outcome may be if the substance comes in direct contact with the tissue of interest.
devjab 3y ago
You wouldn’t have to experiment on children as such. You can follow children who were Brest fed and children who were bottle fed and compare the two. It’s sort of a worrying study for me personally. Because bottle feeding only really works so well because you can microwave, both for cleaning and for heating, modern bottles so easily. If you have to go back to glass containers it’ll be a literal nightmare for most parents.
- iforgotpassword 3y ago
  So the dish washer is out? There is those sterilization things where you add a little water and put the bottles in steam for a few minutes. No idea what the risks there might be, but this is what my sister did, and I think it was plastic bottles at first, though she switched to glass with her second child because of micro plastic concerns etc.
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  Not a parent, but curious: can’t you microwave glass booties ? I do microwave water in glass and don’t see problems. Is it the fragility of the glass ? In that case I guess any fabric protection can solve it ?
  - cj 3y ago
    Not a parent, but guessing glass is bad because kids tend to throw things and glass is breakable.
    - awb 3y ago
      I would use glass bottles to feed my kids, but I always held the bottle because the glass gets incredibly hot. I would wrap a towel around it to make it safe for me to hold. By the time they could hold their own bottle we used plastic both for safe surface temperatures on the bottle and in case they threw it or dropped it as you mentioned.
      - xapata 3y ago
lifeonlars 3y ago
Obviously you don't have to "start experimenting on children". One can survey parents on whether or not they used microwaves, plastic containers, or not, look at the health of the children concerned in later years, and then work from that data.

toweriewrwer 3y ago

[flagged]

jahsome 3y ago

I have a feeling there is a good number of parents willing to volunteer a child. They start getting mouthy around 3. /s kinda

earthbee 3y ago

I don't think anything Auronis was expressing outrage, nothing they wrote even hints at it to me. They just seem to be expressing a line of reasoning.

cowl 3y ago

In fact no. The parent comment is right in emphasizing the "exposure to concentrations equivalent to accumulations over several days and sources". So while your point 1. is technically true, it comes with the caveat of heavy concentrations. We know of thousands of "factors" that become dangerous or toxic in big concentrations but are innocuous or even beneficial in small doses. I'm not saying that plastic is either of these but to leave out the dose concentration is clearly misrepresenting from your part. So I don't know if you haven't read the article till the end (because this caveat of the concentration comes later after the sensational part you emphasized) or you are purposely trying to mislead others. The discrepancy of their result ("three-quarters of cultured embryonic kidney cells had died") with reality also clearly points to something very wrong with this study. That high level of cell mortality is not observed anywhere in reality.

stubish 3y ago

The article does state though that 'Many studies, including ours, are demonstrating that the toxicity of micro- and nanoplastics is highly linked to the level of exposure'. But it doesn't provide evidence that the amount being ingested is enough to cause harm, so the bit about killing kidney cells seems to be fear mongering (I'm sure there are lots of things babies eat that would kill kidney cells if you instead injected them). What would be more interesting if there was detectable levels of microplastics in blood streams, or how the levels compare to things already studied such as bottled water.

jxramos 3y ago

yah so they have this HEK cells I'm guessing and they subject them to fluids that were cooked in a microwave in a plastic container which thereby released a bunch of these nanoparticles. That fluid was applied to the HEK cells in vitro and they basically died and stoped dividing and migrating and doing all they would do. I suppose the connection would be lots of blood passes through the kidneys being a blood filtering tissue and what not that should nanoparticles enter the bloodstream they could take a toll on the kidneys. So if we were to be intravenously injected with these things it wouldn't be surprising to see stuff die I suppose. But the real world scenario never just dumps chemicals on certain tissues, they have to first reach those tissues and cross barriers and survive past the liver etc etc, lots of obstacles. But these in lab conditions kind of give a toxicity clue for what the outcome may be if the substance comes in direct contact with the tissue of interest.

devjab 3y ago

You wouldn’t have to experiment on children as such. You can follow children who were Brest fed and children who were bottle fed and compare the two. It’s sort of a worrying study for me personally. Because bottle feeding only really works so well because you can microwave, both for cleaning and for heating, modern bottles so easily. If you have to go back to glass containers it’ll be a literal nightmare for most parents.

iforgotpassword 3y ago
So the dish washer is out? There is those sterilization things where you add a little water and put the bottles in steam for a few minutes. No idea what the risks there might be, but this is what my sister did, and I think it was plastic bottles at first, though she switched to glass with her second child because of micro plastic concerns etc.
aziaziazi 3y ago
Not a parent, but curious: can’t you microwave glass booties ? I do microwave water in glass and don’t see problems. Is it the fragility of the glass ? In that case I guess any fabric protection can solve it ?
- cj 3y ago
  Not a parent, but guessing glass is bad because kids tend to throw things and glass is breakable.
  - awb 3y ago
    I would use glass bottles to feed my kids, but I always held the bottle because the glass gets incredibly hot. I would wrap a towel around it to make it safe for me to hold. By the time they could hold their own bottle we used plastic both for safe surface temperatures on the bottle and in case they threw it or dropped it as you mentioned.
    - xapata 3y ago

lifeonlars 3y ago

Obviously you don't have to "start experimenting on children". One can survey parents on whether or not they used microwaves, plastic containers, or not, look at the health of the children concerned in later years, and then work from that data.