3 ms·
A few points, Plastic nanoparticles isn’t a single thing. There are many types of plastics, with many types of additives. Most plastics are bioreactive, especi
by fnordpiglet 3y ago
A few points,
Plastic nanoparticles isn’t a single thing. There are many types of plastics, with many types of additives. Most plastics are bioreactive, especially when not handled properly or maintained in the proper conditions. A great many plastics and especially additives are known to be toxic, carcinogenic, etc. These aren’t controversial statements and is widely known, understood, and cataloged.
Further, in this study, they point to prior studies that have established most adult humans have detectable amounts of nanoplastics in the blood stream. Further the point to prior research establishing many nanoplastics (and specially polystyrene, what they are studying here), passes the blood brain barrier.
They contribute findings that, in mice, polystyrene nanoparticles are admitted to neurons and they isolate a number of changes in the proteins and signaling of the cells that propagate to other parts of the brain. The changes are indicative of changes observed in Parkinson’s, but since we don’t understand Parkinson’s, we clearly can’t establish a causal link in this way.
RCTs could establish a probable correlate, but given again plastic nanoparticles are a single monolithic thing, there’s an incredible amount of variability in such a trial. This will take a lot of time and need to be pretty narrowly constructed so fundamental research like this is how you establish and guide such trials in the future. We haven’t really focused on the subject very long. But all of the facts above should be of grave concern.
Even if the body clears out nanoparticles, which I’m certain it must, that doesn’t mean they can’t cause serious issues prior to clearance. We are also presumably constantly exposed to more so you should view it as a chronic and persistent level in the body even if the body can clear it. In fact I would say unlike heavy metals we almost certainly clear it otherwise you would simply accumulate greater and greater concentrations; which I don’t think is observed.
It’s good to be skeptical, but I don’t think “we haven’t established a specific disease caused by the pervasive presence of plastic nanoparticles in animals” doesn’t imply “this is ok” by any measure.
- jtrn 3y agoBut you do agree that it would be better if we got some studies that went beyond "particles have been observed in tissue" to something like "This is the dose-to-morbidity curve for this group of nanoparticles"?My issue is that we have been stuck with hundreds, if not thousands, of research papers of the first type, and I haven't found any of the latter type. With regard to your last point, I kind of agree, but there has to be a balance between two extremes. You can't assume something is safe just because you don't have a smoking gun. On the other hand, the "you can't prove it's 100% safe for everybody at all times throughout the universe, so we must assume it's dangerous" position can also be very dangerous. To me, the anti-GMO movement makes this mistake in a serio us way, hurting actual people in deprived parts of the world. I fear that the microplastic scare is overblown and takes focus away from much more important issues.
- pcrh 3y agoBy the time plastics have become micro- or nano-particles, any diffusible components such as plasticizers have been thoroughly leached out.