5 ms·

wait, we skipped the part where we found out microplastics were bad for you. concerning, yes, but plastic is relatively inert and there's no actual evidence of

by gattis 3y ago

wait, we skipped the part where we found out microplastics were bad for you. concerning, yes, but plastic is relatively inert and there's no actual evidence of harm yet.

gsk22 3y ago
Plastic is biologically inert, but the plasticizers added to modify the qualities of plastics may not be. From what I understand, that's one of the major concerns with microplastics.
keep_reading 3y ago
Nanoplastics can disrupt human liver, lung cells’ processes in lab experiments https://www.acs.org/pressroom/newsreleases/2022/september/nanoplastics-can-disrupt-human-liver-lung-cells-processes-in-lab-experiments.html https://www.acs.org/pressroom/newsreleases/2022/september/na...
- londons_explore 3y ago
  I'd like them to compare to tiny particles of eg. Silt/sand and see if plastics are worse. Otherwise the headline might as well just be 'small things are bad for your health'.
  - otteromkram 3y ago
    ...if ingested, injected, or inhaled. I can roll around in sand all day long, but that won't cause liver failure. I hope.
ethanbond 3y ago
Hard to ascertain harm because it’s endemic Increasingly endemic because it’s hard to ascertain harm Thankfully, we have hope, which is far, far better than overly cautious regulation.
- automatic6131 3y ago
  >Hard to ascertain harm because it’s endemic Increasingly endemic because it’s hard to ascertain harm I mean, given we've shrouded almost every consumable item in them, for approximately 40 years (maybe more!) we can be whatever harm they do is minor. Like, it's not carcinogenic. It's far below, say, asbestos. Or arsenic. Or thalidomide. We can be extremely confident, whatever the effects of micro and nano plastics, they're not even close to those levels of danger
  - simmerup 3y ago
    Considering the massive increase in obesity, diabetes cancer, metabolic disorder over the last 40 years… Maybe this isn’t the best defence?
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Your argument might have made sense if excess consumption of carbohydrate, saturated fat, and other nutrition deficient foods did not skyrocket over the same time frame.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - simmerup 3y ago
        No one knows what’s causing these problems. There’s lots of hypotheses. My main point is that the fact that they’ve been in our life’s for a long period does not imply they’re safe
    - Deprecate9151 3y ago
      This is a big part of the struggle with in vitro vs in vivo studies. We can have a repeatable result with in vitro effects, but can't confidently say what the macro effect will be. We might be able to say it doesn't "directly" cause none, some, or all of those, but we can't definitively say it doesn't contribute at all. Personally I'm of the opinion that is evidence large scale studies are needed on live subjects. I'm not educated enough to know if that is feasible or reasonable, but I am confident you can't be "sure" until that is done.
eggy 3y ago
And so are rice, broccoli, beer, wine, and brussels sprouts due to their absorption of arsenic from pesticides, mining, and other causes. The Chinese don't seem to be too concerned with it, even though it is well known. Hey but eat meat and eggs! ALA helps to detoxify it. Not getting into the fear list on meat ;) https://www.utoledo.edu/nsm/ic/elements/arsenic.html https://www.utoledo.edu/nsm/ic/elements/arsenic.html
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
zamalek 3y ago
Plastics are basically all endocrine disrupting chemicals (your body confuses them for hormones, usually estrogen). Even nylon has been shown to be a EDC. BPA was by far the worst of them and wound up diffusing public concern, getting the rest completely off the hook.
schiffern 3y ago
>plastic is relatively inert That's not the whole story. Plastic is a chemical 'sponge' that soaks up contaminants from the environment (eg heavy metals, brominated flame retardants, pesticides, etc), concentrating them to many times background levels before delivering them into your body. For example household dust (which is >50% microplastics) is the primary route for brominated flame retardants to enter the human body. And that's not even to mention intentional additives (phthalates, Bisphenol-*, BFRs again), which are far from inert. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1352-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1352-0 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/460110 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/460110 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220216112233.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220216112233.h...
lm28469 3y ago
idk if being inert is enough, asbestos is inert

by gattis 3y ago

wait, we skipped the part where we found out microplastics were bad for you. concerning, yes, but plastic is relatively inert and there's no actual evidence of harm yet.

gsk22 3y ago

Plastic is biologically inert, but the plasticizers added to modify the qualities of plastics may not be. From what I understand, that's one of the major concerns with microplastics.

keep_reading 3y ago

Nanoplastics can disrupt human liver, lung cells’ processes in lab experiments https://www.acs.org/pressroom/newsreleases/2022/september/nanoplastics-can-disrupt-human-liver-lung-cells-processes-in-lab-experiments.html https://www.acs.org/pressroom/newsreleases/2022/september/na...

londons_explore 3y ago
I'd like them to compare to tiny particles of eg. Silt/sand and see if plastics are worse. Otherwise the headline might as well just be 'small things are bad for your health'.
- otteromkram 3y ago
  ...if ingested, injected, or inhaled. I can roll around in sand all day long, but that won't cause liver failure. I hope.

ethanbond 3y ago

Hard to ascertain harm because it’s endemic Increasingly endemic because it’s hard to ascertain harm Thankfully, we have hope, which is far, far better than overly cautious regulation.

automatic6131 3y ago
>Hard to ascertain harm because it’s endemic Increasingly endemic because it’s hard to ascertain harm I mean, given we've shrouded almost every consumable item in them, for approximately 40 years (maybe more!) we can be whatever harm they do is minor. Like, it's not carcinogenic. It's far below, say, asbestos. Or arsenic. Or thalidomide. We can be extremely confident, whatever the effects of micro and nano plastics, they're not even close to those levels of danger
- simmerup 3y ago
  Considering the massive increase in obesity, diabetes cancer, metabolic disorder over the last 40 years… Maybe this isn’t the best defence?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Your argument might have made sense if excess consumption of carbohydrate, saturated fat, and other nutrition deficient foods did not skyrocket over the same time frame.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - simmerup 3y ago
      No one knows what’s causing these problems. There’s lots of hypotheses. My main point is that the fact that they’ve been in our life’s for a long period does not imply they’re safe
  - Deprecate9151 3y ago
    This is a big part of the struggle with in vitro vs in vivo studies. We can have a repeatable result with in vitro effects, but can't confidently say what the macro effect will be. We might be able to say it doesn't "directly" cause none, some, or all of those, but we can't definitively say it doesn't contribute at all. Personally I'm of the opinion that is evidence large scale studies are needed on live subjects. I'm not educated enough to know if that is feasible or reasonable, but I am confident you can't be "sure" until that is done.

eggy 3y ago

And so are rice, broccoli, beer, wine, and brussels sprouts due to their absorption of arsenic from pesticides, mining, and other causes. The Chinese don't seem to be too concerned with it, even though it is well known. Hey but eat meat and eggs! ALA helps to detoxify it. Not getting into the fear list on meat ;) https://www.utoledo.edu/nsm/ic/elements/arsenic.html https://www.utoledo.edu/nsm/ic/elements/arsenic.html

AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]

zamalek 3y ago

Plastics are basically all endocrine disrupting chemicals (your body confuses them for hormones, usually estrogen). Even nylon has been shown to be a EDC. BPA was by far the worst of them and wound up diffusing public concern, getting the rest completely off the hook.

schiffern 3y ago

>plastic is relatively inert That's not the whole story. Plastic is a chemical 'sponge' that soaks up contaminants from the environment (eg heavy metals, brominated flame retardants, pesticides, etc), concentrating them to many times background levels before delivering them into your body. For example household dust (which is >50% microplastics) is the primary route for brominated flame retardants to enter the human body. And that's not even to mention intentional additives (phthalates, Bisphenol-*, BFRs again), which are far from inert. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1352-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1352-0 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/460110 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/460110 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220216112233.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220216112233.h...

lm28469 3y ago

idk if being inert is enough, asbestos is inert