4 ms·

We’ve really screwed the pooch on this one. How many cancers, chronic diseases, birth defects, are a result of our mass pollution of this once pristine oasis of

We’ve really screwed the pooch on this one. How many cancers, chronic diseases, birth defects, are a result of our mass pollution of this once pristine oasis of life, the only one we have?

emeril 2y ago
Maybe so, but think of the shareholders!!!
- Aurornis 2y ago
  Blaming shareholders is an easy cop out, but most people’s appetite for cheap plastic things is insatiable. It’s not like corporations are taking plastics out into the wilderness just for fun.
  - jtdev 2y ago
    [dead]
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Indeed. Which is why we need collective action to overcome the power corporations have over an uneducated and apathetic population. A population they oversee through regulatory capture, advertising, curated studies, and (increasingly legalized) bribery of government officials.
    - tirant 2y ago
      Are the microplastics found in the environment coming from corporations production residues or from people’s consumption residues ? I would say a relevant part of them comes from individuals. If you believe the issue is important enough, then raising awareness is the right direction so they take healthier choices. However most of the worlds population lives in developing countries, and microplastics are very low in their list of priorities, their top priority is actually making to the end of the month with enough food, shelter and some medical care or even education for them or their kids. Blaming everything on greedy corporations is a very superficial analysis.
      - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        Individuals don’t make the plastic. It may come from post consumer waste, but it is manufactured by the corporations. Individual action is unlikely to make a dent in this issue.
    - emeril 2y ago
      Agreed though I see the current situation as just yet another result of the inherent flaws in human reasoning where some significant percentage of the population can't reason sufficiently well to make reasonably optimal choices (e.g., conservative science denialism). This is why we, as a population, won't agree to curb CO2 sufficiently to address climate change but instead will simply adjust and, maybe eventually, accept geoengineering based approaches. That said, the next 10 years will be telling in how conservatives react to much higher home owner's insurance premiums...
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  Countries where micro plastics are more prevalent are ones where shareholders are less powerful (e.g. China). https://www.newsweek.com/microplastic-map-reveals-countries-consuming-most-1915439 https://www.newsweek.com/microplastic-map-reveals-countries-... > When it comes to microplastic inhalation, Mongolia and China came in joint first place, with citizens of both countries inhaling more than 2.8 million microplastic particles a month. The United Kingdom came in third place, in joint place with Ireland, inhaling 791,500 particles per month. By comparison, the U.S. came in near the bottom of this list, in position 104 out of the 109 countries assessed, with only 10,500 microplastic particles inhaled per month. Which country has the biggest stock market? US https://www.statista.com/statistics/710680/global-stock-markets-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/710680/global-stock-mark... Which country comes near last in inhalable microplastics: US So you should be thanking shareholders if you live in the US (most are probably voters too!).
  - dudisubekti 2y ago
    I think China is special case because they’re the world’s factory. They produce for several countries’ shareholders, including their own.
    - drekipus 2y ago
      They're special case because they don't care about environmental protection unless there's a photo-op and headline that the government can use to look good.
      - dudisubekti 2y ago
        Then what are you waiting for? Ask your representatives today to ban all goods using China’s supply chain, and start producing all your country’s needs in your own soil. Then measure the inhalable microplastics stats, that way we can know for sure if your country’s “environmental protection” is viable or just an excuse to offload dirty work to developing countries.
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
hammock 2y ago
I’m wondering the same thing. What is the evidence they Microplastics are harmful?
- kragen 2y ago
  > The extent to which microplastics cause harm or toxicity is unclear, although recent studies associated MNP [micro- and nanoplastic] presence in carotid atheromas with increased inflammation and risk of future adverse cardiovascular events²⁻³. In controlled exposure studies, MNPs clearly enhance or drive toxic outcomes⁴⁻⁶. The mantra of the field of toxicology – “dose makes the poison” (Paracelsus) – renders such discoveries as easily anticipated; what is not clearly understood is the internal dose in humans.
  - hammock 2y ago
    In plain English? And is correlation causation or no?
    - Rhapso 2y ago
      In plain English: There exists a dosage that causes problems, we don't know what it is. If this trend continues, we will most likely find out what it is the painful way.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jfoutz 2y ago
      I'll take a stab at it, but I'm not a doctor or a biologist. Cyanide will kill you. Almonds have trace amounts of cyanide. You can eat almonds till you get sick, but that tiny amount of cyanide won't kill you. The dose makes the poison. On the other hand, those fancy car-fentanyl, if a flake touches your skin, you'll od and die. It's super super toxic. One flake of microplastics in your body isn't going to do anything. Now, > although recent studies associated MNP [micro- and nanoplastic] presence in carotid atheromas with increased inflammation and risk of future adverse cardiovascular events It's not like every muscle fires on every heartbeat. They try, but some are old or dead. There are a lot of them, all working together. And they're constantly repairing or regrowing new muscle cells. How does the heart shed microplastic? Can it? How much till the immune system kicks in and starts causing inflammation? Inflammation is generally good, but super dangerous in the heart. Too much inflammation, and well, it stops firing correctly. > what is not clearly understood is the internal dose in humans. How much microplastic is too much? nobody knows. Seems like, you get too much, and repair systems start kicking in. The repair systems can't actually fix anything, but make you weak/sick, and you're generally worse off. When some other thing shocks the system, your body is already in panic mode, so the "normal" response of panicking doesn't change anything. Odds are, you just die.
ssnistfajen 2y ago
If microplastics are directly causing illnesses and birth defects then we would've found out already. Past cases of mass illness caused by pollutants (lead gasoline, asbestos, minamata disease, thalidomide, chimney sweep's carcinoma, etc.) were uncovered quickly and usually addressed not long after. The fact we still can't pinpoint exactly how microplastics are harming us beyond that they are in places where they are not supposed to be, The one reassuring thing about this whole ordeal is plastics are largely inert, that's why they take forever to degrade.
- chemicalnovae 2y ago
  I didn't go and look up the others but this argument by similarity, at least when applied to asbestos says the exact opposite to the claim you're trying to make. It's generally considered that industry/government was aware of the issues relating to asbestos in the '30s (and _started_ doing things about it then) but it wasn't until the 70's/80's (depending on the country) that its use was mostly stopped (and in places like Australia it wasn't outright banned until 2003).
  - ssnistfajen 2y ago
    And? That span is within an individual's lifetime, which is not very long in the context of human history. As of now there's zero sign any entity with regulatory power is doing anything about microplastics. Also, why are you trying to deliver a point without looking up most of the examples I've listed? Do you expect that to be a convincing argument?
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Each of us only gets one life. If most of that time is spent being unnecessarily exposed to pollutants with adverse health effects, then we have good reason to be outraged. Consider also that some pollutants accumulate in the food chain, impacting future generations, for an indefinite time. Such as mercury in seafood.
      - 2y ago
dukeofdoom 2y ago
The world retarded backwards socially in the last decade, standard of living declined, lowered testosterone levels, lower sperm counts, lower fertility rates, and perhaps lower IQ. I suspected mass induced psychosis around Covid times. Now I suspect all the plastic people are consuming.
roenxi 2y ago
Nature killed more people when the oasis was pristine. Life pre-plastic was shorter, more brutish and a lot less comfortable.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  We can get rid of plastics without throwing out every medical and QoL invention...
- bamboozled 2y ago
  This comment won't age well if we keep polluting the environment the way we are. Plastics will continue to grow as a problem if we keep using them at the scale we do.

We’ve really screwed the pooch on this one. How many cancers, chronic diseases, birth defects, are a result of our mass pollution of this once pristine oasis of life, the only one we have?

emeril 2y ago

Maybe so, but think of the shareholders!!!

Aurornis 2y ago
Blaming shareholders is an easy cop out, but most people’s appetite for cheap plastic things is insatiable. It’s not like corporations are taking plastics out into the wilderness just for fun.
- jtdev 2y ago
  [dead]
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Indeed. Which is why we need collective action to overcome the power corporations have over an uneducated and apathetic population. A population they oversee through regulatory capture, advertising, curated studies, and (increasingly legalized) bribery of government officials.
  - tirant 2y ago
    Are the microplastics found in the environment coming from corporations production residues or from people’s consumption residues ? I would say a relevant part of them comes from individuals. If you believe the issue is important enough, then raising awareness is the right direction so they take healthier choices. However most of the worlds population lives in developing countries, and microplastics are very low in their list of priorities, their top priority is actually making to the end of the month with enough food, shelter and some medical care or even education for them or their kids. Blaming everything on greedy corporations is a very superficial analysis.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      Individuals don’t make the plastic. It may come from post consumer waste, but it is manufactured by the corporations. Individual action is unlikely to make a dent in this issue.
  - emeril 2y ago
    Agreed though I see the current situation as just yet another result of the inherent flaws in human reasoning where some significant percentage of the population can't reason sufficiently well to make reasonably optimal choices (e.g., conservative science denialism). This is why we, as a population, won't agree to curb CO2 sufficiently to address climate change but instead will simply adjust and, maybe eventually, accept geoengineering based approaches. That said, the next 10 years will be telling in how conservatives react to much higher home owner's insurance premiums...
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
Countries where micro plastics are more prevalent are ones where shareholders are less powerful (e.g. China). https://www.newsweek.com/microplastic-map-reveals-countries-consuming-most-1915439 https://www.newsweek.com/microplastic-map-reveals-countries-... > When it comes to microplastic inhalation, Mongolia and China came in joint first place, with citizens of both countries inhaling more than 2.8 million microplastic particles a month. The United Kingdom came in third place, in joint place with Ireland, inhaling 791,500 particles per month. By comparison, the U.S. came in near the bottom of this list, in position 104 out of the 109 countries assessed, with only 10,500 microplastic particles inhaled per month. Which country has the biggest stock market? US https://www.statista.com/statistics/710680/global-stock-markets-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/710680/global-stock-mark... Which country comes near last in inhalable microplastics: US So you should be thanking shareholders if you live in the US (most are probably voters too!).
- dudisubekti 2y ago
  I think China is special case because they’re the world’s factory. They produce for several countries’ shareholders, including their own.
  - drekipus 2y ago
    They're special case because they don't care about environmental protection unless there's a photo-op and headline that the government can use to look good.
    - dudisubekti 2y ago
      Then what are you waiting for? Ask your representatives today to ban all goods using China’s supply chain, and start producing all your country’s needs in your own soil. Then measure the inhalable microplastics stats, that way we can know for sure if your country’s “environmental protection” is viable or just an excuse to offload dirty work to developing countries.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago

hammock 2y ago

I’m wondering the same thing. What is the evidence they Microplastics are harmful?

kragen 2y ago
> The extent to which microplastics cause harm or toxicity is unclear, although recent studies associated MNP [micro- and nanoplastic] presence in carotid atheromas with increased inflammation and risk of future adverse cardiovascular events²⁻³. In controlled exposure studies, MNPs clearly enhance or drive toxic outcomes⁴⁻⁶. The mantra of the field of toxicology – “dose makes the poison” (Paracelsus) – renders such discoveries as easily anticipated; what is not clearly understood is the internal dose in humans.
- hammock 2y ago
  In plain English? And is correlation causation or no?
  - Rhapso 2y ago
    In plain English: There exists a dosage that causes problems, we don't know what it is. If this trend continues, we will most likely find out what it is the painful way.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jfoutz 2y ago
    I'll take a stab at it, but I'm not a doctor or a biologist. Cyanide will kill you. Almonds have trace amounts of cyanide. You can eat almonds till you get sick, but that tiny amount of cyanide won't kill you. The dose makes the poison. On the other hand, those fancy car-fentanyl, if a flake touches your skin, you'll od and die. It's super super toxic. One flake of microplastics in your body isn't going to do anything. Now, > although recent studies associated MNP [micro- and nanoplastic] presence in carotid atheromas with increased inflammation and risk of future adverse cardiovascular events It's not like every muscle fires on every heartbeat. They try, but some are old or dead. There are a lot of them, all working together. And they're constantly repairing or regrowing new muscle cells. How does the heart shed microplastic? Can it? How much till the immune system kicks in and starts causing inflammation? Inflammation is generally good, but super dangerous in the heart. Too much inflammation, and well, it stops firing correctly. > what is not clearly understood is the internal dose in humans. How much microplastic is too much? nobody knows. Seems like, you get too much, and repair systems start kicking in. The repair systems can't actually fix anything, but make you weak/sick, and you're generally worse off. When some other thing shocks the system, your body is already in panic mode, so the "normal" response of panicking doesn't change anything. Odds are, you just die.

ssnistfajen 2y ago

If microplastics are directly causing illnesses and birth defects then we would've found out already. Past cases of mass illness caused by pollutants (lead gasoline, asbestos, minamata disease, thalidomide, chimney sweep's carcinoma, etc.) were uncovered quickly and usually addressed not long after. The fact we still can't pinpoint exactly how microplastics are harming us beyond that they are in places where they are not supposed to be, The one reassuring thing about this whole ordeal is plastics are largely inert, that's why they take forever to degrade.

chemicalnovae 2y ago
I didn't go and look up the others but this argument by similarity, at least when applied to asbestos says the exact opposite to the claim you're trying to make. It's generally considered that industry/government was aware of the issues relating to asbestos in the '30s (and _started_ doing things about it then) but it wasn't until the 70's/80's (depending on the country) that its use was mostly stopped (and in places like Australia it wasn't outright banned until 2003).
- ssnistfajen 2y ago
  And? That span is within an individual's lifetime, which is not very long in the context of human history. As of now there's zero sign any entity with regulatory power is doing anything about microplastics. Also, why are you trying to deliver a point without looking up most of the examples I've listed? Do you expect that to be a convincing argument?
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Each of us only gets one life. If most of that time is spent being unnecessarily exposed to pollutants with adverse health effects, then we have good reason to be outraged. Consider also that some pollutants accumulate in the food chain, impacting future generations, for an indefinite time. Such as mercury in seafood.
    - 2y ago

dukeofdoom 2y ago

The world retarded backwards socially in the last decade, standard of living declined, lowered testosterone levels, lower sperm counts, lower fertility rates, and perhaps lower IQ. I suspected mass induced psychosis around Covid times. Now I suspect all the plastic people are consuming.

roenxi 2y ago

Nature killed more people when the oasis was pristine. Life pre-plastic was shorter, more brutish and a lot less comfortable.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
We can get rid of plastics without throwing out every medical and QoL invention...
bamboozled 2y ago
This comment won't age well if we keep polluting the environment the way we are. Plastics will continue to grow as a problem if we keep using them at the scale we do.