6 ms·

I am fairly convinced that this comment section is among the best demonstrations for "isolated demands for rigor" I have personally ever seen, especially paired

by advael 2y ago

I am fairly convinced that this comment section is among the best demonstrations for "isolated demands for rigor" I have personally ever seen, especially paired with any comment section about an AI-related article When we are trying to predict the implications of unproven technologies on complex worldwide economies, there is talk of "obvious inevitability" When we express concerns that chemicals humanity recently started coating the entire planet with at an alarming rate seem to get really deep into every kind of living tissue and nearly everything else we've ever seen bioaccumulate like that has caused a lot of unforeseen issues that took a long time to suss out but most turn out to be at least somewhat harmful, there's all this "well we don't have longitudinal RCTs with enormous sample sizes showing the specific harms of every specific plastic published in prestigious journals yet so who knows really"

beowulfey 2y ago
It's a soft, warm blanket of denial, because the actual implications of it are too scary.
- whyenot 2y ago
  As humans, we seem to really like warm blankets. See: high school football and CTE
fnordpiglet 2y ago
My impression is people are generally alarmed but without any science of what the harms are it’s hard to understand what we need to do about the situation. The science is still very immature, and there are lot of other bad things (PFAs for example) that are likewise ubiquitous and permeate everything and everywhere that we have a pretty clear notion of their dangers. Even then it’s hard to assess how severe the harms are for microplastics yet. Part of the reason is they’re clearly not overtly dangerous. The way in which they are dangerous is very poorly understood, so what policy or regulatory actions could we take today? Ban plastics globally? “Plastic” is a very broad term for a specific mechanical characteristic of a material and includes lots of monomers and polymers, some of which we know are inert enough in life we use them for implants in human bodies already. Are those micro plastics dangerous? Who knows. Should be bans everything that has the characteristic of being “plastic?” That’s absurd. So while I might agree we need to “do something,” that something will need to be super subtle and targeted out of bare necessity.
- ramblenode 2y ago
  > Even then it’s hard to assess how severe the harms are for microplastics yet. Part of the reason is they’re clearly not overtly dangerous. This is a contradiction.
  - fnordpiglet 2y ago
    How so? Something can be unknown impact but known to not be overtly dangerous. Cyanide is overtly dangerous. You ingest it then you die. That’s overt. Some things take decades of research to identify their danger because their method of action is subtle and confounded that isn’t contradictory.
hombre_fatal 2y ago
Well, we've been exposed to microplastics for decades, but what does the evidence say? Afaict, not much. We don't need RCTs, nor do we rely on them to make causal inferences about long term exposures, nor would an RCT be possible with microplastics. But we need some converging lines of evidence before we go chicken little. What's the alternative?
- darby_nine 2y ago
  > Well, we've been exposed to microplastics for decades, but what does the evidence say? Afaict, not much. The revelation that you are likely to have microplastics suffused throughout your body seems far more meaningful than "not much". The effects of this are unknown, but it seems reasonable to be concerned about potential harm until it's effects are studied in vivo and it's statistically not more harmful than the utility we get out of it. That alone seems like decades of research. You don't need to throw up your hands and act like you can't hypothesize even if the answers are out of your reach.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    The fact that we can't pin down a strong effect on human health outcomes after decades of exposure should be a relief. We do have in vivo studies, but afaict they don't seem to pan out in human health outcomes.
    - darby_nine 2y ago
      > The fact that we can't pin down a strong effect on human health outcomes after decades of exposure should be a relief. I can't say this means much to me when exposure to plastic has been accelerating that entire time. Still, I do sincerely appreciate skepticism as a useful part of any dialogue about hypothesized health impacts. Personally, I don't see an issue with avoiding consumer-grade plastic except when necessary.
    - RIMR 2y ago
      It's not important how "relieved" you feel, it is important that we exercise scientific rigor when we notice something like this. I don't want scientists to look at the lack of evidence of harm, and just breathe a sigh of relief and carry on with other studies. I want scientists to see the overwhelming microplastic problem, and exhaustively study the risks, and harms, and the solutions. I see no benefit in hand waving away a potentially serious public health problem just because you aren't seeing any anecdotal evidence of harm.
Aurornis 2y ago
> I am fairly convinced that this comment section is among the best demonstrations for "isolated demands for rigor" I have personally ever seen, I’ve found HN and other comment sections to lean in the direction of assuming the worst about microplastics, historically. However, I think we’re all getting tired of the constant “sky is falling” tone around these studies that can’t demonstrate harms outside of extremely narrow and exaggerated lab circumstances. Meanwhile, the alternative medicine gurus have adopted microplastics as their excuse for nearly everything.
- kelipso 2y ago
  > Meanwhile, the alternative medicine gurus have adopted microplastics as their excuse for nearly everything. Used to be, you could ignore the alt types because you had to buy their magazines to know what they were thinking. Now apparently everyone needs to be aware of what they are thinking and make sure they have the exact opposite opinions of the alt types so they seem sane or whatever. You can just ignore the them you know, they are not in the room with you.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    5 years ago I didn't routinely have to have conversations with family members about why they should get vaccinated against deadly diseases. Now I do. They are absolutely in the room with us, and they're getting people killed.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      Destroying your critical thinking apparatus for the sake of a bunch of kooks is going a bit too far for me.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        My mum was a kook in this sense. Steve Jobs, too. Critical thinking includes knowing that such people exist and aren't that rare.
- 2y ago
space_oddity 2y ago
But why there is a contrast between how we treat emerging technologies versus environmental pollutants?

by advael 2y ago

beowulfey 2y ago

It's a soft, warm blanket of denial, because the actual implications of it are too scary.

whyenot 2y ago
As humans, we seem to really like warm blankets. See: high school football and CTE

fnordpiglet 2y ago

My impression is people are generally alarmed but without any science of what the harms are it’s hard to understand what we need to do about the situation. The science is still very immature, and there are lot of other bad things (PFAs for example) that are likewise ubiquitous and permeate everything and everywhere that we have a pretty clear notion of their dangers. Even then it’s hard to assess how severe the harms are for microplastics yet. Part of the reason is they’re clearly not overtly dangerous. The way in which they are dangerous is very poorly understood, so what policy or regulatory actions could we take today? Ban plastics globally? “Plastic” is a very broad term for a specific mechanical characteristic of a material and includes lots of monomers and polymers, some of which we know are inert enough in life we use them for implants in human bodies already. Are those micro plastics dangerous? Who knows. Should be bans everything that has the characteristic of being “plastic?” That’s absurd. So while I might agree we need to “do something,” that something will need to be super subtle and targeted out of bare necessity.

ramblenode 2y ago
> Even then it’s hard to assess how severe the harms are for microplastics yet. Part of the reason is they’re clearly not overtly dangerous. This is a contradiction.
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  How so? Something can be unknown impact but known to not be overtly dangerous. Cyanide is overtly dangerous. You ingest it then you die. That’s overt. Some things take decades of research to identify their danger because their method of action is subtle and confounded that isn’t contradictory.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

Well, we've been exposed to microplastics for decades, but what does the evidence say? Afaict, not much. We don't need RCTs, nor do we rely on them to make causal inferences about long term exposures, nor would an RCT be possible with microplastics. But we need some converging lines of evidence before we go chicken little. What's the alternative?

darby_nine 2y ago
> Well, we've been exposed to microplastics for decades, but what does the evidence say? Afaict, not much. The revelation that you are likely to have microplastics suffused throughout your body seems far more meaningful than "not much". The effects of this are unknown, but it seems reasonable to be concerned about potential harm until it's effects are studied in vivo and it's statistically not more harmful than the utility we get out of it. That alone seems like decades of research. You don't need to throw up your hands and act like you can't hypothesize even if the answers are out of your reach.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  The fact that we can't pin down a strong effect on human health outcomes after decades of exposure should be a relief. We do have in vivo studies, but afaict they don't seem to pan out in human health outcomes.
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    > The fact that we can't pin down a strong effect on human health outcomes after decades of exposure should be a relief. I can't say this means much to me when exposure to plastic has been accelerating that entire time. Still, I do sincerely appreciate skepticism as a useful part of any dialogue about hypothesized health impacts. Personally, I don't see an issue with avoiding consumer-grade plastic except when necessary.
  - RIMR 2y ago
    It's not important how "relieved" you feel, it is important that we exercise scientific rigor when we notice something like this. I don't want scientists to look at the lack of evidence of harm, and just breathe a sigh of relief and carry on with other studies. I want scientists to see the overwhelming microplastic problem, and exhaustively study the risks, and harms, and the solutions. I see no benefit in hand waving away a potentially serious public health problem just because you aren't seeing any anecdotal evidence of harm.

Aurornis 2y ago

> I am fairly convinced that this comment section is among the best demonstrations for "isolated demands for rigor" I have personally ever seen, I’ve found HN and other comment sections to lean in the direction of assuming the worst about microplastics, historically. However, I think we’re all getting tired of the constant “sky is falling” tone around these studies that can’t demonstrate harms outside of extremely narrow and exaggerated lab circumstances. Meanwhile, the alternative medicine gurus have adopted microplastics as their excuse for nearly everything.

kelipso 2y ago
> Meanwhile, the alternative medicine gurus have adopted microplastics as their excuse for nearly everything. Used to be, you could ignore the alt types because you had to buy their magazines to know what they were thinking. Now apparently everyone needs to be aware of what they are thinking and make sure they have the exact opposite opinions of the alt types so they seem sane or whatever. You can just ignore the them you know, they are not in the room with you.
- XorNot 2y ago
  5 years ago I didn't routinely have to have conversations with family members about why they should get vaccinated against deadly diseases. Now I do. They are absolutely in the room with us, and they're getting people killed.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    Destroying your critical thinking apparatus for the sake of a bunch of kooks is going a bit too far for me.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      My mum was a kook in this sense. Steve Jobs, too. Critical thinking includes knowing that such people exist and aren't that rare.
2y ago

space_oddity 2y ago

But why there is a contrast between how we treat emerging technologies versus environmental pollutants?