23 ms·

It’s frustrating how hard it is now to buy pure cotton or <gasp> wool, from a store. Even if it’s 3% synthetic it’s still not what I’m looking for.

mandmandam 2y ago
Yep. Specifically, why are 100% cotton socks so ridiculously hard to find now? It used to be that they were a little more expensive - now you need to go online to find them. 'Fun' fact - the average brain has about 7 grams of microplastic [0] in it now, up 50% from 2016. At that rate... SEVEN FUCKING GRAMS. Guys this is beyond stupid. Even if plastic were totally inert, as I've heard people insist with certainty (where are they getting these ideas!), 7 grams of plastic in your brain is terrifying. 0 - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-wellness/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-...
- layer8 2y ago
  > Even if plastic were totally inert […], 7 grams of plastic in your brain is terrifying. Why do you find that terrifying, if it’s inert? To the downvoters: This is a genuine question.
  - brnt 2y ago
    The simple answer is that it isn't supposed be there. The more interesting one is: how much would you say is too much? Would a kilo of microplastics towards the end of your life do it?
    - layer8 2y ago
      When it has adverse effects (and no benefits), then of course it’s too much. But GP seemed to be saying they find it terrifying even assuming no adverse effects, which I found curious. A huge number of people have implements in their bodies (in their teeth, most often), and much more than seven grams of “foreign stuff” in their stomach and intestines all the time, so that by itself doesn’t seem anything to be terrified of.
      - throwway120385 2y ago
        Would you be so blase if it were 7 grams of diesel exhaust or coal particulates instead?
      - klipt 2y ago
        > In Italy, researchers followed 312 patients who had fatty deposits, or plaques, removed from their carotid artery. Almost six in 10 had microplastics, and these people fared worse than those who did not: Over the next 34 months, they were 2.1 times as likely to experience a heart attack or stroke, or die. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/microplastics-brain-pollution-health https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/...
      - marmadukester39 2y ago
        it’s more the unknown effects. It’s not clear this stuff is actually inert.
      - brnt 2y ago
        Implements that you put there are different from those you don't put there. That doesn't seem very complicated, does it?
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        > But GP seemed to be saying they find it terrifying even assuming no adverse effects, which I found curious. It being in my brain is an adverse effect. Inert material in the brain is a problem itself. Do you want inert rocks in your car engine? Taking up space, interfering with natural processes, etc? The brain is incredibly complex; far, far, far beyond our current understanding. You don't want anything in there that isn't supposed to be, and plastic isn't fucking supposed to be there. And, did you miss the part where this is up 50% from only 8 years ago? ... Tbh I'm aghast that anyone needs this explained to them.
  - abeppu 2y ago
    Even if they're _chemically_ inert, physical accumulation of particles of foreign matter in your brain might be causing problems. When it gets inside of cells, is it in the way of any processes? When it's between cells, does it trigger scarring? Do the particles clog capillaries? And because the study referenced was only able to find these particles via autopsies, if microplastics in your brain were causing health issues for you, you probably would never find out or be able to mitigate.
  - beowulfey 2y ago
    Even things that are chemically inert can cause problems in our bodies. Silica is similarly chemically inert, but silicosis is a devastating disease.
  - timr 2y ago
    Also, don't worry, there's not actually 7 grams. The study that suggested that was ridiculously bad. When you extrapolate 100,000-fold from uncalibrated micro-scale experiments, you get insane results, but the typical internet reader doesn't get past the abstract of the paper and instantly activates panic mode, instead of questioning the insanity.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      "Don't panic, it might only be 3 and a half grams of plastic in your brain." The correct amount of brain plastic is 0 grams. Zero. This is a problem and it's very clearly getting worse. Why would I have to explain that to someone with a PHD in biology? So weird.
      - intelVISA 2y ago
        Hopefully it's not a result of the cerebral plastics..?
      - timr 2y ago
        Let's assume you're right, and there's 3.5 grams of plastic in your brain (there isn't, but let's run with it). You've been secretly living with this horrible condition for long enough for it to happen -- remember, this is happening a nanogram at a time, for years and years! This is not a fast process! Are you dead? No? Hm. Perhaps you ought to rethink your priors. I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong -- maybe the right answer really is that "0 is the right number". But maybe the answer is that it doesn't matter that much, and you're exaggerating the impact. More to the point, when you simply leap to the most exaggerated conclusion from a bad paper with sketchy methodology, you're not doing science, or being data-driven -- you're just panicking.
        carimura 2y ago
        Panic, no. Take seriously, yes! There are at least a dozen common health problems that we still can't explain.
        mandmandam 2y ago
  - lo_zamoyski 2y ago
    Because chemical effects are not the only undesirable effects something can have. E.g., mechanical, electrical. In any case, in one study [0], "researchers looked at 12 brain samples from people who had died with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. These brains contained up to 10 times more plastic by weight than healthy samples." Another [1] found "nanoplastics accelerate the aggregation of β-amyloid peptides" and that they exacerbate "the neurotoxicity induced by low-concentration peptides". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/microplastics-brain-pollution-health https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389424000979 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...
- roncesvalles 2y ago
  >Specifically, why are 100% cotton socks so ridiculously hard to find now? My theory is that it's because of Amazon reviews. For most socks on Amazon, there will be at least one reviewer posting pictures of how their socks got holes after a few days of wearing. These reviewers are ridiculous and seem to have sandpaper for flooring, sweat corrosive acid, or deliberately wear down these socks just to post the review. I've bought many different socks from Amazon and none of them get holes even after years of wearing them. Anyway, I think that seems to have spooked socks manufacturers.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  I wonder if anyone's done a study for similar-but-natural compounds... Does lignin accumulate? Could we find a whole bunch of it in the brains of carpenters?

mandmandam 2y ago

Yep. Specifically, why are 100% cotton socks so ridiculously hard to find now? It used to be that they were a little more expensive - now you need to go online to find them. 'Fun' fact - the average brain has about 7 grams of microplastic [0] in it now, up 50% from 2016. At that rate... SEVEN FUCKING GRAMS. Guys this is beyond stupid. Even if plastic were totally inert, as I've heard people insist with certainty (where are they getting these ideas!), 7 grams of plastic in your brain is terrifying. 0 - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-wellness/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-...

layer8 2y ago
> Even if plastic were totally inert […], 7 grams of plastic in your brain is terrifying. Why do you find that terrifying, if it’s inert? To the downvoters: This is a genuine question.
- brnt 2y ago
  The simple answer is that it isn't supposed be there. The more interesting one is: how much would you say is too much? Would a kilo of microplastics towards the end of your life do it?
  - layer8 2y ago
    When it has adverse effects (and no benefits), then of course it’s too much. But GP seemed to be saying they find it terrifying even assuming no adverse effects, which I found curious. A huge number of people have implements in their bodies (in their teeth, most often), and much more than seven grams of “foreign stuff” in their stomach and intestines all the time, so that by itself doesn’t seem anything to be terrified of.
    - throwway120385 2y ago
      Would you be so blase if it were 7 grams of diesel exhaust or coal particulates instead?
    - klipt 2y ago
      > In Italy, researchers followed 312 patients who had fatty deposits, or plaques, removed from their carotid artery. Almost six in 10 had microplastics, and these people fared worse than those who did not: Over the next 34 months, they were 2.1 times as likely to experience a heart attack or stroke, or die. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/microplastics-brain-pollution-health https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/...
    - marmadukester39 2y ago
      it’s more the unknown effects. It’s not clear this stuff is actually inert.
    - brnt 2y ago
      Implements that you put there are different from those you don't put there. That doesn't seem very complicated, does it?
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > But GP seemed to be saying they find it terrifying even assuming no adverse effects, which I found curious. It being in my brain is an adverse effect. Inert material in the brain is a problem itself. Do you want inert rocks in your car engine? Taking up space, interfering with natural processes, etc? The brain is incredibly complex; far, far, far beyond our current understanding. You don't want anything in there that isn't supposed to be, and plastic isn't fucking supposed to be there. And, did you miss the part where this is up 50% from only 8 years ago? ... Tbh I'm aghast that anyone needs this explained to them.
- abeppu 2y ago
  Even if they're _chemically_ inert, physical accumulation of particles of foreign matter in your brain might be causing problems. When it gets inside of cells, is it in the way of any processes? When it's between cells, does it trigger scarring? Do the particles clog capillaries? And because the study referenced was only able to find these particles via autopsies, if microplastics in your brain were causing health issues for you, you probably would never find out or be able to mitigate.
- beowulfey 2y ago
  Even things that are chemically inert can cause problems in our bodies. Silica is similarly chemically inert, but silicosis is a devastating disease.
- timr 2y ago
  Also, don't worry, there's not actually 7 grams. The study that suggested that was ridiculously bad. When you extrapolate 100,000-fold from uncalibrated micro-scale experiments, you get insane results, but the typical internet reader doesn't get past the abstract of the paper and instantly activates panic mode, instead of questioning the insanity.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    "Don't panic, it might only be 3 and a half grams of plastic in your brain." The correct amount of brain plastic is 0 grams. Zero. This is a problem and it's very clearly getting worse. Why would I have to explain that to someone with a PHD in biology? So weird.
    - intelVISA 2y ago
      Hopefully it's not a result of the cerebral plastics..?
    - timr 2y ago
      Let's assume you're right, and there's 3.5 grams of plastic in your brain (there isn't, but let's run with it). You've been secretly living with this horrible condition for long enough for it to happen -- remember, this is happening a nanogram at a time, for years and years! This is not a fast process! Are you dead? No? Hm. Perhaps you ought to rethink your priors. I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong -- maybe the right answer really is that "0 is the right number". But maybe the answer is that it doesn't matter that much, and you're exaggerating the impact. More to the point, when you simply leap to the most exaggerated conclusion from a bad paper with sketchy methodology, you're not doing science, or being data-driven -- you're just panicking.
      - carimura 2y ago
        Panic, no. Take seriously, yes! There are at least a dozen common health problems that we still can't explain.
      - mandmandam 2y ago
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  Because chemical effects are not the only undesirable effects something can have. E.g., mechanical, electrical. In any case, in one study [0], "researchers looked at 12 brain samples from people who had died with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. These brains contained up to 10 times more plastic by weight than healthy samples." Another [1] found "nanoplastics accelerate the aggregation of β-amyloid peptides" and that they exacerbate "the neurotoxicity induced by low-concentration peptides". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/microplastics-brain-pollution-health https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389424000979 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...
roncesvalles 2y ago
>Specifically, why are 100% cotton socks so ridiculously hard to find now? My theory is that it's because of Amazon reviews. For most socks on Amazon, there will be at least one reviewer posting pictures of how their socks got holes after a few days of wearing. These reviewers are ridiculous and seem to have sandpaper for flooring, sweat corrosive acid, or deliberately wear down these socks just to post the review. I've bought many different socks from Amazon and none of them get holes even after years of wearing them. Anyway, I think that seems to have spooked socks manufacturers.
Terr_ 2y ago
I wonder if anyone's done a study for similar-but-natural compounds... Does lignin accumulate? Could we find a whole bunch of it in the brains of carpenters?