5 ms·

Missing from this answer is the early evidence that they may be _very_ harmful. Early evidence suggests they are not non-reactive. They disrupt many of the bod

Missing from this answer is the early evidence that they may be _very_ harmful. Early evidence suggests they are not non-reactive. They disrupt many of the body's systems in ways we're only beginning to understand. > Various examples of damage caused by microplastics have been reported, such as microplastic accumulation in the bodies of marine and aquatic organisms (leading to malnutrition), inflammation, reduced fertility, and mortality. The threats that microplastics present to the human body have not yet been clearly identified. However, previous reports have shown that ultrafine microplastic absorption resulted in complex toxicity in zebrafish,2 and that microplastics under 100 nm in size can reach almost all organs after entering the human body.3 Therefore, concerns exist regarding the negative effects of continuous microplastic accumulation in the human body. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10151227/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10151227/ > Microplastics have been found in a variety of organisms and multiple parts of the human body. We emphasize the potential impact of microplastics on the early exposure of infants and the early development of embryos. At present, the toxicity research on microplastics show that the exposure will cause intestinal injury, liver infection, flora imbalance, lipid accumulation, and then lead to metabolic disorder. In addition, the microplastic exposure increases the expression of inflammatory factors, inhibits the activity of acetylcholinesterase, reduces the quality of germ cells, and affects embryo development. At last, we speculate that the exposure of microplastics may be related to the formation of various chronic diseases. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/envhealth.3c00052 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/envhealth.3c00052

stevenAthompson 2y ago
[flagged]
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  But fertility dropped. May be a contributing factor.
- hansvm 2y ago
  Or not bad enough to overcome other benefits that came out around the same time.
- thoroughburro 2y ago
  “Accumulation” is a keyword you might want to examine.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  This argument makes no sense, life expectancy increased a lot after the invention of leaded gasoline†, yet nobody would say it's harmless. [†]: Works as well for high fructose corn syrup or Fentanyl.
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    I'm not saying it's harmless, I'm saying that even if it is harmful it's not by enough to justify the panic and sudden lifestyle changes these articles sometimes lead to. Remember the black spatulas a while back, and how it turned out to be a math error?
    - wonnage 2y ago
      Is scooping out your food out of the crappy plastic takeout container into a bowl before microwaving an example of “panic and sudden lifestyle changes”? Seems like a pretty minor change to me. I’m already going out of my way to not put metal in there anyway…
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > I'm not saying it's harmless, I'm saying that even if it is harmful it's not by enough to Overcome the effect of antibiotics and vaccines that's just what it shows, and that's really not surprising > Remember the black spatulas a while back, and how it turned out to be a math error? The math spatula being an ill-founded crusade from a line researcher doesn't mean you can make nonsensical argument to say it's not harmful…
      - stevenAthompson 2y ago
        Again, I did not say it is harmless. Humans existed. They had an average life expectency of 'x'. Then we introduced plastic. The life expectency became x+y. We cannot say that plastic caused the increase, but it is clear that any decrease was small enough to be hidden by other factors. Am I saying that it's harmless? No. Am I saying that your effort and attention are better spent checking your fire extinguishers arent expired or that your brake pads don't need changed? Yes. Those things have significant and obvious impacts on your survival odds. This does not.
- stackghost 2y ago
  That's overly simplistic. The negative health effects might be lagging, because when plastic was invented there were zero micro plastics in the environment and now there are lots. To wit, life expectancies in North America have been declining the last few years.
  - exe34 2y ago
    > life expectancies in North America have been declining the last few years. I'm sure that has nothing to do with predatory health insurance companies.
    - stackghost 2y ago
      Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't but the fact remains it's overly simplistic to assume that plastic production doesn't temporally lead changes in health effects by some amount. To suggest otherwise is clueless and asinine.
      - exe34 2y ago
        does the US consume a lot more plastic than elsewhere?
        stackghost 2y ago
        Probably. But frankly I don't care, because that's irrelevant. Plastic pollution is global.
        exe34 2y ago
        in which case it doesn't explain why America specifically has a lowered life expectancy.
        stackghost 2y ago
        It's almost like life expectancies cannot be explained by a single variable, and the original claim that life expectancies went up thus plastics aren't bad is overly simplistic. Imagine that.
- homebrewer 2y ago
  I won't speak for the whole world, but the amount of plastic things around me increased by a couple orders of magnitude in the last 15-20 years. What used to be made of stainless steel, wood or paper is now often made of plastic: tea kettles, dishes, water pipes, food bags, etc. etc. We'll see what effects it has in another 15-20 years when it will be too late to do anything.
- cbdhsjshs 2y ago
  'Plastic' is a loaded term. It includes lots of different types of platic, as well as intentional (plasticizers) and unintentional (residue in recycled plastic) additives to it. Some of the formulations are fairly new, some have been in use for a long time. The amount of exposure has also changed. Some bakelite knobs on your armoir aren't a big deal. Sleeping with a 'fleece' blanket and inhaling polypropylene all night every night may not be fine. Personally, I don't have confidence in being able to be an informed consumer of plastics, and it's easier to just minimize platic use in general without trying to decide what's dangerous and what's ok.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Empact 2y ago
  Just because smoking and exercise made you visibly fitter, doesn’t mean you should disregard the consequences of smoking.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy. Actually, it's not even that as most of the modern increase in life expectancy / fall in mortality occurred before the invention of plastics. The former largely concluded by the 1920s. Plastics were largely invented during the 1930s, and were introduced as products over subsequent decades, at an ever-increasing rate. Which is to say: whatever lead to the increase in life expectancy was largely not plastics. Rather it was increased general hygiene, sanitation, food quality, refrigeration, waste removal, and sewerage systems. I'd mentioned this only a few months back, note especially my follow-up comment which similarly points out another frequently-touted factor which also fails the temporal sequencing test: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41020120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41020120>
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    I wasn't attributing the increase to plastic, I was noting the lack of sudden decrease.
brokegrammer 2y ago
> Almost all the studies on the toxicity of microplastics use experimental models, and the harm to the human body is still unclear. You missed this part, which is the most important one.
- lowbloodsugar 2y ago
  In what way is it the most important one? Was the most important part of all the tobacco research the bits that said “Smoking tobacco is healthy”? Or the studies of lead in gasoline the caveats that said “These are small samples”?
  - brokegrammer 2y ago
    It removes the possibility of fear mongering. I'm not aware of any modern research where smoking anything is claimed to be healthy, nor anything about lead in gasoline being too insignificant to pose a health risk. I prefer fact over fear based science.
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      > I prefer fact over fear based science What is that supposed to mean? Most science is based on theories but you don’t wait for the Theory of Everything to take learnings of science. Fear is a very useful emotion and you shouldn’t fear it.
      - Yizahi 2y ago
        You are mistaking "theories" and "hypotheses". Theory in science is not some wild shot in the dark, imagined by some random guy in the eureka moment. And neither it is a something yet unproven. Theories in sciences are usually sufficiently proven and stand on the other previously proven theories. Like for example evolution of species is a theory, despite it having more than a century of research and hard proofs. So yeah, science is based on theories, but not on a collection of lucky guesses. Now hypothesis is what you were probably mistaking a theory with. A hypothesis is something unproven and may or may not be a real thing.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

stevenAthompson 2y ago

[flagged]

inglor_cz 2y ago
But fertility dropped. May be a contributing factor.
hansvm 2y ago
Or not bad enough to overcome other benefits that came out around the same time.
thoroughburro 2y ago
“Accumulation” is a keyword you might want to examine.
littlestymaar 2y ago
This argument makes no sense, life expectancy increased a lot after the invention of leaded gasoline†, yet nobody would say it's harmless. [†]: Works as well for high fructose corn syrup or Fentanyl.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  I'm not saying it's harmless, I'm saying that even if it is harmful it's not by enough to justify the panic and sudden lifestyle changes these articles sometimes lead to. Remember the black spatulas a while back, and how it turned out to be a math error?
  - wonnage 2y ago
    Is scooping out your food out of the crappy plastic takeout container into a bowl before microwaving an example of “panic and sudden lifestyle changes”? Seems like a pretty minor change to me. I’m already going out of my way to not put metal in there anyway…
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > I'm not saying it's harmless, I'm saying that even if it is harmful it's not by enough to Overcome the effect of antibiotics and vaccines that's just what it shows, and that's really not surprising > Remember the black spatulas a while back, and how it turned out to be a math error? The math spatula being an ill-founded crusade from a line researcher doesn't mean you can make nonsensical argument to say it's not harmful…
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      Again, I did not say it is harmless. Humans existed. They had an average life expectency of 'x'. Then we introduced plastic. The life expectency became x+y. We cannot say that plastic caused the increase, but it is clear that any decrease was small enough to be hidden by other factors. Am I saying that it's harmless? No. Am I saying that your effort and attention are better spent checking your fire extinguishers arent expired or that your brake pads don't need changed? Yes. Those things have significant and obvious impacts on your survival odds. This does not.
stackghost 2y ago
That's overly simplistic. The negative health effects might be lagging, because when plastic was invented there were zero micro plastics in the environment and now there are lots. To wit, life expectancies in North America have been declining the last few years.
- exe34 2y ago
  > life expectancies in North America have been declining the last few years. I'm sure that has nothing to do with predatory health insurance companies.
  - stackghost 2y ago
    Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't but the fact remains it's overly simplistic to assume that plastic production doesn't temporally lead changes in health effects by some amount. To suggest otherwise is clueless and asinine.
    - exe34 2y ago
      does the US consume a lot more plastic than elsewhere?
      - stackghost 2y ago
        Probably. But frankly I don't care, because that's irrelevant. Plastic pollution is global.
        exe34 2y ago
        in which case it doesn't explain why America specifically has a lowered life expectancy.
        stackghost 2y ago
        It's almost like life expectancies cannot be explained by a single variable, and the original claim that life expectancies went up thus plastics aren't bad is overly simplistic. Imagine that.
homebrewer 2y ago
I won't speak for the whole world, but the amount of plastic things around me increased by a couple orders of magnitude in the last 15-20 years. What used to be made of stainless steel, wood or paper is now often made of plastic: tea kettles, dishes, water pipes, food bags, etc. etc. We'll see what effects it has in another 15-20 years when it will be too late to do anything.
cbdhsjshs 2y ago
'Plastic' is a loaded term. It includes lots of different types of platic, as well as intentional (plasticizers) and unintentional (residue in recycled plastic) additives to it. Some of the formulations are fairly new, some have been in use for a long time. The amount of exposure has also changed. Some bakelite knobs on your armoir aren't a big deal. Sleeping with a 'fleece' blanket and inhaling polypropylene all night every night may not be fine. Personally, I don't have confidence in being able to be an informed consumer of plastics, and it's easier to just minimize platic use in general without trying to decide what's dangerous and what's ok.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Empact 2y ago
Just because smoking and exercise made you visibly fitter, doesn’t mean you should disregard the consequences of smoking.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy. Actually, it's not even that as most of the modern increase in life expectancy / fall in mortality occurred before the invention of plastics. The former largely concluded by the 1920s. Plastics were largely invented during the 1930s, and were introduced as products over subsequent decades, at an ever-increasing rate. Which is to say: whatever lead to the increase in life expectancy was largely not plastics. Rather it was increased general hygiene, sanitation, food quality, refrigeration, waste removal, and sewerage systems. I'd mentioned this only a few months back, note especially my follow-up comment which similarly points out another frequently-touted factor which also fails the temporal sequencing test: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41020120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41020120>
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  I wasn't attributing the increase to plastic, I was noting the lack of sudden decrease.

brokegrammer 2y ago

> Almost all the studies on the toxicity of microplastics use experimental models, and the harm to the human body is still unclear. You missed this part, which is the most important one.

lowbloodsugar 2y ago
In what way is it the most important one? Was the most important part of all the tobacco research the bits that said “Smoking tobacco is healthy”? Or the studies of lead in gasoline the caveats that said “These are small samples”?
- brokegrammer 2y ago
  It removes the possibility of fear mongering. I'm not aware of any modern research where smoking anything is claimed to be healthy, nor anything about lead in gasoline being too insignificant to pose a health risk. I prefer fact over fear based science.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    > I prefer fact over fear based science What is that supposed to mean? Most science is based on theories but you don’t wait for the Theory of Everything to take learnings of science. Fear is a very useful emotion and you shouldn’t fear it.
    - Yizahi 2y ago
      You are mistaking "theories" and "hypotheses". Theory in science is not some wild shot in the dark, imagined by some random guy in the eureka moment. And neither it is a something yet unproven. Theories in sciences are usually sufficiently proven and stand on the other previously proven theories. Like for example evolution of species is a theory, despite it having more than a century of research and hard proofs. So yeah, science is based on theories, but not on a collection of lucky guesses. Now hypothesis is what you were probably mistaking a theory with. A hypothesis is something unproven and may or may not be a real thing.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]