3 ms·
The fact that they have always been around suggest that there is no change to us as a result of their introduction. Plastics, however, have not always been aro
by drawkward 2y ago
The fact that they have always been around suggest that there is no change to us as a result of their introduction. Plastics, however, have not always been around...
- 1970-01-01 2y agoMechanically, how could this make any difference whatsoever?
- drawkward 2y agodo you want to increase your risk of having a stroke (which is what the study suggests is happening with microplastics), or keep that risk level where it is? put another way: would you go out and smoke cigarettes and expect no additional harm, because you are already exposed to environmental pollutants?
- 1970-01-01 2y agoMy question was about mechanics of microplastics being different than other materials such as wood or other inorganics.
- drawkward 2y agohow is that relevant to the discussion of the introduction of plastics? wood is not a new material; we are not discussing a rationale for questioning the manufacture of wood.
- 1970-01-01 2y agoRewind up to the original comment.
- pulvinar 2y agoThe question is are microplastics doing anything different in this case. The study shows that microplastics may block. It doesn't show that micro-natural-substances may not also block. I'd like to see more actual science, and less fear mongering.
- drawkward 2y agoI understand your claim; so we have lived forever with a baseline stroke risk (maybe zero) that is attributable to these microparticles. The addition of plastics, because they may block, will not certainly lower our baseline risk, and may (as this evidence suggests) increase it.
- butchkass 2y agoI’d argue that’s just shifting the burden of proof. I’d like corporations to prove that something isn’t dangerous before they put it in the food I eat. Besides, if other microparticles are dangerous, I’d rather not have even more of those, especially ones that haven’t been through thousands of years of human evolution.