5 ms·

If I recall correctly from the previous big discussion on the front page about microplastics, the one about a spoonful of the stuff in your brain, the general t

If I recall correctly from the previous big discussion on the front page about microplastics, the one about a spoonful of the stuff in your brain, the general takeaway was that it's pretty universally agreed upon that it's bad, the medical community is mostly disagreeing over just how bad it is.

lazide 2y ago
Also what plastics we even mean, and which ones are bad and which are indifferent. Using ‘plastic’ as a category is about as precise as ‘metal’.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Asbestos is chemically inert. Yet it causes lung cancer. Why? The answer is simply that it continually damages the cells in the lung due to it's needle like structure. I assume (but critically don't have proof) that if we find a cancer link to plastics it will be due to a similar sort of structural interaction. I don't think the specific type of plastic matters, though I'm sure some will be worse than others.
  - lazide 2y ago
    In this specific case, very unlikely that plastics as a whole cause cancer due to some structural form issue. Saying ‘microplastics’, to compare to asbestos, is similar to saying ‘silicon’. Asbestos is a particular form of crystalline tube shaped silica (aka silicon dioxide). Many other forms of silicon are both cancer causing, and completely inert. I suspect plastics will similarly have only small portions that are really nasty. We’re making a huge variety of novel types though every day. Which is part of the concern. what we call ‘plastic’ has such a huge variety of molecular weights and compositions it’s like trying to find common ground between say nickel, stainless steel, and uranium. We already know some plastics cause cancer, and some precursors to the same plastics cause cancer. And a bigger issue IMO is plasticizers which modify the plastics structure to make them more malleable and less brittle.
  - userbinator 2y ago
    Even asbestos divides into several families with very different levels of carcinogenicity. Crocidolite "blue asbestos" was first banned long ago due to its severe effects, but chrysotile (white asbestos) is far less dangerous. There is this interesting study from last year that looks at the health effects of chrysotile, in a population exposed to far more of it than possibly anywhere else on earth: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38247448/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38247448/

lazide 2y ago

Also what plastics we even mean, and which ones are bad and which are indifferent. Using ‘plastic’ as a category is about as precise as ‘metal’.

cogman10 2y ago
Asbestos is chemically inert. Yet it causes lung cancer. Why? The answer is simply that it continually damages the cells in the lung due to it's needle like structure. I assume (but critically don't have proof) that if we find a cancer link to plastics it will be due to a similar sort of structural interaction. I don't think the specific type of plastic matters, though I'm sure some will be worse than others.
- lazide 2y ago
  In this specific case, very unlikely that plastics as a whole cause cancer due to some structural form issue. Saying ‘microplastics’, to compare to asbestos, is similar to saying ‘silicon’. Asbestos is a particular form of crystalline tube shaped silica (aka silicon dioxide). Many other forms of silicon are both cancer causing, and completely inert. I suspect plastics will similarly have only small portions that are really nasty. We’re making a huge variety of novel types though every day. Which is part of the concern. what we call ‘plastic’ has such a huge variety of molecular weights and compositions it’s like trying to find common ground between say nickel, stainless steel, and uranium. We already know some plastics cause cancer, and some precursors to the same plastics cause cancer. And a bigger issue IMO is plasticizers which modify the plastics structure to make them more malleable and less brittle.
- userbinator 2y ago
  Even asbestos divides into several families with very different levels of carcinogenicity. Crocidolite "blue asbestos" was first banned long ago due to its severe effects, but chrysotile (white asbestos) is far less dangerous. There is this interesting study from last year that looks at the health effects of chrysotile, in a population exposed to far more of it than possibly anywhere else on earth: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38247448/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38247448/