3 ms·

The actual article is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58233-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58233-3 Since hitting the market 75 y

The actual article is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58233-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58233-3 Since hitting the market 75 years ago, plastic has become ubiquitous -- and so, presumably, have nanoplastics 1950? Polyethylene and nylon appeared in the 1930s. Celluloid in the mid-1800s. We have been exposed to "nanoplastics" (including things like petroleum jelly and other hydrocarbon fractions) for more than a century, with very very little evidence it's "dangerous".

elric 2y ago
It has become vastly more ubiquitous, probably by several orders of magnitude. More of it ends up in the environment than is broken down, so it's still accumulating. It's moving up throughout the food chain. We've certainly seen evidence of hormone disruption caused by some plastifiers. I suspect many more negative effects will become more apparent as time goes on and "dosage" increases in various organisms.
zonkerdonker 2y ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20microplastic%20levels%20were%20about%2050%,samples%20from%20a%20person's%20liver%20and%20kidneys https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8#:~:text=O... Full article is paywalled, but the point remains. Point is that scale matters, obviously. Almonds contain trace amounts of amygdalin, you can eat a handful of almonds every day of your life, but if I asked you to eat a kg in one sitting, you're not gonna have a good time. Plastics have gone from niche to absolutely ubiqutous worldwide in ~100 years. Even if it turns out to be totally and completely harmless to humans and every other animal, wouldn't you want to know that for sure?
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  > Full article is paywalled https://archive.ph/XJ7ug https://archive.ph/XJ7ug It seems kind of crazy to look at history and believe that exogenous matter accumulating in tissues and cells doesn't have a negative effect, but I guess we have to wait to see.
- userbinator 2y ago
  Plastics have gone from niche to absolutely ubiqutous worldwide in ~100 years. Even if it turns out to be totally and completely harmless to humans and every other animal, wouldn't you want to know that for sure? So have radio waves. There was a lot of paranoia back then, much like with plastics today, and a similar amount of studies showing that exposure to RF radiation causes cancer, but that has mostly died down as people realised the truth. As time goes on, the harmlessness only proves itself.
  - zonkerdonker 2y ago
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-02968-x#:~:text=In%20rodent%20studies%2C%20microplastics%20have%20been%20shown,of%20organs%2C%20including%20the%20intestine%2C%20lungs%20and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-02968-x#:~:text=I... >As time goes on, the harmlessness only proves itself. I cant find any recently published study that /doesnt/ demonstate a link between microplastics exposure and adverse health effects. Please share if you have any
    - userbinator 2y ago
      There's already been plenty of articles here about how scientific publishing has gone post-truth. Remember the "black plastic" scare last year? The desire for "engagement" has infected them too; do you think "microplastics are harmless" papers would even be accepted in this current ideology-driven culture? It's all about making sensational headlines and "impactful research", no matter how far from the truth, they'll lie, p-hack, and exaggerate to get there.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

elric 2y ago

It has become vastly more ubiquitous, probably by several orders of magnitude. More of it ends up in the environment than is broken down, so it's still accumulating. It's moving up throughout the food chain. We've certainly seen evidence of hormone disruption caused by some plastifiers. I suspect many more negative effects will become more apparent as time goes on and "dosage" increases in various organisms.

zonkerdonker 2y ago

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20microplastic%20levels%20were%20about%2050%,samples%20from%20a%20person's%20liver%20and%20kidneys https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8#:~:text=O... Full article is paywalled, but the point remains. Point is that scale matters, obviously. Almonds contain trace amounts of amygdalin, you can eat a handful of almonds every day of your life, but if I asked you to eat a kg in one sitting, you're not gonna have a good time. Plastics have gone from niche to absolutely ubiqutous worldwide in ~100 years. Even if it turns out to be totally and completely harmless to humans and every other animal, wouldn't you want to know that for sure?

someothherguyy 2y ago
> Full article is paywalled https://archive.ph/XJ7ug https://archive.ph/XJ7ug It seems kind of crazy to look at history and believe that exogenous matter accumulating in tissues and cells doesn't have a negative effect, but I guess we have to wait to see.
userbinator 2y ago
Plastics have gone from niche to absolutely ubiqutous worldwide in ~100 years. Even if it turns out to be totally and completely harmless to humans and every other animal, wouldn't you want to know that for sure? So have radio waves. There was a lot of paranoia back then, much like with plastics today, and a similar amount of studies showing that exposure to RF radiation causes cancer, but that has mostly died down as people realised the truth. As time goes on, the harmlessness only proves itself.
- zonkerdonker 2y ago
  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-02968-x#:~:text=In%20rodent%20studies%2C%20microplastics%20have%20been%20shown,of%20organs%2C%20including%20the%20intestine%2C%20lungs%20and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-02968-x#:~:text=I... >As time goes on, the harmlessness only proves itself. I cant find any recently published study that /doesnt/ demonstate a link between microplastics exposure and adverse health effects. Please share if you have any
  - userbinator 2y ago
    There's already been plenty of articles here about how scientific publishing has gone post-truth. Remember the "black plastic" scare last year? The desire for "engagement" has infected them too; do you think "microplastics are harmless" papers would even be accepted in this current ideology-driven culture? It's all about making sensational headlines and "impactful research", no matter how far from the truth, they'll lie, p-hack, and exaggerate to get there.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]