3 ms·

I'm still not aware of any reason to worry about micro plastics. As far as I know they seem harmless?

by sfn42 7mo ago

SapporoChris 7mo ago
It is true that there is not currently conclusive proof that micro plastics are a significant risk to human health. However, this is the same line the tobacco industry used for decades even though they knew different.
- NiloCK 7mo ago
  Is there any specific evidence that they are a risk to human health? I mean, I get the instinct that foreign-entity can't exactly be good for me, but the same instinct applied to GMOs, and as far as I know organic foods have never yielded any sort of statistically visible health impacts. Plastics earn their keep in general by being non-reactive and 'durable', so it's not entirely shocking if they can pass through (or hang around inside) the body without engaging in a lot of biochemical activity.
  - wisty 7mo ago
    Yeah, they gum up cellular workings. Kind of like how macro plastics will gum up turtle stomaches. I have seen zero evidence that they are bad in very small quantities, but the dose can make the poison and they are out there in increasingly alarming quantities.
  - kalaksi 7mo ago
    I get your point that plastics are relatively inert and may not cause noticeable harm (depending on quantity?), but I think it'd be wise to be cautious. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Bisphenol_A_(BPA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Bisphenol_A_(BPA) . I'd also consider plastic, and their additives, to be a lot bigger and longer lasting unknown than GMOs.
  - schiffern 7mo ago
    Plastics aren't just plastic, unfortunately. Plastics are chemical "sponges" that will soak up pollutants over time from the environment (brominated fire retardants, bisphenols, PBCs, pesticides, phthalates, heavy metals, etc) and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420319026 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publication/335395730_Microplastic-Toxic_Chemical_Interaction_A_Review_Study_on_Quantified_Levels_Mechanism_and_Implication/links/5e762a2592851cf2719bf694/Microplastic-Toxic-Chemical-Interaction-A-Review-Study-on-Quantified-Levels-Mechanism-and-Implication.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publica...
- Lerc 7mo ago
  And indeed there is not currently conclusive proof that WiFi is a significant risk to human health. However, this is the same line the tobacco industry used for decades even though they knew different.
  - timr 7mo ago
    Because it’s an inverted claim of falsification it works for literally anything (I cannot prove that X will absolutely not hurt you), but you get pilloried if you put something in the blank that the herd happens to support. We’ve reached the absurd point where all sides of the political spectrum have sacred cows, and an exceedingly poor understanding of scientific reasoning, and all sides also try to dunk on the others by claiming scientific authority.
SecretDreams 7mo ago
I think any time a new material starts to meaningfully accumulate in our bodies, our food sources, our oceans, etc, we should at least go with caution. The default stance should be caution, not fearlessness.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- bluebarbet 7mo ago
  >fearlessness More like flippancy, even hubris. The approach you advocate is essentially the EU's precautionary principle. [1] [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-precautionary-principle.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-preca...
  - SecretDreams 7mo ago
    Totally aligned.
kalaksi 7mo ago
Many negative health effects have been associated with microplastics and related chemicals. Not sure if there's yet anything causative, but I think it's probably a matter of time and there's lots of research to be done. I'd bet the health effect of microplastics (or anything that human body isn't used to) is more likely to be negative than not.
schiffern 7mo ago
The problem isn't just the plastics themselves. Plastics are chemical "sponges" that will soak up pollutants over time from the environment (brominated fire retardants, bisphenols, PBCs, pesticides, phthalates, heavy metals, etc) and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body. Even if plastics of all sizes are 100% biologically inert, they're still a Trojan Horse for other toxins. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420319026 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publication/335395730_Microplastic-Toxic_Chemical_Interaction_A_Review_Study_on_Quantified_Levels_Mechanism_and_Implication/links/5e762a2592851cf2719bf694/Microplastic-Toxic-Chemical-Interaction-A-Review-Study-on-Quantified-Levels-Mechanism-and-Implication.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publica... Roughly 50% of indoor dust is composed of microplastics, so it's not like it's uncommon.
- Lerc 7mo ago
  >Roughly 50% of indoor dust is composed of microplastics, so it's not like it's uncommon. I highly doubt that. Soil, skin and pollen are usually the big ones. Hairs depending one how you count dust, but eliminating hair like fibres would also eliminate most of the sources of plastic, unless you allow really large particle sizes. [edit] Checking research. The highest claim I found was 39% of fibres (in household dust, Japan). but that seemed to be per particle not by volume.
  - titzer 7mo ago
    Synthetic fibers from clothes are microplastics, and clothes shed lots of fibers. Not to mention all the upholstered furniture, carpet, rugs, drapes, bags, etc.
    - Lerc 7mo ago
      That's why I said >eliminating hair like fibres would also eliminate most of the sources of plastic If you allow fibres they'd be 0.01% of fibres if you've got a dog anything like mine.

I'm still not aware of any reason to worry about micro plastics. As far as I know they seem harmless?

by sfn42 7mo ago

I'm still not aware of any reason to worry about micro plastics. As far as I know they seem harmless?

It is true that there is not currently conclusive proof that micro plastics are a significant risk to human health. However, this is the same line the tobacco industry used for decades even though they knew different.

NiloCK 7mo ago
Is there any specific evidence that they are a risk to human health? I mean, I get the instinct that foreign-entity can't exactly be good for me, but the same instinct applied to GMOs, and as far as I know organic foods have never yielded any sort of statistically visible health impacts. Plastics earn their keep in general by being non-reactive and 'durable', so it's not entirely shocking if they can pass through (or hang around inside) the body without engaging in a lot of biochemical activity.
- wisty 7mo ago
  Yeah, they gum up cellular workings. Kind of like how macro plastics will gum up turtle stomaches. I have seen zero evidence that they are bad in very small quantities, but the dose can make the poison and they are out there in increasingly alarming quantities.
- kalaksi 7mo ago
  I get your point that plastics are relatively inert and may not cause noticeable harm (depending on quantity?), but I think it'd be wise to be cautious. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Bisphenol_A_(BPA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Bisphenol_A_(BPA) . I'd also consider plastic, and their additives, to be a lot bigger and longer lasting unknown than GMOs.
- schiffern 7mo ago
  Plastics aren't just plastic, unfortunately. Plastics are chemical "sponges" that will soak up pollutants over time from the environment (brominated fire retardants, bisphenols, PBCs, pesticides, phthalates, heavy metals, etc) and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420319026 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publication/335395730_Microplastic-Toxic_Chemical_Interaction_A_Review_Study_on_Quantified_Levels_Mechanism_and_Implication/links/5e762a2592851cf2719bf694/Microplastic-Toxic-Chemical-Interaction-A-Review-Study-on-Quantified-Levels-Mechanism-and-Implication.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publica...
Lerc 7mo ago
And indeed there is not currently conclusive proof that WiFi is a significant risk to human health. However, this is the same line the tobacco industry used for decades even though they knew different.
- timr 7mo ago
  Because it’s an inverted claim of falsification it works for literally anything (I cannot prove that X will absolutely not hurt you), but you get pilloried if you put something in the blank that the herd happens to support. We’ve reached the absurd point where all sides of the political spectrum have sacred cows, and an exceedingly poor understanding of scientific reasoning, and all sides also try to dunk on the others by claiming scientific authority.

SecretDreams 7mo ago

I think any time a new material starts to meaningfully accumulate in our bodies, our food sources, our oceans, etc, we should at least go with caution. The default stance should be caution, not fearlessness.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
bluebarbet 7mo ago
>fearlessness More like flippancy, even hubris. The approach you advocate is essentially the EU's precautionary principle. [1] [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-precautionary-principle.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-preca...
- SecretDreams 7mo ago
  Totally aligned.

kalaksi 7mo ago

Many negative health effects have been associated with microplastics and related chemicals. Not sure if there's yet anything causative, but I think it's probably a matter of time and there's lots of research to be done. I'd bet the health effect of microplastics (or anything that human body isn't used to) is more likely to be negative than not.

schiffern 7mo ago

The problem isn't just the plastics themselves. Plastics are chemical "sponges" that will soak up pollutants over time from the environment (brominated fire retardants, bisphenols, PBCs, pesticides, phthalates, heavy metals, etc) and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body. Even if plastics of all sizes are 100% biologically inert, they're still a Trojan Horse for other toxins. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420319026 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publication/335395730_Microplastic-Toxic_Chemical_Interaction_A_Review_Study_on_Quantified_Levels_Mechanism_and_Implication/links/5e762a2592851cf2719bf694/Microplastic-Toxic-Chemical-Interaction-A-Review-Study-on-Quantified-Levels-Mechanism-and-Implication.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publica... Roughly 50% of indoor dust is composed of microplastics, so it's not like it's uncommon.

Lerc 7mo ago
>Roughly 50% of indoor dust is composed of microplastics, so it's not like it's uncommon. I highly doubt that. Soil, skin and pollen are usually the big ones. Hairs depending one how you count dust, but eliminating hair like fibres would also eliminate most of the sources of plastic, unless you allow really large particle sizes. [edit] Checking research. The highest claim I found was 39% of fibres (in household dust, Japan). but that seemed to be per particle not by volume.
- titzer 7mo ago
  Synthetic fibers from clothes are microplastics, and clothes shed lots of fibers. Not to mention all the upholstered furniture, carpet, rugs, drapes, bags, etc.
  - Lerc 7mo ago
    That's why I said >eliminating hair like fibres would also eliminate most of the sources of plastic If you allow fibres they'd be 0.01% of fibres if you've got a dog anything like mine.