3 ms·

This is exactly the kind of fear mongering reporting I was talking about and explains the general public's warped perception described in the research review I

This is exactly the kind of fear mongering reporting I was talking about and explains the general public's warped perception described in the research review I linked above. If you look at the brains of dead people with dementia, you'll also find more aluminum, which has caused people to panic about antiperspirants. But there is zero actual causal evidence that Al exposure causes dementia, if you do the science right. The same goes btw. for amyloid plaques, which has actually hindered real Alzheimer's research. So not even scientists are safe from the correlation!=causality problem. You can make up all kinds of potential hazards by comparing similar molecules and inventing bioavailability pathways. But at the end of the day this is just speculation and you need hard data to prove these assumptions.

OutOfHere 6mo ago
The aluminum relations are easily explained with the observation that healthy kidneys excrete aluminum well, whereas unhealthy kidneys don't and so it accumulates. There might also be similar variations in aluminum deposition in the brain depending on the brain's innate ability to wash out chemicals. In contrast, the excretory mechanisms of plastics seems less trustworthy. The user is deliberately and blatantly ignoring a wealth of scientific literature that exists. Also, plastics come bundled with numerous other harmful classes of chemicals, e.g. phthalates, bisphenols, etc. The risk is not merely in the brain, but also in blood vessels, including those adjacent to the heart. Beware the plastics industry shills on this page. They will have you ignore the science, become infertile, and then have you die, all for their temporary gain.
- sigmoid10 6mo ago
  It doesn't change the fact that there is no actual causal evidence. Perhaps the demented brains simply suck at flushing out microplastics as well. If you ever find people with more microplastics exposure have more dementia (like they did for asbestos and lung cancer), then you're onto something. But no rigorous study has found this yet. And if they do, you will hear of it immediately for sure, given how much reporting there is for microplastics=bad for you.
  - strogonoff 6mo ago
    Strictly speaking, there is no “actual casual evidence” for anything, because there is hardly any stable definition for what casual evidence exactly is. Establishment of causality is commonly considered as requiring repetition and probabilistic reasoning. In plain words, it’s your guess against theirs, except they had done research and published a paper with a claim and you are simply saying they are not rigorous enough. Could you point to more rigorous support of your claim?

OutOfHere 6mo ago

The aluminum relations are easily explained with the observation that healthy kidneys excrete aluminum well, whereas unhealthy kidneys don't and so it accumulates. There might also be similar variations in aluminum deposition in the brain depending on the brain's innate ability to wash out chemicals. In contrast, the excretory mechanisms of plastics seems less trustworthy. The user is deliberately and blatantly ignoring a wealth of scientific literature that exists. Also, plastics come bundled with numerous other harmful classes of chemicals, e.g. phthalates, bisphenols, etc. The risk is not merely in the brain, but also in blood vessels, including those adjacent to the heart. Beware the plastics industry shills on this page. They will have you ignore the science, become infertile, and then have you die, all for their temporary gain.

sigmoid10 6mo ago
It doesn't change the fact that there is no actual causal evidence. Perhaps the demented brains simply suck at flushing out microplastics as well. If you ever find people with more microplastics exposure have more dementia (like they did for asbestos and lung cancer), then you're onto something. But no rigorous study has found this yet. And if they do, you will hear of it immediately for sure, given how much reporting there is for microplastics=bad for you.
- strogonoff 6mo ago
  Strictly speaking, there is no “actual casual evidence” for anything, because there is hardly any stable definition for what casual evidence exactly is. Establishment of causality is commonly considered as requiring repetition and probabilistic reasoning. In plain words, it’s your guess against theirs, except they had done research and published a paper with a claim and you are simply saying they are not rigorous enough. Could you point to more rigorous support of your claim?