4 ms·
> ... too large to interact with T cells. Also, unfortunately, a result that industry and the anti-regulation crowd will use to say microplastics are harmless.
by jagged-chisel 3mo ago
> ... too large to interact with T cells.
Also, unfortunately, a result that industry and the anti-regulation crowd will use to say microplastics are harmless.
- w10-1 3mo agoalso, asbestos is too small to interact with T-cells, so it must be safe.
- nostrademons 3mo agoIt's not really analogous. One of the hypothesized ways that microplastics are harmful is that they disrupt the immune system; there has been evidence found of this in bivalves. Another is that they cause inflammation, which is also mediated by T-cells. A null result on the impact of microplastics on human T-cells is directly relevant to these hypotheses. The mechanism of harm for asbestos is known to be that the fibers enter the lungs and can't be expelled, eventually leading to cancer. Its interaction with T-cells is quite irrelevant there.
- Supermancho 3mo ago>>>> ... too large to interact with T cells. >>> Also, unfortunately, a result that industry and the anti-regulation crowd will use to say microplastics are harmless. >> also, asbestos is too small to interact with T-cells, so it must be safe. > It's not really analogous. Ironically, this is missing the point. They were commenting on flawed reasoning. This shouldn't need to be spelled out, as it's part of the conversation context. Sometimes "dunking" comments are a variation on https://www.instagram.com/p/DY2DRKDhqaa https://www.instagram.com/p/DY2DRKDhqaa - where everyone is arguing about who is wrong, because they aren't treating it like a conversation.
- pfdietz 3mo agoI understand asbestos fibers literally get tangled with DNA, and that this can be demonstrated in vitro.