[HN Gopher] Micro- and nanoplastics breach the blood-brain barri...
___________________________________________________________________
Micro- and nanoplastics breach the blood-brain barrier in mice
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 162 points
Date : 2023-04-23 12:37 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.mdpi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.mdpi.com)
| nahnahg wrote:
| The problem is not plastic, it is nano particles.
|
| Glass and many other materials that can be nano-ized can do the
| same.
|
| Polysorbate 80 can open the BBB even more. Just take a vaccine.
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| > Glass and many other materials that can be nano-ized can do
| the same.
|
| Isn't that just clay?
| tomalaci wrote:
| We will need to find methods of removing micro and nanoplastics
| from our bodies. We are already ingesting them from multiple
| sources. There is already research about bad effects on male
| sperm quality [1], DNA damage [2] and more. By the time we clean
| up this stuff (if ever) in our products and services humanity
| will already have large concentrations of plastics in them.
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7967748/
|
| [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7936647/
| ditn wrote:
| Regularly donating blood or plasma can reduce PFAS
| concentrations in the body, I believe the effect is the same on
| microplastics https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-shows-
| blood-or-plas...
| CommanderData wrote:
| This comes up time and time again. I'd feel worse giving
| someone else toxic blood that can't be fully filtered.
|
| Why isn't blood letting mentioned more?
| godsfshrmn wrote:
| The only feasible way I see for removal is via donation or
| some form of hemodialysis. As the saying goes, the solution
| for pollution is dilution (or at least in the medical sense!)
| bilsbie wrote:
| How about regular whole blood donations?
| coding123 wrote:
| Or get a shit ton of labs done
| croes wrote:
| You mean bloodletting, because you can't use the blood for
| others.
| daveguy wrote:
| I don't think anyone would mind taking on some pfas or
| microplastics from a donor if they're about to bleed out.
| There are always priorities.
| carlmr wrote:
| Especially since we all have PFAS and microplastics in us
| at this point. There is no PFAS- and microplastics-free
| blood.
| burke wrote:
| If all donated blood was screened for trace microplastics,
| I think we'd have an immediate and total donor blood
| shortage.
| ekanes wrote:
| Super interesting. But is the blood then cleaned of them, or
| is this kind of like giving your plastics to someone else? :/
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| If I was in a need of a blood transfusion I think I'm OK
| with there being a normal amount of nanoplastics in them.
| ahupp wrote:
| nit, but this is usually accomplished with plasma
| donation (plasmapheresis) rather than blood donation. You
| can donate plasma much more frequently (2x/week) vs blood
| (once per 2 months), thought the volume taken for each is
| roughly similar.
| bbarnett wrote:
| The filters used must be a specific size, so how micro,
| are micro plastics? If they keep breaking into smaller
| pieces, wouldn't they be cell sized too? And thus, pass
| cell sized filters?
| Entinel wrote:
| If I was in a situation where I needed emergency blood, the
| level of microplastics in it is the least of my concerns.
| brookst wrote:
| "Excuse me, did this blood come from a vegan? I couldn't
| possibly accept blood that isn't 100% organic, free
| range, and ---" (transcript ends, patient died)
| peteradio wrote:
| What method could possibly exist that would remove threads of
| plastic embedded in tissue? Sounds incredibly invasive no
| matter what i.e a no-go. Don't plan for this stuff to somehow
| magically remove itself, plan on ingesting small enough amounts
| in your lifetime to render it a non-issue. If modern life is
| making that impossible then demand a better modern existence.
| If that's not possible to make society change for the better (I
| have my doubts) then accept your fate nobody said life would be
| fair, perhaps take up religion.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Remember, Morgellon's is a fictitious disease.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > What method could possibly exist that would remove threads
| of plastic embedded in tissue?
|
| macrophages breaking their bonds? (I'm not sure...that's a
| question)
| swores wrote:
| It's hard to say what methods will work, but it's not hard to
| imagine possibilities - a bacteria or virus (or even a
| nanobot someday?!) could be discovered / created that eats
| plastic but does no harm to a human body (or minimal harm
| that doesn't matter and can easily be removed/killed once
| it's got all the plastic) - see for example [1] & [2]
| different types of recently found plastic-eating bacteria for
| inspiration (the two bacteria types were found to eat
| different specific types of plastic, I'm not sure if they've
| tested each on all types of plastic or just published the
| first known).
|
| Or maybe we discover some sort of light/sound/other
| wave/something that, like an x-ray, has low enough health
| risks to be worth sometimes putting through humans, but that
| somehow does something to plastic that will let the body
| dispose of it all?
|
| Or maybe some drug gets created that somehow turns on some
| bodily function that can handle the plastic problem.
|
| Or.... I don't know, I'm no expert, but I bet there's more
| possibilities.
|
| Of course, would be good to do our best to reduce plastic use
| altogether anyway, for environmental as well as health
| reasons!
|
| [1] https://interestingengineering.com/science/bacteria-
| really-c...
|
| [2] https://www.livescience.com/plastic-eating-bacteria
| peteradio wrote:
| I love how the solution is to perhaps put nanobots in my
| brain or just some virus into my brain, this is top tier
| stuff.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Assume magic cow.
| kortex wrote:
| Engineered antibodies or possibly mRNA vaccine, maybe.
| Monoclonal antibodies would likely be too expensive for use
| as a purely ameliorative measure. But if we figure out how to
| fold proteins on demand, then we can express a sequence and
| make it like other biologics. That's still a very expensive
| proposition, but at least it would have economies of scale.
| Avoidance is the best medicine for sure.
| donny2018 wrote:
| I'm not a biologist, but AFAIK just stopping new plastics
| inflow should be enough. The body continuously produces new
| cells to renew itself, including blood cells and what not,
| and this new material is plasticless.
|
| Don't take new plastic, and in a few years you should be
| good.
| dmbche wrote:
| The problem is that the plastic is not removed. Kind of the
| same thing as people having shrapnel or bullets lodged in
| them for life - while your cells regenerate, the object
| remains and still interacts with you.
| donny2018 wrote:
| Shrapnel or bullets are large objects and obviously the
| body can't get rid of them.
|
| Nanoplastic circulates in the bloodstream which is
| continuously refreshed, or sits somewhere in the cells
| which are continuously disposed of.
|
| Some toxins or heavy metals can accumulate in bones, but
| I'm not sure if plastic can do that.
| dmbche wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying!
| lordnacho wrote:
| Is this going to end up with a mega lawsuit?
| mock-possum wrote:
| I mean look at lead.
| DANmode wrote:
| If knowledge intent is found.
|
| Probably not.
| anaganisk wrote:
| But will the shareholders be happy with all the stuff that
| needs to be done.
| user3939382 wrote:
| I don't need to wait for the science to know that having plastic
| in our body and blood is bad for our health.
|
| The limited science we do have unsurprisingly indicates that it
| is.
|
| It's weird to me that a lot of HNers, like I see with western
| doctors, believe that until something is conclusively proven in
| peer reviewed research it should be treated as if it doesn't
| exist at all. IMHO that's irrational and robotic, there are such
| things as safe assumptions and educated guesses.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I think we do need science. We just went through three years of
| divisive public debate about science vs. "knowing" what is good
| or bad for our health.
|
| Plastic is pretty chemically inert. We've been using it widely
| for decades to great benefit and there is no strong evidence
| that it's harmful. I would not be surprised to find that in the
| body it's basically benign.
|
| Or maybe not, but I don't see how you can "know" either way,
| without scientific research.
| dieselgate wrote:
| I don't disagree with you but Research cannot even directly
| conclude whether drinking any amount of alcohol is good or
| bad for human health - such is the case for any study which
| tries to link Behavior with Health Outcome.
| ddol wrote:
| > No studies have shown that the potential existence of a
| protective effect for cardiovascular diseases or type 2
| diabetes also reduces the risk of cancer for an individual
| consumer. Evidence does not indicate the existence of a
| particular threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of
| alcohol start to manifest in the human body. As such, no
| safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health
| can be established.
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-
| 2...
| dieselgate wrote:
| Indeed but it's complicated. I only mean to suggest one
| article/publication isn't enough to support or prove a
| point definitively - rather than get caught in the weeds
| about "if alcohol really does/n't effect health".
| Researching health outcomes is very complicated and
| nuanced but we should certainly continue to do it.
|
| > These findings seemingly contradict a previous GBD
| estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasised that
| any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health
| loss across populations.
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014
| 0-6...
| pohl wrote:
| > I think we do need science.
|
| I don't understand how one could read user3939382's comment
| and conclude that the expressed position is that we don't
| need science.
|
| That's not at all what they said. Rather, they were
| advocating for the application of the Precautionary Principle
| _while waiting for science_.
| chmod600 wrote:
| It's about the burden of proof. If you try to place the
| burdenof proof on anything that changes the status quo, it
| causes two problems:
|
| 1. You can't prove a negative.
|
| 2. What constitutes a change from the status quo? The status
| quo is a vague concept in a dynamic world.
|
| So you have to use some judgement. Plastic is really, really
| safe in small amounts. Same with CO2 emissions. It's only in
| huge quantities that they are a problem.
| brookst wrote:
| > It's only in huge quantities that they are a problem.
|
| This is the critical thing. People are really really bad at
| nuances like "harmless in small quantities, harmful in
| large". People tend to want to argue whether X is good or bad
| in a totally contextless abstract, like sports fans taking
| fandom too far.
|
| HN doesn't seem better than reddit or fox news in this
| respect. It seems to be fundamental to human nature. And yes,
| I know I do it as well. Such a frustrating bug in human
| cognition.
| dmbche wrote:
| Why do this science? Are we just feeding mice plastic for kicks?
| Like yeah who would've known that nanoparticles pass the blood
| brain barrier - who cares?
|
| Can't we just do some scans/biopsies on humans to assess if we
| have plastic in the brain and start from there?
|
| How does this experiment further anything? I'm kind of appalled
| that this is some people's job - it's pointless, stupid and
| cruel, and done by scientists who get paid the big bucks doing
| it.
|
| I know I'm a little ranty - but I'm serious. Why do people do
| these experiments?
| titzer wrote:
| > and done by scientists who get paid the big bucks doing it.
|
| Uh, no. Grad students make bupkiss while they could easily pull
| six figures after completing a bachelor's. They do this because
| they are a curious, masochistic bunch who find working on
| important problems to be a worthwhile endeavor.
| dmbche wrote:
| Is it only grad students or is there a lead researcher that
| asks for grants and such? I'm not a scientist myself, the
| ones I know are working for the governenent or are
| professors. While they are not rich they are much better off
| than the average person.
|
| And is feeding mice plastic and then seeing if they have
| plastic in them a worty endeavour? It's fine because they
| aren't paid as well as if they were working corporate?
|
| I'm also aware that a lot of people have to tailor their
| doctorate work to their advisor, meaning it could very well
| be that no one doing this experiment was "curious" or
| believing that it was "important".
|
| I'm sure you know many bitter PhD's that studied things they
| find utterly pointless today - I had many teachers laughing
| at their own peer reviewed work.
| dmbche wrote:
| Like how much is a grad student actually making per year? As
| a student that will be able to get a PhD or post afterward?
| titzer wrote:
| It's under $40k, typically.
|
| Here's data for CMU:
|
| https://www.cmu.edu/stugov/gsa/campus-advocacy/stipend-
| repor...
| dmbche wrote:
| Thanks for the link, I had looked and in canada it's even
| lower, at 29,000k for a biology grad student.
|
| While it's not rich people's money, it's more than enough
| to be very comfortable, especially compared to someone
| working minimum wage.
|
| I don't feel bad being very critical of how their time is
| being spent - especially here.
| peteradio wrote:
| You do these proofs of concept to prove the problem exists.
| Until there is hard science it can be hard to spur action. I
| could say, ya know, I believe that if any of these so called
| microplastics (subtly doubting existence) they would not be
| absorbed by my body and will simply exit may waste chute
| (doubting the problem). Now you can say, ya know,
| akssssssssshuallly studies show that yadda yadda. And then I
| could say ya IN MICE! And then you could be like oh ya fucko
| and start forcefeeding me shredded up milk cartons until you
| dissect my brain a few hours later. Now you've gone ahead and
| reproduced OP document and thats called SCIENCE!
| dmbche wrote:
| I understand, but this experiment doesn't prove that the
| problem exists - I don't know if humans have plastics in
| their brain.
|
| I'm not a scientist, but couldn't we check cadavers for
| microplastics? Wouldn't that be more concluent?
| peteradio wrote:
| No no I'm the one who was supposed to rebut with "In MICE!"
|
| You're right about the cadavers! Maybe such a study exists
| and we could skip ahead to agreeing its a problem or
| perhaps we enter the next phase: "are we sure these
| plastics in my brain are akshuuuaallly a problem, perhaps
| they are making me less stupid and more healthy MR
| SCIENTISTS"
| titzer wrote:
| You know, you too can search the internet. Microplastics
| are in human blood: https://www.theguardian.com/environment
| /2022/mar/24/micropla...
|
| The study in question found microplastic in 80% of test
| subjects. The presence of these particles is likely not
| new, just that it's been difficult to detect them until
| now. Buckle up, we're not likely to find out that they give
| us superhuman abilities.
| dmbche wrote:
| I'm sorry - I'm refering to the experiment. I personally
| know that there are microplastics in our blood - I'm
| saying that this experiment is redundant, as your link
| arguably supports.
| dmbche wrote:
| I'm obviously not arguing that microplastics aren't an
| issue - I'm saying we didn't have to force feed mice
| plastic to get actionable data to solve the issue.
| titzer wrote:
| I have not idea what you are arguing anymore, and
| frankly, it's just a lot of noise at this point. The way
| we figure out stuff is with experiments, sometimes
| experiments on animals. You're out here "no need for
| experiments, this is a waste of money, blah blah blah
| unethical, I could have told you that, everyone's
| embezzling money from the government, those rich
| scientists huminah huminah." I mean, I could argue these
| points, or you could just stop trolling.
| dmbche wrote:
| I think there is too little oversight on animal testing
| and that this experiment is a flagrant example of that.
| While I understand that some experiment "require" animal
| testing, I don't see how this one arguably does.
|
| That's not been argued, we're arguing the salaries of the
| scientists instead - not certain why.
|
| I haven't talked abount embezzeling anything or that
| experiments are useless - just that I can't see why this
| one was done, and it makes me weary of most experiments
| on animals, even more than I normaly am, as they seem
| much more arbitrary than I would have liked to think.
|
| Thanks for your insight and snarkiness anyway.
| kergonath wrote:
| We can do that as well, and I am confident some studies are
| in the works. But we still need to understand what is
| happening, which require controlled environments and
| simplified situations where we can study the effect of each
| parameter one after another.
|
| One does not prevent the other.
| dmbche wrote:
| I see. I think I'm arguing that we should be more
| critical of animal studies, as I'm having problems seeing
| what usable data was extracted from these mice that
| wouldn't have been found some other way.
|
| Anyhoot!
| kortex wrote:
| Sure, you first, open up your skull for brain biopsy.
|
| Lab animals are kept in regulated conditions (illegal/unethical
| behavior under the radar aside), experiments are vetted by
| institutional review boards, and they live pretty decent lives.
| There is mandatory sensory stimulation, handling, and
| socialization.
|
| If you want to get rid of animal models, kiss basically every
| medical intervention goodbye (drugs, prosthetics, procedures,
| surgery).
| dmbche wrote:
| Eh - I don't think that the mice force fed plastic has a
| pretty decent life, does it? While all the things you write
| are claims, I doubt you will be very convinced of them if you
| do any research on the subject. All undercover investigation
| in labs showed blatant mistreatment in every single case,
| which I am comfortable with generalising to most other labs,
| unless proven otherwise.
|
| As for having my brain biopsied - I'm not the one arguing
| that we have microplastics in the brain. The scientists had
| this hypothesis, and killed some mice to prove it. I'm saying
| that they shouldn'y have been allowed to, since the result
| does not further anything about plastics in human brains, and
| other options seemed both to provide better human data and be
| more ethical.
| quonn wrote:
| It's not more ethical to do research on humans, unless you
| can be sure these humans do not participate in experiments
| due to their economic situation.
|
| Anecdotal example: I have met a british guy who makes a
| living from participating in medical trials. He makes about
| 10-20k per year if I remember correctly.
| dmbche wrote:
| I think I'm comfortable arguing that it is much more
| ethical to do voluntary human testing, as humans will
| always have more options than animals in cages - unless
| we are talking something like human trafficking, but I
| don't think that's what you are bringing up.
|
| As for your example, I too knew someone living a pretty
| terrible life doing trials for a living, that died sadly.
| While I understand your point, I'm sure you can think of
| many avenues for this person to make a living without
| doing trials - i.e. stocking shelves, working a
| warehouse, janitorial work, service, etc. If they are
| under precarious circumstences, there are many options
| still.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| Did I miss something about scientists getting payed the big
| bucks suddenly?
| dmbche wrote:
| Compared to someone stocking shelves at minimum wage? And
| with benefits, job security, etc.
|
| I'm sorry if "the big bucks" sounded like over 100 000$ for
| every single one of them.
|
| Some guy still got a grant to feed mice plastic, didn't he?
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| Scientists don't have particularly great job security as a
| group.
| dmbche wrote:
| The scientists I know are working for the government and
| univerities, and are pretty well set. What are you
| alluding to?
| amelius wrote:
| Some do, but they work in advertising.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Genetics is hot right now, and probably will be for
| decades.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Have to agree with you. We screwed up the environment, then
| experiment on innocent creatures to prove we've screwed it up.
|
| Not to say there isn't good science being done, but I do
| question the ethics.
| christophilus wrote:
| First, it's great to read the full paper with no paywall. Kudos.
|
| Second, I agree with the conclusion that more research is needed.
| I'd love to know what effect these plastics have on brain
| function.
| kergonath wrote:
| > First, it's great to read the full paper with no paywall.
| Kudos.
|
| It's MDPI. The no-paywall thing is part of their predatory
| scheme. Along with blazing fast reviews with not too many
| questions asked. Seriously, it's completely unbelievable that
| any significant article would be thoroughly reviewed in 2
| weeks, as this article seems to have been.
|
| > Second, I agree with the conclusion that more research is
| needed.
|
| Indeed.
| api wrote:
| The most important question is whether they are cleared over
| time or if they are bioaccumulative like heavy metals. Can the
| body clear them?
|
| Is there a way to clear them at all? Even with medical
| assistance? There is chelation therapy that can clear some
| heavy metals. Anything like that for nanoplastic?
|
| I have no idea so I submit the question to the hive mind.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Retired academic neurosurgical anesthesiologist [38 years;
| https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5DdrMc8AAAAJ&hl=en]
| here. My best guess is that once inorganic materials such as
| nanoparticles enter the cerebral circulation and lodge in
| brain tissue, they are there permanently.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| If this were the case wouldn't it be low-hanging fruit to
| study some cadavers to investigate?
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Indeed it would, and because of the topical nature of the
| problem publication in a top journal would likely occur.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| While we wait:
|
| >Brain damage and behavioural disorders in fish induced
| by plastic nanoparticles delivered through the food chain
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10813-0"
| walleeee wrote:
| Also hermit crabs
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32343937/
| dmbche wrote:
| What kind of interaction would you guess the particles
| would have with the brain after passing the barrier? I know
| heavy metals have stong interactions, but I wonder how bad
| plastic is, really - not that it would be good of course.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| I wouldn't even guess as to the nature of interaction of
| cerebral cortex/hypothalamus/brain stem/etc. with plastic
| nanoparticles -- but I doubt that it would be a benefit.
| As Deckard remarked in another context, more likely than
| not a hazard.
| dmbche wrote:
| Thanks for replying anyway! :)
| bookofjoe wrote:
| You're most welcome.
| kortex wrote:
| Depends a lot on the size, polymer, and even geometry
| (thread, shard, or just blob). Unlike metals, aliphatic
| plastics have little electronic interaction. My intuition
| as a chemist is most will just hang out in the lipid
| membrane or in vacuoles not really interacting with
| biology much. But it could also be worse, such as
| disrupting protein folding, messing with DNA replication,
| or triggering chronic low-grade inflammatory response. We
| don't really know at this time which is why we need
| studies like TFA.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I was cuttug up a hot pepper and washed my hands for a pretty
| long time. But still when I rubbed my eyes I got burned. Made me
| realize that I've probably ingested all kinds of things by not
| washing my hands well enough. And that tiny amounts of things
| enter our body all the time. Also, It's "making the frogs gay" (
| Alex Jones )
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The title seems to not quite match the article, unless I'm
| missing something. The title suggests that microplastics can
| reach the brain, which be a shocking result given that
| microplastics are relatively large (up to 5mm). The study only
| found that nanoplastics of a certain small size were found:
|
| > In our study we performed short term uptake studies in mice
| with orally administered polystyrene micro-/nanoparticles (9.55
| um, 1.14 um, 0.293 um). We show that nanometer sized particles--
| but not bigger particles--reach the brain within only 2 h after
| gavage.
|
| Still concerning, of course. They didn't really do any
| quantification of how much this happened, they just administered
| rather extreme concentrations of deliberately produced
| nanoplastic formulas and then later found a couple particles in
| brain sample images.
|
| The images they included (scroll down to Figure 3) are somewhat
| confusing in that they all have green dots in them, but only some
| of the dots are labeled nanoplastics. Even the control mouse has
| a lot of little green dots, but they're not identified as
| nanoplastics for reasons I don't understand. Someone more
| familiar with the subject matter would have to comment on how
| reliable this method is. The number of green dots is strikingly
| large in even the control mouse, so clearly they're not all
| nanoplastics.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| >Micro- and Nanoplastics Breach the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB):
| Biomolecular Corona's Role Revealed
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| From the first paragraph of the article:
|
| > In our study we performed short term uptake studies in mice
| with orally administered polystyrene micro-/nanoparticles
| (9.55 um, 1.14 um, 0.293 um). We show that nanometer sized
| particles--but not bigger particles--reach the brain within
| only 2 h after gavage.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Ah, now I see your point -- and it is a good one. The title
| should be something like "Ingested Microplastics May Break
| Down Into Nanoplastics Which Breach Blood-Brain Barrier"
| SapporoChris wrote:
| I suspect that microplastics are not reaching the brain. We
| have autopsies that can specifically look for this. Example:
| "Researchers found evidence of plastic contamination in tissue
| samples taken from the lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys of
| donated human cadavers."
| https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/08/17/Autopsies-show-mi...
|
| I'm not downplaying the problem at all. If microplastics are in
| major organs that is a serious problem that warrants additional
| research or even outright bans. However, if microplastics are
| getting to the brain I think there'd be conclusive evidence by
| now.
| peteradio wrote:
| I suppose what they are saying is smaller parts of the
| microplastics were apparently breaking off and entering the
| brain as nano-sized, none of the samples fed were nano-sized.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The article says they administered sub-micrometer particles,
| which they refer to as nanoplastics.
| peteradio wrote:
| Ahh I see, reading a bit more, I think the idea is that the
| gut is filtering out the larger particles but simulation
| indicates the BBB could pass micro-plastics.
|
| > These findings together with the computer model underline
| that MNP PS particles can cross the gastrointestinal
| barrier and the BBB within a short time, but only 0.293 um
| sized particles were able to be taken up from the
| gastrointestinal tract and to penetrate the BBB. This
| suggests that the size of the particles may be a critical
| factor in their ability to penetrate the BBB [42].
| EGreg wrote:
| And we ingest them now, they are in our water [1], and they can't
| be flushed out [2] -- right?
|
| But these corporations put out metric tons of it externalizing
| the cost to everything and everyone. While the individual is told
| they can't have a plastic bag or straw, and that we can recycle
| our way out of it (which is a scam -- it was shipped to China,
| not recycled). Thanks corporatism! Government is carrying water
| for corporations while individuals are distracted into thinking
| they can clean up the mess with personal action [3]
|
| 1. https://extension.psu.edu/microplastics-in-our-waters-an-
| unq...
|
| 2.
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/micropla...
|
| 3. https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362
| bandersnitch wrote:
| Worse yet, the personal action campaign turned a lot of people
| into rabid animals with 'recycling' everything, including much
| of which is just landfilled. And if you call into question the
| whole recycling industry, which has been mostly proven to be a
| scam of the plastics industry, they'll just get angry and say
| something like "well you just have to trust them at some
| point".
|
| Now, metal recycling is definitely a thing. Recycling alu or
| iron is definitely a valid thing. It costs a lot of energy to
| convert iron ore or bauxite into the associated pure metals.
|
| Countrywide laws that could change how recycling and products
| work: require cradle-to-grave product laws, and then make the
| source responsible for disposal. (That would turn the current
| externality into an internality. And their scale would help
| solve it.)
| EGreg wrote:
| Or at least use pigovian taxes to remove the printed money
| from the economy. These would be great for forcing companies
| to start researching and using biodegradeable products right
| quick.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Pigouvian taxes are great, but what connection do you see
| between them and the printing of money?
| EGreg wrote:
| If you don't redistribute the money directly to the
| people, that tax burden can fall disproportionately on
| the working class, and you get stuff like this:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/business/yellow-vests-
| mov...
|
| Furthermore, if you redistribute a UBI to the people, it
| makes the tax _popular_. This is massively important in a
| society that 's tax-averse, and helps gather support for
| actually solving collective action problems.
| ajdude wrote:
| > and they can't be flushed out [2] -- right?
|
| This works for other forever chemicals, it may work for micro
| plastics:
|
| > Regular Blood Donations Can Reduce Toxic Forever Chemicals in
| the Bloodstream: Study
|
| > https://theswaddle.com/regular-blood-donations-can-reduce-
| to...
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| bloodletting is back baby!
| tmountain wrote:
| Also significantly reduces risk of heart attacks. Donating
| blood is good for you and it saves lives.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| If only they would take my blood!
|
| In Seattle I've tried to donate blood multiple times over
| the last decade.
|
| Every time, "because I've been to India in the last 5
| years" they are unable to take my blood. Something about
| the risk of malaria. At worst, given a shortage, why not
| take my blood and analyze it? maybe even clean it (like
| with a dialysis machine)?
|
| Talk about a dumb rule. Anyways... is there some other way
| to get this advantage? Are there blood letting doctors?
| manquer wrote:
| You could donate in India perhaps ?
|
| Also afaik it is 3 months[1] for malarial region (like
| India) it was updated from one year after FDA guidance
| changed in 2020
|
| [1] For former residents of malarial region you must have
| resided outside for three years first, here is link to
| the full guidance from FDA
|
| https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-
| guidan...
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Your second citation simply says that someone made a
| breakthrough discovery that the particles could be identified
| in some subjects. It doesn't conclude that they "can't be
| flushed out"
|
| Your third citation is a weird ranty blog about everything from
| anarcho-capitalism anti-vaccine rants that is more angry than
| informative, but it's somewhat beside the point: We _are_
| making laws to reduce microplastics deliberately introduced to
| products. Asking the entire world to stop using plastics
| immediately isn't a real option. Individual action _does_ have
| a significant effect, as the highest numbers of microplastic
| /nanoplastic particles are found directly inside of plastic
| containers like plastic water bottles. Several orders of
| magnitude higher than your government-provided tap water.
| EGreg wrote:
| The vast majority of microplastics aren't deliveberaly
| introduced into products, but come from breakdown of
| "everyday" plastics. When you wash your polyester shirts, for
| instance. Or when your plastic containers are "recycled".
|
| Your characterization of having the entire world stop using
| plastics "immediately" is a strawman. We had decades. The
| amount of plastic has only grown, while R&D into non-
| biodegradable alternatives doesn't get mych funding by
| comparison. The suggested solution is to have governments
| fund a UBI with Pigovian taxes. We can't even pass this: http
| s://csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/...
|
| We the People _should_ be angry, since we and our children
| will have to live with the consequences of this dysfunction
| and inaction, and _increase_ in production and consumption of
| these things which externalize the cost, thanks to the profit
| motive. The list of things in that third link goes way beyond
| plastics. This is how our system works. Ours is an
| environmentallh irresponsible generstion living on an
| ecological credit card. The individuals are distracted from
| banding together to vote in governments that will pass a
| Pigovian Tax and Dividend on an increasing number of negative
| externalities. It requires a political movement, and anger is
| a great motivator and uniting force.
|
| In that third link, I list all the narratives individuals are
| told, in order to take focus away for governments and
| corporations, and onto shaming individuals into performing
| _individual action_ downstream of the actual problem.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Your characterization of having the entire world stop
| using plastics "immediately" is a strawman. We had decades.
|
| You think we can just stop using plastics in a couple
| decades?
| EGreg wrote:
| Of course, or at least massively reduce it, if we found
| alternatives that were good enough! Not "just" stop, but
| mandate some % of the savings go to R&D when Coca Cola or
| Snapple switches to Plastic. Tax that stuff!
|
| Look at what we did with CFCs globally when we came
| together -- that is a massive success:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
|
| We can also help reduce meat consumption gradually with
| more products like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods etc.
| but it is far better and more effective if the government
| gets involved and taxes factory farms.
|
| As a side note, I know the alternatives have to be good
| enough before people switch, because I have been building
| https://qbix.com for OVER a decade, and only now we are
| ready to present an alternative to the Big Tech
| monopolies no one can exit because they lack viable
| alternatives. This problem is everywhere in capitalism.
| yowzadave wrote:
| > Individual action does have a significant effect, as the
| highest numbers of microplastic/nanoplastic particles are
| found directly inside of plastic containers like plastic
| water bottles
|
| If I limit my personal use of products like these, will this
| keep microplastics from entering my body? Or is there an
| effect from the broader environment, regardless of my
| personal initiatives?
|
| Also, will there be enough products that eliminate
| microplastics that it won't be a huge cost/effort burden to
| go without?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Plastic from water bottles contains about two orders of
| magnitude more micro plastics than regular tap water. So
| yes, personal action can have an effect and the size of
| that effect is about 100x.
|
| It's not possible to keep micro plastics out of your body
| 100%, but like everything it's a question of how much. Even
| your tap water contains compounds like cyanide in trace
| amounts that we can measure, but that just says more about
| our ability to measure Tony quantities of compounds. You
| have to look at the relative significance of different
| amounts.
| kgc wrote:
| Very interesting. Is there an authoritative source for
| the 100x measurement? Would like to show friends.
| cubefox wrote:
| According to this source
|
| https://www.horiba.com/int/scientific/resources/science-in-a...
|
| the main source of microplastics is synthetic textiles. There is
| a serious argument to be made to ban synthetic textiles in areas
| where they can be reasonably replaced with cotton.
|
| The other main sources are "city dust" and car tires. I suspect
| those types of microplastics are much harder to reduce.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-23 23:01 UTC)