[HN Gopher] Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain
___________________________________________________________________
Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain
Author : hindsightbias
Score : 106 points
Date : 2024-09-18 17:01 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jamanetwork.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (jamanetwork.com)
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| What the plan to deal with this? People make fun of doomers, but
| this unfixable.
|
| PS: originally this said boomers, but I meant Doomers, as I.
| People who run around screaming the world is doomed
| KingFelix wrote:
| nanobots?
| throwanem wrote:
| Just the thing when you've swallowed a fly.
| evanjrowley wrote:
| _Nanobots in the Olfactory Bulb of the Human Brain (2030)_
| throwanem wrote:
| ...what are those sha512 hashes doing in the author list?
| Hunpeter wrote:
| Nanomachines, son.
| cubefox wrote:
| a.k.a. enzymes
| kibwen wrote:
| Lead and asbestos in housing and consumer products were
| similarly intractable, but we (mostly) banned them anyway.
| We're still dealing with removal and mitigation decades later,
| but at least those problem aren't getting any worse. At some
| point you have to say enough is enough and ban plastics in
| contexts where they're most likely to find pathways into the
| biosphere: food containers, disposable goods, clothes, car
| tires, water pipes, etc. Just because the problem will take
| centuries to resolve doesn't mean that we can't start now.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| This is not in housing, it's in the water, in the snow, it's
| everywhere forever.
| cubefox wrote:
| I think you are confusing plastics with so-called forever
| chemicals.
| hypeatei wrote:
| Lawyers. If harmful effects are found decades later, then we'll
| be entitled to compensation! How fun.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| This will affect every child In The world for many
| generations.
|
| Who is paying these damages in trillions? Even if you were to
| pin it on specific companies, they would go bancrupt.
| hypeatei wrote:
| It was more of a joke because usually compensation is next
| to nothing in large class actions. Basically, we don't
| really care.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Here's your 3 dollars, don't spend it all in one place.
| reedf1 wrote:
| Enzymes
| ushiroda80 wrote:
| Plastics need be banned from clothing and food.
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| From clothing? Do you have any idea how prevalent it's become?
| It is hard/impossible to find clothes without traces of
| plastic.
| glial wrote:
| I can't tell whether you're making an argument for or against
| it.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| I don't think they're stating either - just that it's
| pretty impractical to remove plastic from clothing at this
| point.
| glial wrote:
| As another commenter pointed out, you could (and people
| surely did) make the same argument about lead or
| asbestos. That alone doesn't mean it's not the right
| thing to do.
| lukan wrote:
| We have clear evidence that asbestos and lead are very
| harmful.
|
| I don't think we have that evidence for plastic (yet).
|
| Also you totally can start buying plastic free clothes
| here and now. Just more expensive usually.
| atrus wrote:
| Plus, plastics is a very very broad term. Saying "ban all
| plastics" isn't the same as saying ban lead, it's the
| same as saying "ban all metals".
| soperj wrote:
| Sure we do, just look at the piles of clothing waste
| around the planet.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Why is it impractical? It would be unpopular and put
| prices up but it could be done. We would have to reduce
| the amount of clothing that is produced but that is
| hardly a problem as we produce vastly more than we need.
| We could eliminate fast fashion for a start.
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| You don't hear people saying, man, that asbestos and lead
| did a bang up job on X. But you 100% see 100% of women
| wearing stretchy pants. For the longest time I
| exclusively wore cotton jeans and then they became
| impossible to find and I finally realized what plastic
| was good for: fat people. Now I see men wearing them all
| the time. The struggle of the 80s on people killing
| themselves to fit into jeans is not longer a thing.
|
| Not sure how socks used to be without plastic but pretty
| sure they'd fall apart fast.
| antipurist wrote:
| You don't need plastics for that. Warp knitting has been
| used for the last few centuries with
| cotton/linen/silk/wool to get stretchy textiles, and
| there are plenty of stretchy pants that are made of
| natural materials available today for those who struggle
| fitting into jeans.
| ninininino wrote:
| It's extremely practical. We have cotton, linen, and wool
| as great amazing fabrics. Drawstrings replace elastic.
| mrob wrote:
| In my opinion, no natural fabric is as comfortable as
| synthetics. But I have cotton bedding and curtains. I
| think these are higher priority: bedding is used while
| you're lying close to it and easily able to inhale any
| dust, and curtains are exposed to sunlight that can
| weaken the fabric and make it break down more easily.
| They're also both large, meaning there's more plastic to
| be released. Carpet also seems a high priority, although
| that's more expensive and difficult to change.
| ninininino wrote:
| It doesn't need to be comfortable, it needs to not lay
| waste to the planet and shrink your balls.
| taeric wrote:
| Nothing is replacing nylon where it is best used anytime
| soon.
| ninininino wrote:
| We can replace Nylon with get this, poorer alternatives,
| if we gave a shit about the environment. I know it's
| unthinkable to switch to a worse product or user
| experience, but imagine caring more about the health of
| the planet.
| FrankoDelMar wrote:
| I do hate fast fashion, but I can think of many
| exceptions where natural fibers won't cut it. There is no
| natural fabric product on the market that can properly
| replace lightweight, waterproof clothing. Waxed cotton is
| waterproof but heavy. Rubber is not breathable. Technical
| synthetics like Goretex have its issues (low durability,
| high cost, coated with PFAS), but it sure beats getting
| hypothermia.
| ninininino wrote:
| It's a rare exception that natural fibers won't serve.
| Alaska, Arctic circle, Antarctica, disaster prep.
|
| You don't need lightweight waterproof clothing, you just
| like it. Getting a little sweaty under a non-breathable
| fabric or getting wet but staying insulated with wool
| will be just fine. Umbrellas are great as well.
|
| What beats lightweight breathable fabric is not
| desecrating the planet.
| cubefox wrote:
| It seems plastic in fabrics can mostly be replaced with
| cotton.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Cotton production, however, is extremely resource-intensive
| (particularly water) to the point of unsustainability - and
| it's largely grown in parts of the world that are likely to
| suffer catastrophic droughts in the future.
| cubefox wrote:
| Cotton has been produced for a long time and with far
| more primitive means than today, so I'm pretty sure it is
| sustainable. Moreover, cotton being so cheap pretty much
| rules out it being "extremely resource intensive". Water
| is a very inexpensive resource in most parts of the
| world.
| lurking_swe wrote:
| on the bright side, cotton is a lot more durable and
| lasts longer.
|
| Another problem is fast fashion. The fashion industry is
| a bit of a cancer on the planet, encouraging chains like
| H&M to sell very cheap clothes filled with plastic, that
| people need to replace every few years.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Most cotton production in the US is not irrigated.
|
| The problem with farming resource calculations and
| fearmongering, is often they measure water usage of a
| particular crop without really considering where the
| water came from.
|
| Wouldn't you say crops grown with just water from the
| rain were using water with perfect sustainability?
| pfdietz wrote:
| What is your evidence that microparticles from cotton are
| not also toxic?
| cubefox wrote:
| They are ordinary, biodegradable, organic plant material,
| things to which our bodies are accustomed to for millions
| of years. You might as well ask whether grass is toxic.
| pfdietz wrote:
| The human body does not contain enzymes that digest
| cellulose. So how is this degradation to occur?
|
| Fungal attack on woody biomass involves chemicals you do
| not want in your body. The attack involves extremely
| reactive hydroxyl radicals, for example.
|
| Being accustomed to something doesn't mean the thing
| doesn't hurt us.
| ninininino wrote:
| It's not hard. Going to war is hard. Watching a loved one die
| is hard.
|
| Googling "100% cotton" _clothing item_, "100% linen", "100%
| leather", "100% wool". It's not hard.
| krick wrote:
| Traces? I'm really puzzled by this thread, meaning I don't
| really understand what do people mean by plastics. I would
| guess it's all synthetic fabrics, but then the gp proposition
| is so nuts it's surprising someone even discusses it. Like,
| all sportswear is synthetic, and you cannot replace it with
| any old-fashioned fabrics, because synthetics are simply
| better. It isn't even the right word, it's like saying you
| must ban motorized vehicles from transportation. I mean,
| sure, there was a time when people were wearing wool, wood
| and leather and somehow even managed to do something like
| mountaineering in it, but it is absolutely unimaginable to
| me, how you can go for long grueling hikes in cotton clothes
| that just won't dry out on your body.
| lukan wrote:
| "were wearing wool, wood and leather and somehow even
| managed to do something like mountaineering"
|
| Serious mountaineering is still done with merino wool.
| FrankoDelMar wrote:
| Yes, but our outer layers and bags are all synthetic.
| krick wrote:
| You obviously have no clue about "serious mountaineering"
| and what you are talking about in general. Even though I
| do have a couple of merino wool items, they can be
| replaced with synthetics quite easily (the only real
| upside of wool is it is very warm and comfortable to
| sleep in), and no amount of wool will replace the other
| 95% of my clothing, which is mostly synthetic. Well,
| except for down, obviously, which is the only thing
| actually superior to the synthetic counterparts (and even
| that many people avoid, when travelling in rainy/wet
| regions). Everything else... It's not even a serious
| descission, it just isn't something anybody who ever did
| "serious mountaineering" would argue about, the vast
| majority of your gear is synthetic, and not because it's
| cheaper (it absolutely isn't cheap). It just the only
| viable option. Even something you could potentially
| replace with cotton (IDK, a backpack?) would weight a
| ton.
| FrankoDelMar wrote:
| As a mountaineer as well, thank you for capturing my
| shared frustration. Before synthetic bags, heavy canvas
| bags were used and typically required hiring a pack mule,
| donkey, or sherpa. Synthetics made mountaineering and the
| outdoors accessible to the common person.
|
| Let's also not forget while down is natural, the material
| encapsulating it is usually not!
| cube2222 wrote:
| Does someone have good papers on the negative effects of
| microplastics (ideally on humans)?
|
| A while back I tried to look for those, and it was nontrivial to
| find papers that would conclusively show that they are harmful,
| and the mechanisms of this harmfulness.
|
| There's a ton of press about where they are (everywhere) but (as
| a layman) you could argue it's because they're not very reactive,
| and this lack of reactivity could mean they're not actually that
| harmful, and are just _there_.
|
| Take TFA as an example. Based on the abstract it shows that
| microplastics are there, but concludes with "highlighting the
| need for further research on their neurotoxic effects and
| implications for human health".
|
| Now of course doing good studies about this is extremely hard, as
| it's hard to find subjects untouched by microplastics for control
| groups, but I hope someone here can provide me with some good
| sources on this.
|
| To be clear, I'm not trying to deny the harmfulness here, I'm
| just looking for good related content.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Based on a similar search, my take away was that it's too early
| to tell. Animal models suggest some risks, but it's not very
| clear if that translates to humans. Feeding plastic to mice
| isn't an exact analogue.
| hollerith wrote:
| > they're not very reactive, and this lack of reactivity could
| mean they're not actually that harmful.
|
| Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are so stable they
| are called "forever chemicals", but according the NRDC, "PFAS
| are also toxic at extremely low levels (i.e. parts per
| quadrillion), posing significant risks to our health":
|
| https://www.nrdc.org/stories/forever-chemicals-called-pfas-s...
| maltyr wrote:
| A quick search led me to this review, which has a number of
| studies linked in references, including a few that studied
| humans.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885170/
|
| Quote from the abstract: The direct consequences of MPs and NPs
| on the thyroid, testis, and ovaries are documented. Still,
| studies need to be carried out to identify the direct effects
| of MPs and NPs on the hypothalamus, pituitary, and adrenal
| glands.
| simonh wrote:
| Disappointingly nothing in that study relates these health
| impacts to known levels of microplastics in humans. That
| means there's no way to tell, from that study, if the levels
| of microplastics to be found in you and me are likely to have
| material impact.
|
| I definitely feel we should be more serious about reducing
| use of plastics, especially for uses likely to contribute to
| microplastic levels, but it's going to be hard to
| convincingly make that case without quantifying these risks
| in relation to actual human microplastics levels.
| londons_explore wrote:
| One doesn't reduce the use of plastics without using
| something else as a replacement.
|
| If we replace all plastic cups with glass cups, might we
| get micro-glass inside ourselves instead?
|
| Glass, mostly silicon dioxide, might sound harmless, but
| glass can chip off in microscopic sharp fragments (think
| fiberglass dust - which some suggest might be as bad as
| asbestos). Glass also slightly dissolves in water (this is
| how glasses start to look frosty after enough dishwashing -
| they're dissolving), and slightly evaporates (everything
| has a vapour pressure!). And obviously the glass isn't pure
| - there can be all kinds of deliberate and accidental
| additives.
|
| Am I worried about glass? No. But it seems naive to
| wholesale replace plastic with something else until there
| is a decent understanding of the replacement.
| PlattypusRex wrote:
| This is completely inaccurate and disingenuous. Glass
| suffers from no such thing as "microglass", unlike
| plastic. Plastic actively sheds micro/nanoplastics into
| bottled water, with hundreds of thousands of particles
| (and probably more depending on its handling) floating in
| the water, along with any chemicals used to make plastic
| moldable, fire-retardant, etc. Glass bottles have no
| additives that leach out in anything but the most minute
| quantities, even in an alkaline solution. The same can't
| be said for plastic containers.
|
| Also, while glass does dissolve in water, it is an
| _extremely_ slow process that does not affect containers
| at room temperature in any significant way. As for the
| claim about glass evaporating due to vapor pressure,
| while technically true, the vapor pressure of glass at
| room temperature is so infinitesimally small that it 's
| completely irrelevant for practical purposes. This
| process occurs at such a slow rate that it would take far
| longer than the age of the universe to have any
| measurable effect on a glass container.
| netbioserror wrote:
| "Being there" can be harmful in and of itself. Blocking
| receptors, clogging up conduits, etc. As I understand it, this
| is why certain elemental metals are so toxic: They're big atoms
| that deposit in harmful places and can't be effectively
| filtered out.
| jenadine wrote:
| True, but it could also be totally innert and not have any
| measurable negative effect. Who knows?
| eurekin wrote:
| Bisphenol A have a carbon ring structure that resembles
| hormones like the estrogen. It can bind to the estrogen
| receptors and potentially increase risk of hormone related
| cancers.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Don't worry, we got rid of BPAs and replaced them with
| substitutes that probably do the same thing!
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387873/
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Also interfering with immune response
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552327/ and
| directly or indirectly via immune response triggering
| inflammation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi
| i/S016041202....
| hammock wrote:
| Small amounts of mercury and aluminum have been shown to be
| safe in the bloodstream. The dose is the poison
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Which is why you have to take care not to eat too much
| seafood
| hammock wrote:
| True. Children and babies, even less seafood than adults
| clumsysmurf wrote:
| Here is one on human GI track
|
| "Micro- and nanoplastics in the body are passed on during cell
| division"
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240306150719.h...
| nextos wrote:
| This is probably one of the most prominent studies till date:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38446676
|
| Microplastics and nanoplastics in atheromas and cardiovascular
| events. _N Engl J Med._ 390(10):900-910, 2024.
|
| Summary: People with artherial plaque that contains micro- and
| nano-plastics have a higher risk of death during the followup
| period. It's an observational study, sample size is not too
| big, but some findings look quite mechanistic suggesting
| causality, e.g. _" electron microscopy revealed visible,
| jagged-edged foreign particles among plaque macrophages and
| scattered in the external debris"_. The effect size induced by
| microplastics on death risk also looks substantial.
|
| Personally, I think microplastics are a very important
| pollutant, and evidence of this will unfold during the next
| years. Sadly, it is extraordinarily hard to remove them from
| our environment. They are everywhere. For example, car tires
| shed lots of microplastics that end up in eggs or inside
| vegetables and plants, which absorb them from soil. Most
| liquids are packaged inside plastic, which is continuously
| leaking into the content. We should at least be measuring their
| levels and setting up maximum concentration thresholds in our
| food chain. We should go back to glass bottles, whenever
| possible. Suspended microplastics in the air are also a major
| concern. Plastics are great for certain applications, but we
| use them in places where they don't belong.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >We should go back to glass bottles, whenever possible.
|
| There are very good, very practical reasons we moved from
| glass (and metal and other materials) containers to plastic.
| Unless those factors are sufficiently addressed, plastic is
| here to stay.
|
| For those who haven't been keeping track or are just too damn
| young to know history, those factors include:
|
| * Weight. Glass and metal, and also other materials like
| ceramic and wooden containers, are _heavy_ compared to
| plastic. This additional weight means it takes more energy to
| transport, meaning more costs in fuel and labor.
|
| * Fragility. This namely applies to glass; glass containers
| are fragile and they are very dangerous to handle if and when
| they break. Plastic containers are much more durable, and
| even if they break they are seldom as dangerous as broken
| glass. More broken containers also mean more goods lost to
| spillage, which in turn means additional cost to re-
| manufacture and re-ship.
|
| * Durability. Going along with the above, plastics are equal
| to metal containers in keeping contents and the outside world
| separated. This is incredibly important for ensuring food
| safety.
|
| * Contaminants. This applies primarily to metal containers,
| but also paper and sometimes ceramic. Metals leach into
| foods, this is mostly prevented with special coatings but
| it's not perfect and the coatings themselves are also
| contaminants that will eventually leach. Likewise paper
| containers which have coatings applied so liquids don't seep
| through, and sometimes ceramic containers to prevent
| leaching. We know these contaminants are bad, unlike
| microplastics where we still aren't conclusively sure.
|
| * Cost. Plastic is _cheap_ compared to basically every other
| material we can make containers out of. This is a great boon
| to the consumer who ultimately ends up paying the most
| markup.
| nextos wrote:
| Some EU supermarkets used to have a circular glass system
| where products were brought in bulk, and only canned in
| glass inside the shop, sometimes by the customer. Bottles
| were then returned after use, washed locally and reused
| many times. This looked fairly efficient.
|
| Restaurants and bars still have the same system here for
| e.g. Coca-Cola drinks, which come inside a glass bottle
| that has been reused several times. I'm not sure plastic is
| more efficient than reusing a glass bottle. Lots of yogurts
| are packaged in glass containers, and price seems average.
| I have also heard that plastic is rarely recycled, so it
| also sounds unsustainable from that perspective.
| Aeglaecia wrote:
| in many ways it seems likely that this response was
| generated by chat gpt , I apologise if this was not the
| case
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Apologies accepted.
| vallassy wrote:
| I agree with every point here, and they all make a lot of
| sense... yet most alcoholic beverages are shipped to the
| consumer in glass bottles, including even the cheapest
| beers.
|
| I have seen some drinks shipped in plastic, so it is
| possible to do, I wonder if glass packaging is a 'premium'
| thing. Though, if they can do it for cheap beer, then I'm
| sure they can do it for non-alcoholic drinks on scale.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I've seen and had alcohol in plastic. They generally seem
| to do fine.
|
| But _damn_ did it feel cheap in a bad way. Being cheap is
| obviously one of the reasons we use plastic containers,
| but the feeling associated with plastic alcohol is just
| plain irrationally _bad_.
| luqtas wrote:
| a 500 ml Al can weights 13 grams. life knows if we can
| skim down its weight if we don't have self openers, the
| price if we develop a better recycling system etc.
|
| if plastics have impact on human health, how many $ we
| can save for using re-usable glass and metal?
| thfuran wrote:
| Aluminum cans are lined in plastic.
| specialist wrote:
| What's the toxicity of microglass particulates?
| nextos wrote:
| AFAIK, glass is super stable. It won't shed anything
| significant unless you grind it, at least according to
| the literature.
| tangjurine wrote:
| > cost
|
| Oh yes, I love paying a couple cents less per drink to have
| micro plastics in me
| PlunderBunny wrote:
| And - of course - you're probably not even paying a
| couple of cents less. Those couple of cents are extra
| profit for everyone further up the 'value chain'.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| People don't even care about the atherosclerotic effect of
| saturated fats and lipoproteins that we've known for half a
| century.
| colechristensen wrote:
| You can back that question up one level to "what are the
| biological effects of plastics?"
|
| And the answer is, broadly, they mimic hormones. Compounds in
| plastics can activate endocrine receptors because they are
| similar enough to hormones which are more or less everywhere
| across the animal kingdom.
|
| Sometimes it can be hard to pin down the specific negative
| effects in isolation, but there are some pretty clear metrics.
|
| "A review of the endocrine disrupting effects of micro and nano
| plastic and their associated chemicals in mammals"
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885170/
| hammock wrote:
| The most common plastic, PET, is inert and does not mimic
| hormones
| gravitronic wrote:
| Starting to eye my dryer lint as a toxic substance
| jaggederest wrote:
| If you put a machine that blew asbestos fibers out the
| wall/roof of the building in most homes in the US people would
| probably be pretty upset.
|
| For that matter, I wonder if they ever made asbestos clothing
| for routine wear? Looks like aprons, oven mitts, and ironing
| board covers.
| infecto wrote:
| I don't think we can yet compare microplastics to asbestos.
| Asbestos is still used today but in much more industrial,
| safe ways than it once was used. Not to downplay any net harm
| but I don't believe its as clear yet.
| jaggederest wrote:
| I'm pretty sure we can compare them. Whether the ultimate
| harm will be anywhere near that level of impact I have no
| idea, but they're clearly tiny fibers infiltrating places
| they weren't expected with possible health outcomes as a
| result of indiscriminate use before the risks were fully
| understood.
| infecto wrote:
| I don't think you can compare the net harm yet? Unless
| you have research that no one else does. We know asbestos
| is a carcinogen, we know it gets lodged into the lungs
| and does not remove itself. We know the outcomes from
| heavy exposure.
|
| While we know plastic is getting to places it should not
| be, we have not fully figured out all the negative
| impacts. Those impacts will drive where/when to use it.
|
| Edit: Again, I am not trying to downplay potential harm.
| It might be a serious issue that is driving poor outcomes
| but I don't believe we have research of that as of yet.
| lurking_swe wrote:
| depends what you're drying, no?
|
| I personally use a clothing rack to hang all my plastic
| (polyester, spandex, etc) clothes, and i only put cotton items
| in the dryer. Including towels of course.
| taeric wrote:
| Yes? Any sort of dust is best avoided and treated with care.
| Your literal dead skin can be toxic if you let it build up
| enough.
| seper8 wrote:
| People, get air filters inside of your house and especially your
| bedroom. Anything with a HEPA filter. I personally have a Winix
| and a dyson fan, quite happy with it.
|
| You'll be surprised what it picks up over time, and consequently
| what you end up not inhaling...
| pushupentry1219 wrote:
| Are these filters sufficient to filter out microplastics?
| colechristensen wrote:
| Yes. And particles down to 0.3 microns.
|
| My understanding is that the health benefits are most
| pronounced from avoiding smoke and fine dust particles which
| don't necessarily have a lot to do with plastic, but it's a
| good recommendation regardless.
|
| There is significant evidence linking PM2.5 concentrations
| and health (which is a common metric about fine particles in
| the air of a particular size, in this case 2.5 micron range)
| stroupwaffle wrote:
| Everything is made of plastic now though including those fuzzy
| blankets and pillows people love.
| aggie wrote:
| Microplastics seem bad. The evidence of adverse effects seems
| marginal. But in the bigger picture, plastics provide enormous
| wealth to the world. We should look for ways to mitigate any
| adverse environmental effects, of course, but it's not at all
| obvious to me that the ROI of doing so in my personal life is
| positive.
| trial3 wrote:
| this... is a dril tweet
|
| https://x.com/dril/status/464802196060917762?lang=en
| advael wrote:
| I am fairly convinced that this comment section is among the best
| demonstrations for "isolated demands for rigor" I have personally
| ever seen, especially paired with any comment section about an
| AI-related article
|
| When we are trying to predict the implications of unproven
| technologies on complex worldwide economies, there is talk of
| "obvious inevitability"
|
| When we express concerns that chemicals humanity recently started
| coating the entire planet with at an alarming rate seem to get
| really deep into every kind of living tissue and nearly
| everything else we've ever seen bioaccumulate like that has
| caused a lot of unforeseen issues that took a long time to suss
| out but most turn out to be at least somewhat harmful, there's
| all this "well we don't have longitudinal RCTs with enormous
| sample sizes showing the specific harms of every specific plastic
| published in prestigious journals yet so who knows really"
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| My impression is people are generally alarmed but without any
| science of what the harms are it's hard to understand what we
| need to do about the situation. The science is still very
| immature, and there are lot of other bad things (PFAs for
| example) that are likewise ubiquitous and permeate everything
| and everywhere that we have a pretty clear notion of their
| dangers. Even then it's hard to assess how severe the harms are
| for microplastics yet. Part of the reason is they're clearly
| not overtly dangerous. The way in which they are dangerous is
| very poorly understood, so what policy or regulatory actions
| could we take today? Ban plastics globally? "Plastic" is a very
| broad term for a specific mechanical characteristic of a
| material and includes lots of monomers and polymers, some of
| which we know are inert enough in life we use them for implants
| in human bodies already. Are those micro plastics dangerous?
| Who knows. Should be bans everything that has the
| characteristic of being "plastic?" That's absurd. So while I
| might agree we need to "do something," that something will need
| to be super subtle and targeted out of bare necessity.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Well, we've been exposed to microplastics for decades, but what
| does the evidence say? Afaict, not much.
|
| We don't need RCTs, nor do we rely on them to make causal
| inferences about long term exposures, nor would an RCT be
| possible with microplastics.
|
| But we need some converging lines of evidence before we go
| chicken little. What's the alternative?
| darby_nine wrote:
| > Well, we've been exposed to microplastics for decades, but
| what does the evidence say? Afaict, not much.
|
| The revelation that you are _likely_ to have microplastics
| suffused throughout your body seems far more meaningful than
| "not much".
|
| The _effects_ of this are unknown, but it seems reasonable to
| be concerned about potential harm until it 's effects are
| studied in vivo and it's statistically not more harmful than
| the utility we get out of it. That alone seems like decades
| of research. You don't need to throw up your hands and act
| like you can't hypothesize even if the answers are out of
| your reach.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| The fact that we can't pin down a strong effect on human
| health outcomes after decades of exposure should be a
| relief. We do have in vivo studies, but afaict they don't
| seem to pan out in human health outcomes.
| beowulfey wrote:
| It's a soft, warm blanket of denial, because the actual
| implications of it are too scary.
| whyenot wrote:
| As humans, we seem to really like warm blankets. See: high
| school football and CTE
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-18 23:00 UTC)