TL;DR: Measuring plastic in human tissue is hard, and without proper analytical methods and careful controls, false positives (saying there is more plastic than is actually there) are common. From a quote in the article: “Fat is known to make false-positives for polyethylene. The brain has [approximately] 60% fat.”
Makes sense, considering the overwhelming amount of false positives that occur when you test for things like viruses and antigens that you may not have.
Read the article. Most common analytical method is to vaporize the matrix and measure plastic constituents. The problem is that many organic compounds can be made of the same constituents.
Okay im hijacking this comment to give some of my fathers experience with microplastics in the body.
My father has too many polycarbonate in his body. His white blood cells react to them but cannot do anything.
He is in the situation where his "cup" can only overflow and will not empty. So what does that mean?
My dad has consumed so much polycarbonate in various ways that if he touches most forms of plastic he will fall into some sort of shock. Ironically that makes him a legit antivaxxer as vaccines bind with polycarbonate. Each an every surgery he undertakes he does not know if he will wake up. That even involves DENTISTRY. He has to warm animal leather, cotton or hemp everything. NO FILLERS. Fast food is a no go since alot of it is transported in plastic packaging.
If anyone has questions I will answer to the best of my ability.
Either way microplastics in the body are a terrifying prospect once your body identifies it as a threat. A simple treatment for such thing is to donate blood as that will be physically taking the plastic out. In the future he believes there will be "blood dumps" where you go to partially purge plastics.
That is 100 percent correct. Fucking wild isnt it? Donating blood now serves a double purpose as well, albeit is does feel a little wrong giving someone else your plastic. But in life saving scenarios thats a viable triage
Nope. He has consistently collected and handled bill and receipts since a very young age. He collects them, and other currencies as well.
Our assumption is that the oils that coat bills and receipts are the primary aggregate here. There is no one way someone will get this immune system response.
For example, whether it be eating food only from plastic bags, working with chemicals or vaping. It is a collective of hows to the what.
Along with that id say his health rivals the average Americans erring on the worse side as the affliction keeps him from getting treatment.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/touching-receipts-can-lead-lengthy-pollutant-exposures "He has consistently collected and handled bill and receipts since a very young age. He collects them, and other currencies as well." Ok well I hope you've told him in no uncertain terms to stop doing that immediately. When you have a leaky boat you gotta fix the leak first before bailing out water. If he is willing to do that then have him start donating blood plasma as often as they will let him. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35864570/ Eventually his bodies' total microplastic load should decrease. That will hopefully translate into some reduction of his symptoms severity.
Thats a very interesting paper. I believe what makes it a problem for him is his body has deemed it a threat.
So even if he does reduce his numbers he can still fall into an immuno response that behaves very much like shock.
From how his doctor put it. "Once your cup is full there is no going back".
In short, he has done all he can and luckily has money to be able to afford to pay for things like compounded meds. I cant imagine he would survive easily if he were a poorer man.
"Once your cup is full there is no going back." That's why I'm trying to get him to remove at least some of the liquid from the cup. It can't hurt, at a bare minimum.
He has been diagnosed. I am waiting for his response on the name of the diagnosis. I used to be very ignorant towards his health in that manner so the name never stuck.
His doctor is one of few in the US and from what he told me the doc believe it could be gen z's endemic. Something like he is the 90th patient in an exponential curve since the 80s
How does he drink water? All processed water has plastics in it from the processing plant (long before it’s in a plastic bottle). Does he drink well water? I can’t imagine how limiting this must be. I hope he still has a good quality of life!
Luckily he is decent with money. He brings a hemp or metal bottle wherever he goes. Along with that he has a metal food tray he brings. Most places are very limiting on what they can serve.
As for water it must be from the tap and the less steps between the source and him the better. There are just some things he cant avoid. If it worsens he will have to get a fancy filter to get water
What is he using for like storage and tools and cutting boards in his kitchen? Get glass, metal, or ceramic stuff, ideally even the lids should not be plastic.
Personally I don’t see plastics passing through blood or the blood brain possible. But your guts and plastics with stomach acid turning into carcinogens is very much real.
And those carcinogens that the plastics get broken down into by our stomach acid can likely very easily pass into the blood stream. Same logic behind how all the nutrients that exist in food get broken down from the food we eat into molecules small enough to enter the blood stream.
I think people imagine that it’s microscopic bits of pink and yellow plastic floating around in our bodies causing problems. But it’s not that, it’s the toxic molecular components of plastic that cause problems.
And unfortunately the article admits that we currently cannot even test for the size of particle that’s likely to cause humans problems.
Do you have a source for that? The chemical mechanism with wich small particles pass through biological systems is pretty straight forward and well known since at least 15 years - that was when I tried to do science in that field. Baiscally, proteins stick to their surfaces and help them pass. Then, they change their protein layer and therefore their chemical "shell", and such can wander further.
False positives with natural molecules (fats in this case) potentially showing up as plastics when they are burned then looked at with the mass spectrometer.
Difficulty in procedures for pure/blank samples due to microplastics potentially being everywhere. In the bottled water sample they refer to this paper which says:
>Using the clean, dry filters as the blank for water particulate matter (such as nanoplastics) ignores all the contamination which comes from the sample handling procedure (e.g., filtration of liters of water, subsampling process, use of aluminum foil covering, laboratory equipment contamination, nanoplastics loads in the air during sample preparation, plastics in chemicals/solvents, etc.) (4–7), which are known sources of contamination in each measurement (6). One needs to know those contamination levels for their particular experiment to calculate the detection limit and make any quantitative or qualitative conclusions (8). The authors had the opportunity to establish such a detection limit, but doing so risked having to acknowledge null results. By setting aside the plastic contamination measured in their procedural blanks, Qian et al. make any of their quantitative assessment of nanoplastics in bottled water fundamentally unreliable (with potentially harmful consequences for the field, effective policy-making, and public awareness).
So part of the issue here is that they aren't taking into account the ubiquitousness of plastic everywhere else, and possibly its background plastic from the air or lab chemicals, not the bottled water. Of course maybe its not about microplastic in the air, maybe it's just one lab chemical that is full of plastic. *In the part about organs they mention how any operating theatre is full of plastic and the organ might be contaminated when its removed.
... My line of thought is that if there is so much random plastic in the air and [supposedly pure] lab chemical solvents, that it disrupts the tests. Then it potentially points to this being a bigger issue, and simply means we need more and more testing, and more impartial research here.
No "bombshell", just we need independent testing because the plastic industry is the the fossil fuel industry and we know they have power to dispute legitimate science via media and disinformation campaigns, the same way they dispute generally accepted climate science.
> we need independent testing because the plastic industry is the the fossil fuel industry and we know they have power to dispute legitimate science via media and disinformation campaigns, the same way they dispute generally accepted climate science.
This is the biggest thing to take away from this article. As long as you remain skeptical you won't be influenced by bias. We have seen it played out in the past with cigarettes, asbestos, and the fossil fuel industry. These groups have always had profits at stake, so it is natural to doubt studies claiming "maybe it isn't so bad". Proceeding with caution until certain is the safest course.
It would be so neat if it was actually less than they thought, so that companies can take that fact and use it as justification to pollute HARDER, because it's fine, see? Science!
Seriously though that would be good, for real, independent of the reactionary choices that capitalists make to protect the bottom line, or to put competitors at a disadvantage, etcetera, do what they must because they can
It's saying that some of the research has been rushed and isn't taking into account false-positives.
>The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.
Right, but I'd assume that some measurements they will find are fine. And since they have seemingly found plastic in every organ in the human body it's very likely a matter of how much we have, not if we do.
It’s not necessarily that the science is bad, some things are just hard to measure accurately, especially if there aren’t firmly established ways to measure them.
From the article:
> Fat is known to make false-positives for polyethylene. The brain has [approximately] 60% fat.
We know we need to act, does the amount in our bodies really matter?
It certainly matters for our environment to move away from plastics. I don't think this news changes anything significantly about what we should do and given our track record with things like tobacco and asbestos, for example, I think it's best to err on the side of caution. But I'm happy to hear some arguments I may be overlooking.
Anyone with a brain should be able to see that the sheer amount of plastic we use and put into the environment must be harmful to us. There is nothing in human history we have gone this hog wild over that has not had a deleterious effect in some way, shape, or form. The question is how and how much and what do we need to worry about or change.
There are certainly cell lines that have been growing in plastic for decades with no blatant effect, as well as generations of laboratory rodents living in plastic-dominated environments. I wonder if their cells have been tested as a 'positive control', and whether there are effects traceable to their constant exposure?
> There is an increasing international focus on the need to control plastic pollution but faulty evidence on the level of microplastics in humans could lead to misguided regulations and policies, which is dangerous, researchers say.
In which ways, exactly? Dangerous to their share prices?
There are multiple scientists from universities and research institutions quoted in the article. Which ones are sponsored or financed by the plastics industry?
Always investigate who is behind the study and where their funding comes from. Only have to look to studies on cigarettes, asbestos, and lead (to name a few) to see the back and forth between truthful science and deceptive science.
I haven't made allegations about anybody who was involved in the study, I merely cautioned that studies can be used to deceive to further an agenda and provided examples of cases in which this has been true. Clickbait and titles of news stories are all you need to sway opinions, and I guarantee few, if any, users here will read the study and look into who funded it to uncover any potential biases.
Edit: /u/SwordfishOk504 you are showing your biases in the comments. Might I hazard a guess that you are here to do a little deceiving yourself?
>They just want a flippant way to dismiss something that contradicts their bias, without having to actually read the research first.
Same as tobacco industry earlier. Industry-paid scientists: “Cigarettes are not harmful, don’t cause cancer.” puts asbestos into the cigarette filter to make it even more harmful
Its based on one guy saying something. Vs many other studies and scientists over the recent years. These things really have to be properly peer reviewed and studied.
I mean, it’s been found in a lot of animals and they’re not eating the junk we are so it’s not much of a stretch to figure out. That’s not even getting into the forever chemicals that come along with it.
A very interesting article. My understanding is that it's been established that nano particles of plastic do not come from food preparation but come from washing clothes that have man made fibres, in a washing machine. Then the water with the plastic fibres gets into the ground and then the food chain via animals and vegetable growth. The article doesn't mention this. So I just wondered if this is this true or an exaggerated false fact. ???
Microplastics come from a number of sources, washing polyester clothing is part of it, but there's also lots of plastic used in industrial production, and tires and brakes are a big contributor too.
I'm not sure how much plastic is going to get absorbed by plants and make it's way into the food chain that way, but there definitely is plastic and PFAS in a lot of fast food and pre-prepared meals. And it's probably a good idea to filter your water to reduce exposure.
The oil and gas companies have been funding “science” to give start an argument and spread doubt, for the last 1/2 century.
This seems like just another salvo in that attack on the reality.
The only "bombshell" here is that bad science journalism (yet again) over-hyped preliminary results from early studies that acknowledged their own limitations and concluded only that further study is warranted. "There's a whole plastic spoon's worth of microplastics in your brain RIGHT NOW" was always an overstatement, but it was bad reporting--not bad science--that gave us that impression.
This article is also bad science journalism. It gives the impression that there is no cause for concern just because the preliminary studies are...well, preliminary.
The reality is, we're confident (from robust data) that environmental levels of microplastics are dramatically increasing, and that raises intuitive (i.e., not data-backed) concerns among scientists. Some scientists have done small-scale studies to test those concerns using methods they admit have limitations and possible flaws. Those preliminary studies have not been able to rule out these concerns, but may not be strong enough to unequivocally confirm them either. So, more studies are needed to better understand whether those concerns are warranted, and whether/how/to what extent governments and members of the public should react.
But "scientists ask troubling question, no consensus answer yet exists, incremental progress being made" isn't going to get as many clicks as "SCIENTIFIC BOMBSHELL." My heaviest sigh.
Knew this was going to be 99% manufactured drama. There was never any real definitive science demonstrating the negatives, it was always just social media vibes.
Especially loved the "microplastics are our generations' lead meme" despite no study demonstrating anything remotely like that.
R0b0tJesus | 10 hours ago
So do I have micro plastics in my balls or not?
silverwolfe2000 | 10 hours ago
Sir, get your micro balls out of the plastic. Then we can talk
Alone_Step_6304 | 6 hours ago
no
EL_Ohh_Well | 6 hours ago
Fair enough
sintaur | 9 hours ago
Wait, did I remove my own testicles for no reason? Should I stop removing other people's testicles?
Ok-Kitchen4834 | 9 hours ago
Sounds like you need to call testicle support
MarsupialPristine677 | 7 hours ago
Don't worry about it :)
CWIMSY | 8 hours ago
I hope so...my wife and I are trying for a Lego man 🤞
ZealCrow | 9 hours ago
yes but probably not as much as previously reported
R0b0tJesus | 9 hours ago
What a relief! I was starting to panic!
FredTillson | 8 hours ago
You have plastic balls so, yes.
Salute-Major-Echidna | 8 hours ago
They are only decorative so why not.
R7ype | 9 hours ago
Be the change you want to see in the world.
TsukasaElkKite | 9 hours ago
You have ping pong balls
Shiftymennoknight | 9 hours ago
the pee is stored in the balls
Ghooble | 7 hours ago
We already knew that
thrOEaway_ | 7 hours ago
Now that we've cleared the hurdle on my micro plastics, what are we planning to do about my micro penis?
davesaunders | 6 hours ago
In your case, I'm just gonna go with yes. For other people, who knows? The jury's out.
balefyre | 6 hours ago
Depends did this research come out of the US or somewhere reputable?
(I’m a US citizen and I wouldn’t trust anything coming out of this place atm).
The-Kurt-Russell | 8 hours ago
Probably, we probably fucked ourselves for a long time with our reliance on plastics
baconcandle2013 | 6 hours ago
yes
HeWhomLaughsLast | 5 hours ago
You yes, the rest of is still not known
PizzaDeliveryBoy3000 | 5 hours ago
Rub one out and take a VERY close look at the product. Do you see anything?
lordofcatan10 | 10 hours ago
TL;DR: Measuring plastic in human tissue is hard, and without proper analytical methods and careful controls, false positives (saying there is more plastic than is actually there) are common. From a quote in the article: “Fat is known to make false-positives for polyethylene. The brain has [approximately] 60% fat.”
Devario | 9 hours ago
Makes sense, considering the overwhelming amount of false positives that occur when you test for things like viruses and antigens that you may not have.
myipisavpn | 6 hours ago
Umm, isn’t that why we tag/stain things and quantify?
lordofcatan10 | 6 hours ago
Read the article. Most common analytical method is to vaporize the matrix and measure plastic constituents. The problem is that many organic compounds can be made of the same constituents.
myipisavpn | 6 hours ago
Ah ya. That makes sense. Didnt get a chance to read it yet
xXShunDugXx | 6 hours ago
Okay im hijacking this comment to give some of my fathers experience with microplastics in the body.
My father has too many polycarbonate in his body. His white blood cells react to them but cannot do anything.
He is in the situation where his "cup" can only overflow and will not empty. So what does that mean?
My dad has consumed so much polycarbonate in various ways that if he touches most forms of plastic he will fall into some sort of shock. Ironically that makes him a legit antivaxxer as vaccines bind with polycarbonate. Each an every surgery he undertakes he does not know if he will wake up. That even involves DENTISTRY. He has to warm animal leather, cotton or hemp everything. NO FILLERS. Fast food is a no go since alot of it is transported in plastic packaging.
If anyone has questions I will answer to the best of my ability.
Either way microplastics in the body are a terrifying prospect once your body identifies it as a threat. A simple treatment for such thing is to donate blood as that will be physically taking the plastic out. In the future he believes there will be "blood dumps" where you go to partially purge plastics.
meiandus | 6 hours ago
So we've circled back around to leeches. Got it.
xXShunDugXx | 6 hours ago
That is 100 percent correct. Fucking wild isnt it? Donating blood now serves a double purpose as well, albeit is does feel a little wrong giving someone else your plastic. But in life saving scenarios thats a viable triage
dispose135 | 6 hours ago
Did your dad work in a plastic plant or something
xXShunDugXx | 6 hours ago
Nope. He has consistently collected and handled bill and receipts since a very young age. He collects them, and other currencies as well.
Our assumption is that the oils that coat bills and receipts are the primary aggregate here. There is no one way someone will get this immune system response.
For example, whether it be eating food only from plastic bags, working with chemicals or vaping. It is a collective of hows to the what.
Along with that id say his health rivals the average Americans erring on the worse side as the affliction keeps him from getting treatment.
holymoly8282 | 4 hours ago
https://www.snexplores.org/article/touching-receipts-can-lead-lengthy-pollutant-exposures "He has consistently collected and handled bill and receipts since a very young age. He collects them, and other currencies as well." Ok well I hope you've told him in no uncertain terms to stop doing that immediately. When you have a leaky boat you gotta fix the leak first before bailing out water. If he is willing to do that then have him start donating blood plasma as often as they will let him. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35864570/ Eventually his bodies' total microplastic load should decrease. That will hopefully translate into some reduction of his symptoms severity.
xXShunDugXx | 4 hours ago
Thats a very interesting paper. I believe what makes it a problem for him is his body has deemed it a threat.
So even if he does reduce his numbers he can still fall into an immuno response that behaves very much like shock.
From how his doctor put it. "Once your cup is full there is no going back".
In short, he has done all he can and luckily has money to be able to afford to pay for things like compounded meds. I cant imagine he would survive easily if he were a poorer man.
holymoly8282 | 2 hours ago
"Once your cup is full there is no going back." That's why I'm trying to get him to remove at least some of the liquid from the cup. It can't hurt, at a bare minimum.
xXShunDugXx | 2 hours ago
I gotchu, this man is also very set in his ways, detrimentally so. He does alot for it but at his age I doubt he will go all the way in.
dispose135 | 5 hours ago
I've heard that the recipes have a ton of micro. But yeah immune systems are strange
xXShunDugXx | 4 hours ago
They do! My geoscience teacher in highschool was very adamant about not using or holding onto receipt papers for that very reason
slothdonki | 5 hours ago
Has he been diagnosed with something? What does his doctors say about it?
xXShunDugXx | 5 hours ago
He has been diagnosed. I am waiting for his response on the name of the diagnosis. I used to be very ignorant towards his health in that manner so the name never stuck.
His doctor is one of few in the US and from what he told me the doc believe it could be gen z's endemic. Something like he is the 90th patient in an exponential curve since the 80s
curiouslygenuine | 5 hours ago
How does he drink water? All processed water has plastics in it from the processing plant (long before it’s in a plastic bottle). Does he drink well water? I can’t imagine how limiting this must be. I hope he still has a good quality of life!
xXShunDugXx | 5 hours ago
Luckily he is decent with money. He brings a hemp or metal bottle wherever he goes. Along with that he has a metal food tray he brings. Most places are very limiting on what they can serve.
As for water it must be from the tap and the less steps between the source and him the better. There are just some things he cant avoid. If it worsens he will have to get a fancy filter to get water
holymoly8282 | 4 hours ago
What is he using for like storage and tools and cutting boards in his kitchen? Get glass, metal, or ceramic stuff, ideally even the lids should not be plastic.
xXShunDugXx | 4 hours ago
Exactly as you stated. Literally anything without plastic, past that its preference. He likes wooden cutting boards.
Food storage is glass typically
roygbivasaur | 9 hours ago
It would be fantastic news to find that microplastics aren't a big deal (biologically, at least) because there's nothing we can do to unwind it.
WhatADunderfulWorld | 8 hours ago
Personally I don’t see plastics passing through blood or the blood brain possible. But your guts and plastics with stomach acid turning into carcinogens is very much real.
sufferin_sassafras | 8 hours ago
And those carcinogens that the plastics get broken down into by our stomach acid can likely very easily pass into the blood stream. Same logic behind how all the nutrients that exist in food get broken down from the food we eat into molecules small enough to enter the blood stream.
I think people imagine that it’s microscopic bits of pink and yellow plastic floating around in our bodies causing problems. But it’s not that, it’s the toxic molecular components of plastic that cause problems.
And unfortunately the article admits that we currently cannot even test for the size of particle that’s likely to cause humans problems.
Inspect1234 | 7 hours ago
Meanwhile we live in a cloud of another year of tire dust.
U03A6 | 7 hours ago
Do you have a source for that? The chemical mechanism with wich small particles pass through biological systems is pretty straight forward and well known since at least 15 years - that was when I tried to do science in that field. Baiscally, proteins stick to their surfaces and help them pass. Then, they change their protein layer and therefore their chemical "shell", and such can wander further.
ResponsibilityOk8967 | 4 hours ago
Nanoplastics
UnderstandingJust964 | 6 hours ago
It must be in blood, because they have measured that it’s lower after donating blood, right?
Spiritual_Calendar81 | 6 hours ago
But then I can’t blame everything wrong with me on microplastics!
pressedbread | 8 hours ago
The "bombshell" looks like 2 things:
>Using the clean, dry filters as the blank for water particulate matter (such as nanoplastics) ignores all the contamination which comes from the sample handling procedure (e.g., filtration of liters of water, subsampling process, use of aluminum foil covering, laboratory equipment contamination, nanoplastics loads in the air during sample preparation, plastics in chemicals/solvents, etc.) (4–7), which are known sources of contamination in each measurement (6). One needs to know those contamination levels for their particular experiment to calculate the detection limit and make any quantitative or qualitative conclusions (8). The authors had the opportunity to establish such a detection limit, but doing so risked having to acknowledge null results. By setting aside the plastic contamination measured in their procedural blanks, Qian et al. make any of their quantitative assessment of nanoplastics in bottled water fundamentally unreliable (with potentially harmful consequences for the field, effective policy-making, and public awareness).
So part of the issue here is that they aren't taking into account the ubiquitousness of plastic everywhere else, and possibly its background plastic from the air or lab chemicals, not the bottled water. Of course maybe its not about microplastic in the air, maybe it's just one lab chemical that is full of plastic. *In the part about organs they mention how any operating theatre is full of plastic and the organ might be contaminated when its removed.
... My line of thought is that if there is so much random plastic in the air and [supposedly pure] lab chemical solvents, that it disrupts the tests. Then it potentially points to this being a bigger issue, and simply means we need more and more testing, and more impartial research here.
No "bombshell", just we need independent testing because the plastic industry is the the fossil fuel industry and we know they have power to dispute legitimate science via media and disinformation campaigns, the same way they dispute generally accepted climate science.
Exquisite_Poupon | 5 hours ago
> we need independent testing because the plastic industry is the the fossil fuel industry and we know they have power to dispute legitimate science via media and disinformation campaigns, the same way they dispute generally accepted climate science.
This is the biggest thing to take away from this article. As long as you remain skeptical you won't be influenced by bias. We have seen it played out in the past with cigarettes, asbestos, and the fossil fuel industry. These groups have always had profits at stake, so it is natural to doubt studies claiming "maybe it isn't so bad". Proceeding with caution until certain is the safest course.
GN0K | 10 hours ago
So this isn't saying we aren't full of plastic now just that we may have more or less than what the studies show.
ComfortablyNumbat | 9 hours ago
It would be so neat if it was actually less than they thought, so that companies can take that fact and use it as justification to pollute HARDER, because it's fine, see? Science!
Seriously though that would be good, for real, independent of the reactionary choices that capitalists make to protect the bottom line, or to put competitors at a disadvantage, etcetera, do what they must because they can
SwordfishOk504 | 6 hours ago
It's saying that some of the research has been rushed and isn't taking into account false-positives.
>The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.
GN0K | 6 hours ago
Right, but I'd assume that some measurements they will find are fine. And since they have seemingly found plastic in every organ in the human body it's very likely a matter of how much we have, not if we do.
OhYeahSplunge4me2 | 9 hours ago
We’re full of shit apparently
AFewBerries | 10 hours ago
I got downvoted for saying this months ago
I'm not saying microplastics aren't a concern but more research should be done
CPNZ | 10 hours ago
Yep lots of hype and not very good science…
Crying_Reaper | 8 hours ago
Hype and science never really work well together
aft_punk | 7 hours ago
It’s not necessarily that the science is bad, some things are just hard to measure accurately, especially if there aren’t firmly established ways to measure them.
From the article: > Fat is known to make false-positives for polyethylene. The brain has [approximately] 60% fat.
Salute-Major-Echidna | 8 hours ago
I've been downvoted for that too. Maybe some nice zillionaire will pay for some research. We can't count on the government to look out for us.
EffortAutomatic8804 | 8 hours ago
We know we need to act, does the amount in our bodies really matter? It certainly matters for our environment to move away from plastics. I don't think this news changes anything significantly about what we should do and given our track record with things like tobacco and asbestos, for example, I think it's best to err on the side of caution. But I'm happy to hear some arguments I may be overlooking.
resistelectrique | 6 hours ago
Anyone with a brain should be able to see that the sheer amount of plastic we use and put into the environment must be harmful to us. There is nothing in human history we have gone this hog wild over that has not had a deleterious effect in some way, shape, or form. The question is how and how much and what do we need to worry about or change.
Ill-Television8690 | 8 hours ago
Can't wait for the public opinion to just take this and run with it, leaving us surrounded by people who think we "already proved it isn't a problem"
Unique-Coffee5087 | 8 hours ago
There are certainly cell lines that have been growing in plastic for decades with no blatant effect, as well as generations of laboratory rodents living in plastic-dominated environments. I wonder if their cells have been tested as a 'positive control', and whether there are effects traceable to their constant exposure?
Ghost_Of_Malatesta | 9 hours ago
> There is an increasing international focus on the need to control plastic pollution but faulty evidence on the level of microplastics in humans could lead to misguided regulations and policies, which is dangerous, researchers say.
In which ways, exactly? Dangerous to their share prices?
VirginiaLuthier | 9 hours ago
‘Scientists” from the plastic industry cast doubt……
EffortAutomatic8804 | 8 hours ago
There are multiple scientists from universities and research institutions quoted in the article. Which ones are sponsored or financed by the plastics industry?
SwordfishOk504 | 7 hours ago
None. They just want a flippant way to dismiss something that contradicts their bias, without having to actually read the research first.
Exquisite_Poupon | 9 hours ago
Always investigate who is behind the study and where their funding comes from. Only have to look to studies on cigarettes, asbestos, and lead (to name a few) to see the back and forth between truthful science and deceptive science.
SwordfishOk504 | 6 hours ago
Great advice. So who are you alleging is behind this study that discredits its results?
Exquisite_Poupon | 5 hours ago
I haven't made allegations about anybody who was involved in the study, I merely cautioned that studies can be used to deceive to further an agenda and provided examples of cases in which this has been true. Clickbait and titles of news stories are all you need to sway opinions, and I guarantee few, if any, users here will read the study and look into who funded it to uncover any potential biases.
Edit: /u/SwordfishOk504 you are showing your biases in the comments. Might I hazard a guess that you are here to do a little deceiving yourself?
>They just want a flippant way to dismiss something that contradicts their bias, without having to actually read the research first.
SwordfishOk504 | 5 hours ago
> Edit: /u/SwordfishOk504 you are showing your biases in the comments. Might I hazard a guess that you are here to do a little deceiving yourself?
Yes, my "bias" is towards not flippantly dismissing something based on your confirmation bias. I'm clearly shilling for Big Science, right?
ul90 | 9 hours ago
Same as tobacco industry earlier. Industry-paid scientists: “Cigarettes are not harmful, don’t cause cancer.” puts asbestos into the cigarette filter to make it even more harmful
SwordfishOk504 | 7 hours ago
So what "industry paid scientists" are behind this research?
costafilh0 | 8 hours ago
This is looking like "does smoking couse cancer" debate back in the day, drove by political and economic interests.
Paper-street-garage | 9 hours ago
If That’s not a total plastic/oil industry bogus article I don’t know what is.
FaceDeer | 8 hours ago
What reason do you have for saying so? I would hope something beyond simply "it disagrees with something I believed."
Paper-street-garage | 2 hours ago
Its based on one guy saying something. Vs many other studies and scientists over the recent years. These things really have to be properly peer reviewed and studied.
FaceDeer | an hour ago
Ah, so "majority rules" is how science works. My bad.
Paper-street-garage | 21 minutes ago
I mean, it’s been found in a lot of animals and they’re not eating the junk we are so it’s not much of a stretch to figure out. That’s not even getting into the forever chemicals that come along with it.
HoppyHappyHippy | 9 hours ago
A very interesting article. My understanding is that it's been established that nano particles of plastic do not come from food preparation but come from washing clothes that have man made fibres, in a washing machine. Then the water with the plastic fibres gets into the ground and then the food chain via animals and vegetable growth. The article doesn't mention this. So I just wondered if this is this true or an exaggerated false fact. ???
Remote-alpine | 9 hours ago
The article isn’t really about that
QuinnTigger | 7 hours ago
Microplastics come from a number of sources, washing polyester clothing is part of it, but there's also lots of plastic used in industrial production, and tires and brakes are a big contributor too.
I'm not sure how much plastic is going to get absorbed by plants and make it's way into the food chain that way, but there definitely is plastic and PFAS in a lot of fast food and pre-prepared meals. And it's probably a good idea to filter your water to reduce exposure.
Designer_Emu_6518 | 6 hours ago
Who paid for the study!?
andre3kthegiant | 5 hours ago
The oil and gas companies have been funding “science” to give start an argument and spread doubt, for the last 1/2 century.
This seems like just another salvo in that attack on the reality.
Greedybogle | 8 hours ago
The only "bombshell" here is that bad science journalism (yet again) over-hyped preliminary results from early studies that acknowledged their own limitations and concluded only that further study is warranted. "There's a whole plastic spoon's worth of microplastics in your brain RIGHT NOW" was always an overstatement, but it was bad reporting--not bad science--that gave us that impression.
This article is also bad science journalism. It gives the impression that there is no cause for concern just because the preliminary studies are...well, preliminary.
The reality is, we're confident (from robust data) that environmental levels of microplastics are dramatically increasing, and that raises intuitive (i.e., not data-backed) concerns among scientists. Some scientists have done small-scale studies to test those concerns using methods they admit have limitations and possible flaws. Those preliminary studies have not been able to rule out these concerns, but may not be strong enough to unequivocally confirm them either. So, more studies are needed to better understand whether those concerns are warranted, and whether/how/to what extent governments and members of the public should react.
But "scientists ask troubling question, no consensus answer yet exists, incremental progress being made" isn't going to get as many clicks as "SCIENTIFIC BOMBSHELL." My heaviest sigh.
PozhanPop | 5 hours ago
I sing alto in the choir now ffs. Wish I'd known this sooner.
Iron_Baron | 5 hours ago
Industry backed swill.
invent_or_die | 7 hours ago
Typical; pseudo science at the root of what was considered gospel. Amen.
Petrichordates | 9 hours ago
Knew this was going to be 99% manufactured drama. There was never any real definitive science demonstrating the negatives, it was always just social media vibes.
Especially loved the "microplastics are our generations' lead meme" despite no study demonstrating anything remotely like that.