Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#61

Post by stjohnswarts »

nargella wrote: post #22

Toothpaste blows my mind. It’s literally plastic in some baking soda type substance. Extra whitening? Larger plastic.

no it's not, it's fluoride and some soapy binders like SLS and ceramics or baking soda for whitening/cleaning. I suppose some of the tube might break off and form these microplastics, however I don't know too many people swallowing their toothpaste leftovers. It's a bad idea as you shouldn't ingest that much fluoride, which is much more highly concentrated than fluroide in water. If you're talking about microbeads then those were outlawed in toothpaste/cosmetics/etc in 2016, which went in effect in 2017.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#62

Post by jackling »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #19
psacawa wrote: post #2

I'm constantly worried that despite the increased understanding we have relative to past generations, the increasing scope of our technological interventions means that global catastrophes seem more likely to occur relative to the past. [0] Look at the convulsions we need to go through to address climate change politically, and realize that it is only one of maybe a thousand potential grave threats, each of which pit…

My biggest concern is nuclear war. The death it would unleash would make the COVID pandemic seem like an afternoon picnic, and it would all happen in a frighteningly short period of time. 4pm war starts. 5pm most of the people you know are dead. This comes, far as I'm concerned, close to the end of the world, and shouldn't be impossible, yet it isn't by a long shot. My second biggest concern is the rapid loss of natu…

Haven't looked into what a nuclear war would look like, but would non-Nato, non-nuclear weapon holding counties be affected that fast? Suppose I lived in Niger, would most people I know be dead that fast? Would countries just hit any ally to the opposition immediately? I understand that the entire world will be affected and eventually the effects will be felt.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#63

Post by criddell »

svnt wrote: post #46
collegeburner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. You are expecting people to take aassive downgrade in standard of living. I spend years working to make more money than everybody so I can live better, not worse. And you are wrong, my kids will live much better as well, because I will pass on that money.

You need a global frame of reference to solve a global problem. You can get one on your own terms, or wait and be domesticated by legislation.

Legislation? That seems like a long shot to me, especially in the US. I just can’t see voters asking for that legislation anytime soon.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#64

Post by sjmm1989 »

collegeburner wrote: post #42
SpodGaju wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is ridiculous. You are expecting people to take aassive downgrade in standard of living. I spend years working to make more money than everybody so I can live better, not worse. And you are wrong, my kids will live much better as well, because I will pass on that money.

You seem to have 'standard' and 'quality' conflated in regards to 'living'.

Standards of living are always increasing because of people's incorrect belief that everyone must live like a king.

Quality of living or life as it were, is more about making sure that whatever standard you live at is providing the best quality it can offer for that life.

You are seeking a higher 'quality' of life, through increasing your standard of living. This WILL result in a higher quality of life, provided you have all the necessary funds to support it. Absolutely. BUT, it comes at costs that you and others will not always see or understand immediately or even as fast as might be preferred on even slower scales.

Meanwhile, if you instead just sought a higher quality of life only, you would be likely be fine with some things being at a slightly lower standard. Such as using transit more often, instead of driving everywhere. You don't have to not own a vehicle; you just have to not drive it needlessly. Make sense?

Yes, I realize that reduces the convenience factor of the vehicle, and yes I realize that transit is often terrible... but the latter is often because it has to compete with the former. Not just in regards to road space, but also personal space. So I admit that there are things that need to be fixed on that side as well. Separate cabins within transit train systems would be a good start I think.

Either or, the fact remains that many of us are able to find ways to get around in society and do things that you do as well. We just don't pollute as much. We live just as well in some ways, maybe not as well in others. But overall we have a roof over our heads, food in our bellies, and half decent clothes at best covering us up. (Disregarding the homeless problem of course... 1 problem at a time...)

So anyways, the main point remains. Quality of life is more important than whatever standard of living you think you prefer to live at; because ultimately if your standard of living isn't giving you the quality you seek, then it's not worth it.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#65

Post by throwoutway »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #60
throwoutway wrote: post #53

How do we know the plastics didn't come from the method they took the sample? Whenever I have given a blood sample, plastic tubing was used.

what? They draw blood with needles and use little glass thingies to hold it. They aren't going to draw a liter of blood to check it for plastic, they just need a small sample. There might be some plastic involved somewhere but they aren't stupid enough to not control that. I mean there scientists. If you thought of it they thought of that and a dozen more things to be careful about.

I was wrong sorry. I was thinking of a different medical experience with lots of tubes I had, and donating blood. I guess I havent done just a tube & glass thingy

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#66

Post by DoingIsLearning »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #59
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, why would we not? It is widely used in consumer products. We cook our food in Teflon. But I'm very far from convinced that PFOA will turn out to be any health risk at all, at the levels the general population is exposed to. Even for the mid-Ohio valley cohorts, where you have tens of thousands of people who had occupational exposure over decades at up to 1000x the dose any of us will receive, it has been very c…

I've been using ceramic based everything in my kitchen for a while. I honestly don't know anyone who uses those old nonstick teflon pots, pans, skillets anymore. Just ceramic coated and cast iron like me.

Most people don't realize that many waterproofing coatings in jackets, boots and even waterproof makeup have PFAS's.

Same goes for lubricants, from bicycle gears to door hinges to any manufactured good with moving parts.

Just about anything in modern industry will have, by now, already contaminated you with PFAS.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#67

Post by moonchrome »

SpodGaju wrote: post #34
funstuff007 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clothing is mostly plastic fibre nowadays. I think that's true primarily for athleisure. That being said, it's a very large segment of the market. I was recently in Banana Republic and it was quite hard to find a pair of pants one would want to wear outside of the house. Some what related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU55auqDD28

"I think that's true primarily for athleisure." It is not. Go into any Walmart (and I bring up Walmart because that is where most people shop who are just going about their daily lives) and try to find clothing with no petroleum based material in it. And then try to look on Amazon. Most of the clothing sold there you cannot even find the material list for the product. It will say "cotton" but it is usually only the m…

>clothing with no petroleum based material in it.

That's a far cry from the claim "Clothing is mostly plastic fibre". Having 5%-20% polyester is not the same as being "mostly plastic".

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#68

Post by seanp2k2 »

SpodGaju wrote: post #45
pibechorro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that doomer is a waste of time. Time to be a prepper and realign our relationship to the planet. We could go on and on about climate doom, etc, but the most productive thing we can do is expect change, not apocalypse, and adjust. Lead by example. Everyone reading this can go full wind and solar. Can stop driving or drastically cut it down (move closer, use public transport, work remote, etc). We can all…

And regarding excuses. Maybe we should be able to bring up the road blocks and not call them excuses? Like this in regards to solar that just popped up on my radar today? https://www.wral.com/rooftop-solar-rate-changes-could-cast-l... " NC Capitol NC Capitol Rooftop solar rate changes could cast long shadow over industry, climate change Tags: solar, NC Utilities Commission, utility bills, NCCapitol, Duke Energy, hous…

In California, we have the NEM 3.0 fight https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/02/04/california-nem-3-0-de...

In other states (look up what happened in Nevada), rules have been changed that massively rebalance the economy in favor of not getting rooftop solar.

I agree with some of the other comments here about renewables sometimes causing harm through their production / lifecycle. Our best bet is the first “R”: Reduce.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#70

Post by giantg2 »

scotty79 wrote: post #31
giantg2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I said measurable. The type of sand at the beach generally has a composition that doesn't pose a risk because there isn't enough of the fine particles to be inhaled. There's no measurable amount as it's too low. If it were measurable, that would be a problem as silicosis damage is cumulative (mall doses over a lifetime).

It is perfectly measurable. When you are approaching this with the precision that folks looking for micro-plastics do to get published. I believe there are orders of magnitude between something like that being measurable and causing any symptoms that would make it worth considering from medical point of view.

Sources?
Post reply on HN