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

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#71

Post by giantg2 »

drusenko wrote: post #47
giantg2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want tackle those, then we also have to look at trade policies. We've shipped most of the primary and secondary industries to developing nations, where these concerns are largely ignored. Some politicians talk a big environmental game, but they won't dare touch on this subject. It's a shell game.

Let’s not get defeatist and give up. Europe is implementing a carbon border adjustment, and the U.S. is discussing this as well. If implemented correctly this should reduce the financial incentive to offshore emissions and create one for other countries to reduce their own.

"and the U.S. is discussing this as well."

I haven't heard that. Do you have a link?

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#72

Post by pessimizer »

moonchrome wrote: post #67
SpodGaju wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

The person you're replying to said that clothing marketed as cotton is 5-20% polyester.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#73

Post by scotty79 »

drusenko wrote: post #38
scotty79 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you want to go where honest approach to this takes you. To make as little impact as possible you should use as little resources as possible, so you should always choose cheapest, most artificial, mass produced versions of everything, including food, never travel, work as little as possible and only remotely. Basically be poor or at least act poor in every aspect of your life. Wear cheapest clothes and don…

This might be accurate today, but it ignores our ability to make technological progress to make our current activities low or no impact. Further, this line of thinking - that you need to sacrifice your lifestyle in order to save the planet - is IMO one of if not the major reason we haven’t made progress on addressing climate change to date. Plainly put, people tend to be short term selfish, even often at the expense…

I don't think we can wait on technological magic bullet to deus ex machina save us from disaster.

Economy got us into this mess. Economy needs to get us out.

Climate change would be already solved if somebody figured out how the richest could earn more money when the energy is more expensive rather than when it is cheaper.

Billionaires would singlehandedly legislate all the necessary laws that would make energy as expensive as it really is to our planet. An our livestyles would change against our selfish preference. You wouldn't fly abroad for vacation if it costed more than your annual salary.

People in the developed world would need to be much poorer in relative terms to save the planet from global warming.

Tradeable right for emitting CO2 are great mechanism, because they let rich get richer by driving up the price of CO2 and the high price changes behaviors of energy consumers, producers and whole economy.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#74

Post by sokoloff »

svnt wrote: post #48
Yoric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of your points. Please research solar and wind before switching, though. Until we have solved the problem of energy storage, in many cases, solar and wind actually tend to increase pollution, because they both rely upon polluting raw materials for both themselves and their batteries and need backup power, which to this day means gas. That is unless you find yourself with a good problem set in which…

This argument is total oil company propaganda. Raw materials do not pollute. Their mining and manufacture does, but that again is because of oil consumption in an outdated manufacturing chain. Burning oil produces CO2. It is chemically impossible to avoid this. Manufacturing silicon and harvesting lithium do not produce CO2, and these processes can be cleaned up.

Concrete production requires CO2 from energy but also releases CO2 from the chemical processes. (Concrete is heavily used in wind energy production systems.)

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#75

Post by scotty79 »

svnt wrote: post #39
scotty79 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you want to go where honest approach to this takes you. To make as little impact as possible you should use as little resources as possible, so you should always choose cheapest, most artificial, mass produced versions of everything, including food, never travel, work as little as possible and only remotely. Basically be poor or at least act poor in every aspect of your life. Wear cheapest clothes and don…

Your classism is a big part of the problem. What you describe is called asceticism, it has a long and storied history with significant contributions to the long-term cultural stability of humankind, and American culture basically just hasn’t been around long enough to develop it yet.

> ... with significant contributions to the long-term cultural stability of humankind

I don't think that's true. Leitmotif of history of humankind is the exploitation of available resources to the boundaries of reason and beyond.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#76

Post by perfecthjrjth »

When I was growing up, everything was glass: glass bottles for tablets, etc. Then plastic took over. Every village/town in the third world is littered with so much plastic without proper disposal--ending up in local creeks, subsequently in oceans in the rainy season.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#77

Post by shafyy »

milansm wrote: post #18
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…

This is exactly what I’ll try to change in next 5 years. Have a sustainable baseline: my own food (or at least 50% of it, other 50% locally grown within ~10km) and energy independent (for heating and cooking), and treat everything else as a luxury that can perish any time now. I don’t want to give up my remote work, car and (occasional) luxury vacation, but would love to be able to sustain myself without it. Current…

Regarding food: What you eat is significantly more important than where it comes from (there are a few exceptions). Not eating meat and dairy is the biggest impact you can have food-wise. Getting your potatoes from within 10km or 1000km doesn't really matter in regards to emissions. In fact, depending on where you live, locally grown food can have a bigger environmental impact than non-local food (due to artifical light, fertilizers, greenhouses, etc.)

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#whe...

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#78

Post by scotty79 »

giantg2 wrote: post #70
scotty79 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's nothing specific about it being plastic. Detection methods are the same.

https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/33/2/mzab091/6295061

"Any glass participles smaller than 20 µm were marked by the examiner as ‘sandy particles’ and not precisely measured."

People don't research that subject a lot because it's known that small 'sandy particles' in the body are not causing problems. But that doesn't mean they are immeasurable.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#79

Post by milansm »

SpodGaju wrote: post #32
milansm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I’ll try to change in next 5 years. Have a sustainable baseline: my own food (or at least 50% of it, other 50% locally grown within ~10km) and energy independent (for heating and cooking), and treat everything else as a luxury that can perish any time now. I don’t want to give up my remote work, car and (occasional) luxury vacation, but would love to be able to sustain myself without it. Current…

Quoted post unavailable.

I probably wasn’t clear enough. I don’t feel guilty because of my life style, I feel like I’m in a trap. What would happen with me and my family if power grid goes down for a week? What about a month?

The point is, we can probably have best of both worlds if we accept lifestyle change (IMO simple life close to nature is an improvement, not degradation) where we enjoy the benefits of technology, but not being dependent on it.

Think living in a village, spending very little, eating non processed, locally grown food, working remotely, driving a car maybe a couple of times per month to visit friends and do some shopping and that’s it.

I’d like to do that not because I feel responsible for climate change, inequality or whatever, but for personal security, longevity, and quality of life reasons.

Edit: side effects of this lifestyle are less co2, less pollution, resilient local economy and much more.

Re: Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

#80

Post by para_parolu »

pibechorro wrote: post #16
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…

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…

By any chance do you live in California or US?
Post reply on HN