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 sta…
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?
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.