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

Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

jamanetwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#111

Post by im3w1l »

londons_explore wrote: post #58
simonh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

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 gl…

I think we can find and should seek out easy wins. That is we should identify the major sources of microplastics and eliminate them. From my personal observation it seems the major issue could be textiles made from plastic. Clothes and carpets made from polyester, nylon, I would guess these are subject to a lot of wear and tear and rubbing which produces plastic dust that may be breathed.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#112

Post by cubefox »

pfdietz wrote: post #86
cubefox wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> The human body does not contain enzymes that digest cellulose. So how is this degradation to occur?

Mostly outside the body, before ingestion occurs.

> Being accustomed to something doesn't mean the thing doesn't hurt us.

I disagree. Evolution had the last ~360 million years (that's about how old cellulose is I believe) to evolve mechanisms to protect our body from cellulose particles.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#113

Post by userbinator »

The predominant shapes were particles and fibers, with polypropylene being the most common polymer.

No doubt these are almost entirely due to synthetic fibres in clothing and other textiles, which have been around for more than half a century now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olefin_fiber

Note that natural fibres aren't great either if you inhale enough of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byssinosis

The amount of pseudoscience and illogicity around microplastics is staggering. Consider those advocating for banning traditional blown-film plastic bags and replacing them with ones which are woven or non-woven fibre... the majority of which will also be made from plastic, but will emit loose fibres far more easily. Go after the textile industry if you really want to reduce microplastics, as that's where the majority of them come from. Of course this is assuming there is any clear evidence of harm, which is far from conclusive.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#114

Post by jongjong »

I blame our debt-based system for fueling globalization at a rapid speed and for shifting the focus too much towards low-costs and mass production.

When consumers are in debt and deprived of surplus income, they are forced to ignore their ethical concerns and go for the cheapest of the cheap, which is usually bad for the environment.

Had we had a more decentralized system, with less severe inequality, I tend to think that we would be using a far more heterogeneous set of materials in manufacturing. There would be less focus on minimizing costs, leaving more room for ethics and thus we wouldn't end up with massive global problems like this.

It's weird how plastic in its current form has been around and sold in such massive qualities for such a long time. It makes it look as though there is absolutely no room for innovation. But history tells us there is always room for innovation. Capitalism has been good at finding creative paths (plural). The tech monoculture we have today seems unnatural. Likely propped up by our debt-based monetary system which allows infinite compounding of wealth which leads to unsurmountable artificial centralization. It manufactures inequality, homogeneity and groupthink.

Capitalism should be a hydra, but the monetary system has turned it into a one-headed dragon with a single mighty but aging head.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#115

Post by userbinator »

cubefox wrote: post #75
pfdietz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your evidence that microparticles from cotton are not also toxic?

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byssinosis

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#116

Post by nextos »

vallassy wrote: post #85
Dalewyn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 cerami…

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.

It's about reducing costs for the producers and supermarkets, ignoring externalities. That is, tons of plastic that doesn't get recycled and goes to the landfill. Now the issue seems worse as another important externality are adverse effects to human health.

I can't believe costs of switching to glass or ceramic are that high. I've bought tons of inexpensive dairy and desserts that came packaged using those materials. But since most customers don't care, they tend to use plastic.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#117

Post by pfdietz »

cubefox wrote: post #112
pfdietz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The human body does not contain enzymes that digest cellulose. So how is this degradation to occur? Mostly outside the body, before ingestion occurs. > Being accustomed to something doesn't mean the thing doesn't hurt us. I disagree. Evolution had the last ~360 million years (that's about how old cellulose is I believe) to evolve mechanisms to protect our body from cellulose particles.

Evolution has had the last ~360 million years for us to evolve enzymes to digest cellulose. And yet we can't.

> Mostly onside the body, before ingestion occurs.

This is an obviously silly statement. Of course cellulose can be ingested in various ways, including extremely small particles.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#118

Post by pton_xd »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #95
darby_nine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 u…

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.

> The fact that we can't pin down a strong effect on human health outcomes after decades of exposure should be a relief

What kind of strong effect are you looking for, immediate death?

That fact isn't reassuring to me at all. There's a wide variety of increasingly common health conditions that have an unknown etiology -- ADHD, autism, CFS, IBS, mental illness, obesity, etc.

The fact there isn't an immediately obvious health outcome is worrying because it just as likely has a wide reaching effect on a great many bodily systems, making it difficult or impossible to isolate exact consequences from varying exposure.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#119

Post by Aurornis »

advael wrote: post #76

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…

> I am fairly convinced that this comment section is among the best demonstrations for "isolated demands for rigor" I have personally ever seen,

I’ve found HN and other comment sections to lean in the direction of assuming the worst about microplastics, historically.

However, I think we’re all getting tired of the constant “sky is falling” tone around these studies that can’t demonstrate harms outside of extremely narrow and exaggerated lab circumstances.

Meanwhile, the alternative medicine gurus have adopted microplastics as their excuse for nearly everything.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#120

Post by ericd »

bluSCALE4 wrote: post #11
ushiroda80 wrote: post #6

Plastics need be banned from clothing and food.

From clothing? Do you have any idea how prevalent it's become? It is hard/impossible to find clothes without traces of plastic.

Sure, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, buying something with a bit of spandex or whatever for stretch/durability is vastly better than buying something that's pure polyester fleece. Just go for as high a percentage cotton/wool/linen wherever you can.
Post reply on HN