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

151–160 of 186 posts

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#151

Post by mapt »

advael wrote: post #128
Aurornis wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 na…

I think there's an issue of burden of proof at play. If these microplastics were a drug, they would need to go through an expensive and onerous vetting process that consists of both safety testing and efficacy testing for a particular indication for it to be legal to sell someone if and only if a doctor specifically prescribed it for that person. Even if you believe, as I do, that efficacy testing shouldn't stop peop…

Most of the direct human exposure seems to come from polyester, which we have raced to make the dominant clothing and bedding fabric.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#152

Post by Dalewyn »

specialist wrote: post #139
quantified wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean sand?

I was too clever by half. Dalewyn omitted safety from their criteria comparing glass to plastic.

>glass containers are fragile and they are very dangerous to handle if and when they break. Plastic containers are much more durable, and even if they break they are seldom as dangerous as broken glass.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#153

Post by kwhitefoot »

bluSCALE4 wrote: post #41
kwhitefoot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it impractical? It would be unpopular and put prices up but it could be done. We would have to reduce the amount of clothing that is produced but that is hardly a problem as we produce vastly more than we need. We could eliminate fast fashion for a start.

You don't hear people saying, man, that asbestos and lead did a bang up job on X. But you 100% see 100% of women wearing stretchy pants. For the longest time I exclusively wore cotton jeans and then they became impossible to find and I finally realized what plastic was good for: fat people. Now I see men wearing them all the time. The struggle of the 80s on people killing themselves to fit into jeans is not longer a…

Cotton socks exist as well as wool worsted, so not a huge problem as far as I can see. Tights and stockings will be a much bigger challenge.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#154

Post by [deleted] »

mapt wrote: post #151
advael wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's an issue of burden of proof at play. If these microplastics were a drug, they would need to go through an expensive and onerous vetting process that consists of both safety testing and efficacy testing for a particular indication for it to be legal to sell someone if and only if a doctor specifically prescribed it for that person. Even if you believe, as I do, that efficacy testing shouldn't stop peop…

Most of the direct human exposure seems to come from polyester, which we have raced to make the dominant clothing and bedding fabric.

[deleted]

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#155

Post by robertlagrant »

PlattypusRex wrote: post #109
robertlagrant wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> disingenuous How about we leave the silly accusations of malice at whatever low rent other website they were learned at. You don't know motivations.

The term 'disingenuous' isn't about malice, it's about misleading comparisons. Equating the well-documented issue of micro/nanoplastics with hypothetical (and inaccurate) risks from glass muddies the water on a serious environmental problem. If you want to dispute the facts I presented about glass versus plastic safety, let's focus on that instead of tone policing.

Saying you don't know someone was being disingenuous isn't tone policing. It's nothing to do with tone.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#156

Post by advael »

mapt wrote: post #151
advael wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's an issue of burden of proof at play. If these microplastics were a drug, they would need to go through an expensive and onerous vetting process that consists of both safety testing and efficacy testing for a particular indication for it to be legal to sell someone if and only if a doctor specifically prescribed it for that person. Even if you believe, as I do, that efficacy testing shouldn't stop peop…

Most of the direct human exposure seems to come from polyester, which we have raced to make the dominant clothing and bedding fabric.

Massively subsidizing anything to do with oil has certainly caused all these byproducts to be super artificially cheap, so with the governments with globe-spanning military empires absorbing most of the cost and ensuring not even the mildest threat of accountability for "externalities" in an economy designed to reward single-minded monetary optimization, it was pretty inevitable that things made of oil would get pervasive everywhere

Maybe we should convince government to do less of those things somehow?

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#157

Post by space_oddity »

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…

But why there is a contrast between how we treat emerging technologies versus environmental pollutants?

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#158

Post by space_oddity »

Aurornis wrote: post #119
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 na…

In a way the constant alarmism without solid evidence can be counterproductive

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#159

Post by space_oddity »

stroupwaffle wrote: post #60
seper8 wrote: post #33

People, get air filters inside of your house and especially your bedroom. Anything with a HEPA filter. I personally have a Winix and a dyson fan, quite happy with it. You'll be surprised what it picks up over time, and consequently what you end up not inhaling...

Everything is made of plastic now though including those fuzzy blankets and pillows people love.

It's true... Plastic has become so ubiquitous that it's in nearly everything

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#160

Post by Sharlin »

cubefox wrote: post #42
Sharlin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cotton production, however, is extremely resource-intensive (particularly water) to the point of unsustainability – and it's largely grown in parts of the world that are likely to suffer catastrophic droughts in the future.

Cotton has been produced for a long time and with far more primitive means than today, so I'm pretty sure it is sustainable. Moreover, cotton being so cheap pretty much rules out it being "extremely resource intensive". Water is a very inexpensive resource in most parts of the world.

We're obviously no longer in those times. Many things that were once sustainable are no longer so. It is well understood that cotton production will face considerable difficulties in the future. At the same time the demand for cotton has exploded along with global population. Consumer prices of cotton do not accurately reflect the production cost due to the usual reasons (externalities, lack of global water pricing mechanisms).

> Water is a very inexpensive resource in most parts of the world.

I don't think you know what you're talking about, and you're (like myself) living in a privileged part of the world if water is an inexpensive resource to you. Freshwater scarcity is going to be one of the most critical issues exacerbated by the climate change, and as I said, particularly so in those parts of the world where cotton is grown such as South Asia. The most famous case of cotton production having catastrophic consequences is the Aral Sea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea).

https://h2oglobalnews.com/cotton-farming-and-water-scarcity/

https://thewotrblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/why-farmers-are...

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/20...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09218...

Post reply on HN