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

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#161

Post by namibj »

atrus wrote: post #74
lukan wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have clear evidence that asbestos and lead are very harmful. I don't think we have that evidence for plastic (yet). Also you totally can start buying plastic free clothes here and now. Just more expensive usually.

Plus, plastics is a very very broad term. Saying "ban all plastics" isn't the same as saying ban lead, it's the same as saying "ban all metals".

Yeah, i.e., is rayon banned? Silicones (they're very different from all the classic oil-sourced plastics).

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#162

Post by Sharlin »

colechristensen wrote: post #66
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.

Most cotton production in the US is not irrigated. The problem with farming resource calculations and fearmongering, is often they measure water usage of a particular crop without really considering where the water came from. Wouldn't you say crops grown with just water from the rain were using water with perfect sustainability?

The cotton in my clothes doesn't come from the US, and neither does that of the vast majority of world's people. Besides that, surely you're aware that the American South is going to increasingly suffer from droughts as well? It's pretty disingenuous to assume that just because historically rainwater has been sufficient, it's going to be so in the future as well.

Also, agriculture isn't necessarily sustainable just because it doesn't require artificial irrigation. As an extreme example, just look at the Amazon. The land used to grow a water-intensive species might be better used for other purposes.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#163

Post by Sharlin »

lurking_swe wrote: post #43
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.

on the bright side, cotton is a lot more durable and lasts longer. Another problem is fast fashion. The fashion industry is a bit of a cancer on the planet, encouraging chains like H&M to sell very cheap clothes filled with plastic, that people need to replace every few years.

Well, it depends. Certainly nylon and polyester can be vastly stronger than cotton, that's why they're used in many garments requiring mechanical durability. (Heck, ballistic nylon is a thing; you don't hear about ballistic cotton!)

But sure, it's also true that you can make extremely low-durability clothing from synthetic polymers that aren't even intended to last (ultra fast fashion is incredibly destructive, yes).

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#164

Post by namibj »

taeric wrote: post #140
ninininino wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can replace Nylon with get this, poorer alternatives, if we gave a shit about the environment. I know it's unthinkable to switch to a worse product or user experience, but imagine caring more about the health of the planet.

This feels naive. For things like parachutes or airbags, I question whether you would actually have benefits from using something like cotton. In particular, they almost certainly do not perform at the same level. As such, you run the real risk of losing gains from other material to losses to maintenance.

Might be time to scale up spider silk synthesis, then?

Or maybe (high strength successors to) Rayon, which as I understand should decompose like regular cotton.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#165

Post by taeric »

namibj wrote: post #164
taeric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels naive. For things like parachutes or airbags, I question whether you would actually have benefits from using something like cotton. In particular, they almost certainly do not perform at the same level. As such, you run the real risk of losing gains from other material to losses to maintenance.

Might be time to scale up spider silk synthesis, then? Or maybe (high strength successors to) Rayon, which as I understand should decompose like regular cotton.

So, materiel that doesn't really exist?

And rayon doesn't exactly have a good history.

I'm all for looking for better things. Will be hard to replace some stuff, though.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#166

Post by zug_zug »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #87
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…

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?

> what does the evidence say? Afaict, not much.

That's only because we have no way to gather evidence, because almost everybody alive has microplastic exposure, so we don't have a control group.

It's just the nature of poorly understood psychology and the long human lifespan that most scientific research wouldn't be able to establish causality on a whole host of negative things (e.g. look how long it took to even get agreement that football concussions were detrimental in the long-term).

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#168

Post by left-struck »

colechristensen wrote: post #63
pushupentry1219 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are these filters sufficient to filter out microplastics?

Yes. And particles down to 0.3 microns. My understanding is that the health benefits are most pronounced from avoiding smoke and fine dust particles which don't necessarily have a lot to do with plastic, but it's a good recommendation regardless. There is significant evidence linking PM2.5 concentrations and health (which is a common metric about fine particles in the air of a particular size, in this case 2.5 micron…

To add to this, hepa filters are extremely effective. They are rated at something like 99.95%. That is the rating for the size of particle that they are worst at filtering. Particles both smaller and larger are filtered at a higher rate. This is also only for air passing through the filter once, if you have a air purifier running in a small room it will pass all the air through it multiple times, completely cleaning the air of basically anything that is not gas or vapour. Of course new particles can come into the air from various sources. It’s kinda magical that we can have this technology that is affordable and actually genuinely does what is advertised

They are so effective that they will literally filter a bad smell out of a room assuming it’s not a gas that’s making then smell.

Re: Microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain

#170

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

> 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.

I mean, this was once essentially the case for "cigarettes are bad for you".

Post reply on HN