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

How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#61

Post by alt227 »

bertil wrote: post #58
alt227 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lovely tone, you sound like a really nice person. I never mentioned train wheels at all. Their brake pads are made from things like carbon, ceramic, and resin compounds. These wear down like any brake pads and so cause the same dust pollution. Remember that some trains in the world are over a mile long and have over 1000 wheels. I dont see anybody claiming that bikes or trains cause anywhere near the same level as ca…

> Im sure bikes and trains are too. > … for tyres and brakes You are welcome to edit your comment to clarify.

No need, it is correct.

Bikes have tyre pollution, and trains have brake pollution. Seems like a pretty simple statement to me.

Interesting that you have moved from arguing the point into semantics now without addressing anything else. You are welcome to remove your downvotes.

People seem to get very upset when others point out that transport like bikes and trains still cause the same pollution as cars. yes it is much less, possibly orders of magnitude so, but they still cause it. Perhaps instead of getting the pitchforks out we could work together to find better wheel and brake solutions for all transpotation methods which dont cause so much toxic dust.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#62

Post by sigmoid10 »

dijit wrote: post #59
sigmoid10 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then please link to it. I'm still waiting for a causal health issue meta analysis that disagrees with me. Shouldn't be hard, if "the science" as you call it has come to a consensus. But I have only seen wild speculation so far like the one linked here.

Sure. Here's a few: - Microplastics found in 76% of human semen samples, with PET-exposed men showing reduced sperm motility: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12299061/ - Multi-site study across China (113 men), PTFE microplastics linked to sperm dysfunction (published in eBioMedicine/Lancet): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-39... - Microplastics found in every human testicle sampled…

You'll excuse me if I only explain the first one, since the others seem redundant (not to say suspiciously redundant if you look at the authors). And none of this is a meta review like I asked, but I'll let it slide this time.

First:

>no significant association was found between MP exposure and sperm concentration or total sperm count

Second: N=34

Third (if second didn't give it away): The one effect they did find sits at p=0.056. That means one in 18 random studies will find that effect just because of probability statistics. And as you have nicely pointed out, there are maaaany studies like this out there. You just don't find all the null results if you go into research with your mindset. But that is exactly what differentiates a scientist looking for truth from a hobbyist trying to argue on the internet.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#63

Post by dijit »

alt227 wrote: post #55
bertil wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of damage to tires is proportional to the fourth power of the weight per axel. That means that for the same journey, a bike sheds (3000 kg / 80 kg)ˆ4 so about 20 million times less. Assuming that the rubber is the same—and not that it has proprietary chemistry that may or may not contain carcinogens. Eight orders of magnitude of difference feels relevant. Almost every train I know use metal wheels. We can…

Lovely tone, you sound like a really nice person. I never mentioned train wheels at all. Their brake pads are made from things like carbon, ceramic, and resin compounds. These wear down like any brake pads and so cause the same dust pollution. Remember that some trains in the world are over a mile long and have over 1000 wheels. I dont see anybody claiming that bikes or trains cause anywhere near the same level as ca…

'Bikes cause it too' is technically true in the way that a dripping tap and a burst dam both cause flooding. The effect of this framing (intentional or not) is to suggest we shouldn't prioritise the thing that causes 99.99% of the problem until we've solved the thing that causes 0.01%. That's not a serious position, you're just protecting your comfort.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#64

Post by KellyCriterion »

schiffern wrote: post #60
KellyCriterion wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, WHAT? There are _plastic_ tea bags? Really? Didnt know that we reached that level of degredation already! :-D Another example comes to my mind: In lot of European conutries, at "cheese corner/bar" in the supermarket, every time a piece of cheese is cut, they are removing the foil, cutting the cheese, and then re-packing it in new foil after that - and this for every chees bar in every supermarket: How much kilo…

The kicker? It's only on high-end tea, because it's more expensive than regular tea bags.

Curious: What is "high end tea"? Or is this just another wording for "premium-markup" which makes a product more expensive?

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#65

Post by dijit »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #62
dijit wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Here's a few: - Microplastics found in 76% of human semen samples, with PET-exposed men showing reduced sperm motility: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12299061/ - Multi-site study across China (113 men), PTFE microplastics linked to sperm dysfunction (published in eBioMedicine/Lancet): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-39... - Microplastics found in every human testicle sampled…

You'll excuse me if I only explain the first one, since the others seem redundant (not to say suspiciously redundant if you look at the authors). And none of this is a meta review like I asked, but I'll let it slide this time. First: >no significant association was found between MP exposure and sperm concentration or total sperm count Second: N=34 Third (if second didn't give it away): The one effect they did find si…

You asked for a meta-analysis. Here's one: 39 studies, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...

It found microplastics caused a decrease of 5.99 million/mL in sperm concentration, 14.62% in sperm motility, 23.56% in sperm viability, and a 10.65% increase in sperm abnormality rate. (I copied and pasted these values directly from the source).

You said you'd be "onboard immediately" if someone showed you a rigorous causal link. This is a meta-analysis with an adverse outcome pathway mapping the causal chain from molecular initiating event (ROS) through to tissue-level damage. That's about as rigorous as it gets before human clinical trials, which (for obvious ethical reasons) nobody is going to run.

As for the p=0.056 critique: you picked the weakest single data point from one of four links and declared victory (scientific!). The in-vitro study I linked exposed actual human semen to microplastics under controlled conditions and observed time-dependent decline in motility and increased DNA fragmentation. That's not a simple correlation, it's a direct causal experiment on human tissue. You didn't address it.

The goalposts have moved from "show me evidence" to "show me a meta-review" to "well not THAT meta-review." At some point you have to engage with what the research actually says rather than with what you'd like it to say.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#66

Post by dijit »

alt227 wrote: post #61
bertil wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Im sure bikes and trains are too. > … for tyres and brakes You are welcome to edit your comment to clarify.

No need, it is correct. Bikes have tyre pollution, and trains have brake pollution. Seems like a pretty simple statement to me. Interesting that you have moved from arguing the point into semantics now without addressing anything else. You are welcome to remove your downvotes. People seem to get very upset when others point out that transport like bikes and trains still cause the same pollution as cars. yes it is muc…

You can't downvote direct replies.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#67

Post by sigmoid10 »

dijit wrote: post #65
sigmoid10 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll excuse me if I only explain the first one, since the others seem redundant (not to say suspiciously redundant if you look at the authors). And none of this is a meta review like I asked, but I'll let it slide this time. First: >no significant association was found between MP exposure and sperm concentration or total sperm count Second: N=34 Third (if second didn't give it away): The one effect they did find si…

You asked for a meta-analysis. Here's one: 39 studies, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... It found microplastics caused a decrease of 5.99 million/mL in sperm concentration, 14.62% in sperm motility, 23.56% in sperm viability, and a 10.65% increase in sperm abnormality rate. (I copied and pasted these values directly from the source). You s…

Doesn't this one directly contradict the other one you linked? What is it now? How is my sperm in danger!? Please Mr. Googlescienceman! Oh god! I'm so confused! I can't take it anymore. Please just tell me what brand of air filter and plastic free clothes I need to buy!! Perhaps I should ask the all mighty google AI overview...

Edit: Oh - lol XD. It literally just told me the science has found no causal link for microplastics harm. Hm. I guess you are just better at researching random studies than us mortals with stupid science degrees and hyped summary machines.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#68

Post by schiffern »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #64
schiffern wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kicker? It's only on high-end tea, because it's more expensive than regular tea bags.

Curious: What is "high end tea"? Or is this just another wording for "premium-markup" which makes a product more expensive?

Yes I just mean the more expensive tea on the shelf. On cheaper SKUs they're trying to cut cost so they use normal tea bags. The plastic sachets were a trend for a couple years but hopefully most brands have switched away.

That study is interesting because they used SEM to image the plastic afterward, and you can see how the plastic surface has literally been torn up on a microscopic level simply by touching hot water.

Plastic has a low-energy surface, which means it doesn't take much energy to tear it apart. Even Brownian motion is enough, which is pretty wild.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#69

Post by himata4113 »

ajb wrote: post #42
himata4113 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really want to use HEPA either, you want to maximize airflow. PC fans with low MERV type filter do great since the smaller the particle (I think this effect kicks in below 5 microns) the better it is at filtering it so if it can pass 10 times more air than a hepa filter it's as effective as one while being able to filter more air faster and keeping the particles airbone. The only downside is that small rang…

That sounds worth knowing; however when I looked MERV up, it seems that it's a rating system, not a type of filter. Could you be more specific abot the kind of filter you mean?

HEPA is typically just one type of filter with True HEPA as an offspring, MERV is a range which allows you to filter exactly what you need at the highest airflow. It really depends on what kind of pollution you have at your home.

If you just have a lot of dust then you want highest airflow possible (around MERV 9-10) if you want to filter things that cause allergies you need to go as high as MERV 14 since MERV 9-10 effectiveness is super low in that specific range.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#70

Post by NitpickLawyer »

bertil wrote: post #54
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #38

I've heard that removing latex gloves when breathing might help...

Classic case of PR leveraging a real, anecdotic observation on one single result, but completely flipping it to pretend it’s a systematic result, to saw doubt on all scientific findings around microplastic. The same companies behind this last story have done the same thing to slow down regulation to limit the impact of smoking, alcohol, processed foods, oil refinery, global warming, lead pipes…

... or just a benign joke. Not everything is that serious, you know...
Post reply on HN