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

What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#111

Post by dlcarrier »

legitster wrote: post #26
AyanamiKaine wrote: post #12

Microplastics have always fascinated me, because I keep seeing article after article about how much microplastic exists around us, but far less strong evidence about its actual effects. That is not to say there are no effects, of course. Maybe we just have not found them yet. A friend of mine worked on her bachelor’s thesis about the effects of microplastics on the immune system, specifically T cells. Her result was…

> She probably will not publish this result because she thinks it is not interesting enough. Classic file-drawer problem in academic science. It's truly insane that everyone in the academic class understands the fundamental problems of herding and sampling bias and yet every incentive is in place to do this.

It's worse than that.

It wouldn't take much time for her to publish it then move on to something that looks good on a resumé, but it could actively work against her if she published something that doesn't substantiate the status quo. If you get labeled a science denier, because you published a negative result for a politically-charged subject, even when you agree with the overall cause, it'll be nearly impossible to get a job in the field, even with a flawless resumé.

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#112

Post by Schmerika »

Shog9 wrote: post #50
Borg3 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once microplastics fall apart futher, to nano-plastic, it will start to get absorbed by T cells because they want to destroy any invaders. Once absorbed, T-Cell start to produce H2O2 to destroy anything they absorbed. Unfortunately, plastics are mostly chemically neutral and so, it cannot be destroyed like that. T-Cells produce more H2O2, eventually it leaks outside and start inflamation of surrunding tissue. There i…

Link to that research, please. It would add meaningfully to this discussion.

[dead]

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#113

Post by neptvn »

So the article seems to pose more questions than it answers. I was expecting some observations from the plastic-free lab they built, and at least some evidence of the comparative impact vs. other labs that use plastic to study blood and other fluids (besides the 100-times-plastic/phthalates concentration in the air).

What exactly are they studying in the lab? The biggest takeaway from all this is that "we [still] don’t have enough information yet".

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#114

Post by Xirdus »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #93
Xirdus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence can be strong or weak. Every positive study result is evidence of presence, usually strong evidence. Every negative study result is evidence of absence, usually very weak evidence.

And yet, people can be extremely vigilant about a positive correlation when it doesn’t fit their personal agenda, going as far as questioning methodology in even the least pragmatic ways possible; or, become accepting of the absence of evidence as evidence of absence when weak/no correlation is convenient to their own biases.

I'd say it's very sensible to assume absence up front before there's convincing evidence of presence. Sure, personal biases influence our evidence thresholds a lot, and often people demand unfair rigor that cannot be practically met. But the opposite is also true - sometimes people will believe in presence with zero evidence if they like it enough. The latter is far, far more dangerous than the former.

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#115

Post by Xirdus »

zug_zug wrote: post #98
Xirdus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence can be strong or weak. Every positive study result is evidence of presence, usually strong evidence. Every negative study result is evidence of absence, usually very weak evidence.

That's not right, a negative study often still can give evidence that something is true, but it just didn't meet the p=.05 threshold.

p0.05 as positive evidence for any purpose other than deciding to rerun the study with a bigger sample size.

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#117

Post by green_wheel »

dlcarrier wrote: post #109
green_wheel wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to rethink your position on avoiding ultra processed foods not having any positive health effects...

If someone comes out with a study that shows, all other things being equal, decreasing or increasing the amount of ultra-processed foods causes a respective increase or decrease in health, then I will rethink my stance. Until then, I'll keep eating foods consisting of proven healthy ingredients, even if they are classified as Nova 4 ultra-processed, such as lasagna made using my great grandmother's recipe or ancient…

Why would those be nova 4? And it sounds like you're already avoiding some processed foods. Did you mean avoiding ALL processed foods?

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#118

Post by Apocryphon »

cobbzilla wrote: post #107
Apocryphon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've addressed this idea in a sibling comment. I think at least some superstition is inevitable in any subculture. Consider how many tech 'holy wars' might involve baseless beliefs about how a text editor or programming language or whatever being not only superior because of personal preference but because it's inherently more optimized. Treating anti-micro-plastics as a "religion" rather than a subculture based on a…

> Treating anti-micro-plastics as a "religion" rather than a subculture based on a meme deserves a bit more nuance. Agreed, and I think we satisfy your two conditions and many more. If I read you right, question 1 pertains to irrationality, and question 2 pertains to powerful storytelling. OK here’s one example that shows you are on the right track, but there is still more. My ex-wife is gluten free. This single choi…

To be fair, that wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of criteria for what constitutes a religion, nor is the second one really a criterion for inclusion, just a couple of points I was thinking of. For the first, I would hesitate to label microplastics skepticism as baseless as the other two examples I listed, as there seems to be some studies that suggest they're not great for the human body? But sure, forming an entire belief system about how they're the anti-panacea for all of modern ills is certainly unfounded.

The second is more prescriptive-suggesting than descriptive. What motivates the desire to create single scapegoats for all of modern ills? Maybe a breakdown in public trust in science, lack of comprehensive medical education, spread of misinformation, political polarization (lots of these health fads end up embroiled in culture wars), etc. So that's a host of issues to work on. And at the same time, the anxieties they are preoccupied with- widespread changes to people's bodies, for one - do need explanations for, otherwise people will flock to just-so stories.

Your introduction of a third point about how a modern pseudo-religion provides a call to action to achieve a desirable afterlife that actually exists in this life (e.g. some unspecified healthy future) is rather inspired. Reminds me of the phenomenon of how secular cults of political personality now appear to be moving in on traditional spirituality. Superstition, it would seem, can exist even without belief in the overtly supernatural.

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#119

Post by gwerbin »

cobbzilla wrote: post #20
andrenotgiant wrote: post #13

I think hate of plastics is an emergent form of elitism. Upwardly mobile middle/upper class people who've sort of "maxed out" the amount of personal identity they can buy with regular plastic things can unlock a new level of identity by deciding that plastics are bad for them and eliminating plastics from their life, a process which conveniently requires buying a whole new set of things that distinguish them from the…

> requires buying a whole new set of things that distinguish them from their peers No, it requires buying a whole new set of things to fit in with and be accepted by their peers, to distinguish themselves from the outgroup , the plastic users. I don’t necessarily believe this is some emergent elitism; I see it more as a modern religion with many many rules about eating and consumption (using plastic is now a sin). Li…

Oh give it a rest.

First of all, yes, performatively following health fads has always been a thing for people with money.

But do you honestly believe this is what's going on at a large scale? What an absurd reaction to other people doing something that you don't like or don't understand. Nobody who isn't a paid influencer is sneering at you for using the wrong materials in your kitchen.

If you feel sneered that, that's your problem and not anyone else's. Are you going to start plasticmaxing, like rolling coal but for food containers?

I think you're doing the thing that you are accusing other people of doing. Creating an artificial distinction between "us" and "them", so that you can feel like you are part of the "us". It's just that in this case you want to feel like some kind of rational rebel, one of the final chosen few with common sense, in an increasingly irrational world.

Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

#120

Post by gwerbin »

beej71 wrote: post #35
cobbzilla wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requires buying a whole new set of things that distinguish them from their peers No, it requires buying a whole new set of things to fit in with and be accepted by their peers, to distinguish themselves from the outgroup , the plastic users. I don’t necessarily believe this is some emergent elitism; I see it more as a modern religion with many many rules about eating and consumption (using plastic is now a sin). Li…

I don't get this whole attitude. Moving away from plastics in our kitchen was basically zero extra cost. Something busted, and we replaced it with non-plastic. Even bamboo scrubbers don't cost more than plastic (maybe even a little less) and I can't see any particular longevity difference. I think the fact that I volunteer to clean up trash on public lands and know that weathered plastic is the period worst period to…

GP is looking for culture war in a ball pit.
Post reply on HN