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

Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

ibbi.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#11

Post by dekhn »

coldtea wrote: post #7
goelbab wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard for science to prove because there’s no control group - everyone is exposed. There’s also no clear definition of microplastics that I’ve seen. Different plastics have different toxicitiy

Science works with cases with no control groups all the time

Yes but in those situations, you typically can at best find associations between variables and outcomes. We really want evidence of causality, although it sort of depends on how you interpret the precautionary principle.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#12

Post by pohl »

notatoad wrote: post #9

>In diseased tissue samples of people with chronic illnesses (IBD [6], Dementia [7], heart disease [8]), microplastic prevalence is significantly higher than healthy tissue. this is very much not the same thing as "microplastics cause chronic illness", even though it's worded in a way that clearly wants to make you think that.

Does it need to be the same thing, though, before we consider actions the Precautionary Principle might point toward?

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#13

Post by ibbih »

raincole wrote: post #10
cmuguythrow wrote: post #3

I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet? Quick search shows that we knew about lead hazards as early as the 1920s/1930s, but it took until the 1970s to get regulation about lead paint and gas - hoping we don't repeat that in this case

> Is the science not clear enough yet No. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20250211144614/https://www.natur... if you need) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39900298/

Are the mouse studies not worrying enough for you to change your behaviour?

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#14

Post by pohl »

cmuguythrow wrote: post #3

I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet? Quick search shows that we knew about lead hazards as early as the 1920s/1930s, but it took until the 1970s to get regulation about lead paint and gas - hoping we don't repeat that in this case

Plastics are largely a petroleum product, right? That particular resource extraction industry pretty much has a lock on public policy.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#15

Post by nullorempty »

cmuguythrow wrote: post #3

I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet? Quick search shows that we knew about lead hazards as early as the 1920s/1930s, but it took until the 1970s to get regulation about lead paint and gas - hoping we don't repeat that in this case

>I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet?

Government is always on your side!

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#16

Post by wombatpm »

ibbih wrote: post #13
raincole wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the science not clear enough yet No. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20250211144614/https://www.natur... if you need) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39900298/

Are the mouse studies not worrying enough for you to change your behaviour?

Animal models have flaws. They have doubled the lifespan of the naked mole rat, which has done bupkis for humans.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#17

Post by rpdillon »

coldtea wrote: post #7
goelbab wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard for science to prove because there’s no control group - everyone is exposed. There’s also no clear definition of microplastics that I’ve seen. Different plastics have different toxicitiy

Science works with cases with no control groups all the time

Yes, but teasing apart causality and confounding variables is very difficult.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#18

Post by WastedCucumber »

goelbab wrote: post #4

Many of these microplastic studies [1-9] rely on small sample sizes (e.g., n=10 for brain tissue) and detection methods that could pick up contamination from lab equipment itself. It reminds me of when everyone was afraid of BPA And what defines a “microplastic”? There’s so many different types of plastics that all have different effects on the body What’s really the health trade-off compared to having to monitor eve…

> What’s really the health trade-off compared to having to monitor every tiny little thing

I'd say that there's sure a health benefit for continuing studies on microplastics. Even if they're difficult to conduct, it's probably a good idea to learn more aboht microplastics and health because, barring some new way to remove microplastics, it seems likely that the ambient concentration of them will only increase in the future.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#19

Post by p1necone »

cmuguythrow wrote: post #3

I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet? Quick search shows that we knew about lead hazards as early as the 1920s/1930s, but it took until the 1970s to get regulation about lead paint and gas - hoping we don't repeat that in this case

The science is very clear on microplastics existing and being in our bodies.

The science linking that to specific outcomes/harm is almost non existent from what I understand.

Edit: to those downvoting - I'm not downplaying anything here, I agree they're concerning and we should be worried - just stating the fact that as far as I know the research on outcomes is very inconclusive at this point.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#20

Post by rocqua »

raincole wrote: post #10
cmuguythrow wrote: post #3

I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet? Quick search shows that we knew about lead hazards as early as the 1920s/1930s, but it took until the 1970s to get regulation about lead paint and gas - hoping we don't repeat that in this case

> Is the science not clear enough yet No. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20250211144614/https://www.natur... if you need) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39900298/

How well does the link need to be proven before we act?

The fact that we haven't found the causal link yet is not proof that there isn't one. And a whole lot of correlation suggests that there is. Why should we not take this as yet another reason to regulate throwaway plastic?

Post reply on HN