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

Microplastics in the human brain

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 219 posts

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#161

Post by DoingIsLearning »

penjelly wrote: post #49
hammock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we need more lightweight cars , not heavier, since tire wear is proportional to vehicle weight to the fourth power. Ironically, CAFE regulations and EV incentives both did the opposite

EV/hybrid only "zones" in Europe are crazy to me because the electric cars leech more tire carbon into the air anyway. Some regulation seems intelligent on the surface, but the devil is in the details.

Excessive NO2 emissions spewed by diesel engines not meeting regulations very literally removed years from our collective life spans in city centres across the world.

Despite their own health hazards no amount of tire particulate from EV's can achieve that level of widespread public health impact.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#162

Post by Lanolderen »

hammock wrote: post #24
Kapura wrote: post #20

Remember that car tire degredation is a significant portion of microplastics in the environment. Investing in mass transit is as imperative as it was to move away from leaded gasoline.

And we need more lightweight cars , not heavier, since tire wear is proportional to vehicle weight to the fourth power. Ironically, CAFE regulations and EV incentives both did the opposite

Also motorcycles/scooters. Unless you have children or live in a place with serious snow a motorcycle and a car sharing app/rentals for when you need to haul a sofa or something is a great combo.

Cheap, easy maintenance, good fuel economy and speed, traffic jam immunity..

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#163

Post by audunw »

penjelly wrote: post #49
hammock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we need more lightweight cars , not heavier, since tire wear is proportional to vehicle weight to the fourth power. Ironically, CAFE regulations and EV incentives both did the opposite

EV/hybrid only "zones" in Europe are crazy to me because the electric cars leech more tire carbon into the air anyway. Some regulation seems intelligent on the surface, but the devil is in the details.

These zones are generally densely populated areas, and in Europe they usually have low speed limits, and roads design to encourage driving at low speeds.

To think that the minuscule difference in tire dust is significant at all, compared to the pollutants that EVs completely eliminates, is absolutely ridiculous.

The devil is in the details, yes. Have you considered that the policy makers have actually looked into the details? Have you looked into the details? Have you read any detailed reports about tire wear or did you just make up a problem based on your own intuition? Because I’ve seen reports from EV fleet operators that indicate that they see no difference in tire wear. Most likely the added weight (which isn’t all that much for modern, smaller EVs.. you know, the ones that people actually drive in urban/suburban areas in Europe) as a factor is drowned by other larger factors.

And we’re not that far away from EVs with the same or lower weight than their ICE counterparts, so getting these kinds of policies in place has some forward-looking aspects to them as well.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#164

Post by chiefalchemist »

medellin wrote: post #15
chiefalchemist wrote: post #7

As I understand it, they took a small sample of brain tissue, extracted the plastic, and then extrapolated that (based on the tissue sample size) over the whole of the brain. This assumes the presence of plastic is evenly distributed throughout the brain, which isn't necessarily the case.

I would think that we would be seeing a lit more issues if we had that much plastic just in our brain. But maybe our body doesn’t mind all that much. I guess we will see how things play out in another 30 years though.

Huberman Labs has been mentioning plastics in the body frequently.

Don't laugh, but I'm getting a new toothbrush to be safe.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#165

Post by ethagnawl »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #111
borski wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, but the thing that leads us to lighter EVs is solid state batteries.

Yeah, I’d expect EVs to get lighter over time as technology progresses. Car bloat is a much bigger problem. Totally insane that little practical city cars like the Honda Fit have gone practically extinct in the US in favor of bigger, heavier cars that don’t even necessarily bring improved cargo capacity for all that extra bulk.

I have a 2018 Fit and it's a fantastic car. It gets 36 MPG and has much more interior space than it would seem. I've had taller people ride in it comfortably and its crowning achievement was fitting a hot water heater in the cargo area with the rear seat split -- without having to remove the child car seat on the other side. Pair a roof rack and you really don't need more -- especially day-to-day.

It's a crying shame that they've stopped selling them in the US. Marketing (the real men need their Rams, thank you very much!) and the CAFE loophole seem to have won the day, though, and we're all worse off for it.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#167

Post by globular-toast »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #147
epistasis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a grocery store that is within a short walking distance, such that you don't need to haul a weeks worth of groceries but can get fresh food every single day. US supermarkets are massive, take forever to buy small amounts of groceries, and even the walk to and from the car is long. A better world is possible! (If better grocery stores constitute a "better world")

> you don't need to haul a weeks worth of groceries but can get fresh food every single day I lived that life in my 20s Turns out I don't actually want to go to the grocery store every day. I want to go once a week and stock up, which I can do thanks to inventions like the refrigerator and the automobile

I don't believe it. If you lived right next door to the grocery shop would you still only go once a week and stock up?

Nobody wants less flexibility, rigid plans and higher maintenance costs. I think what you really want is a big house with lots of space away from other people and since you can't have your cake and eat it too you've sacrificed everything else.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#168

Post by myrmidon »

timr wrote: post #141
edouard-harris wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're claiming that they had e.g. 10 tiny samples of tissue, that their measurements had an average 25% variation across those 10 samples, and that therefore the whole brain estimate (mass 10,000x that of a single sample) therefore has a much greater uncertainty. But doesn't the standard error of the mean get reduced by the square root of the number of samples? i.e.…

You're talking about reduction in statistical variance due to replication of measurement (and then averaging). I'm talking about what happens when they extrapolate from that value by a huge factor (which is what they've done, and the silly article does egregiously). The paper isn't clear what they mean when they said "~25% within-sample coefficient of variation", so I can't directly address what you're asking, but it…

I think there is some kind of mixup, you can not scale up the variance percentages quadratically:

If you do a small-scale measurement, say you get result of 5g, with a standard deviation of 0.2g. That means the variance is 0.04 g^2.

If you then scale the setup up by 1000 (=> getting 5kg as expected value), then the variance scales to 1000^2 * 0.04 = 40000 g^2.

BUT the standard deviation is still 200g. The relative uncertainty is NOT increasing quadratically!

(another sanity check: if you change the units by a factor of 1000, your variance must not increase, relatively).

But maybe I misunderstood your point?

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#169

Post by mythrwy »

_yb2s wrote: post #150
mythrwy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I consume drinks? No, except water and instant coffee, no soda, no beer. Meat? Yes in small quantities and much of it comes from the local environment. I grow most of my own produce, with RO water. Yes they are unavoidable, just the plastic containers etc probably give some and I do eat candies and imported bananas and bread etc. But pretty sure I get a lot lower dose than most people. However I'm not sure it matt…

> I grow most of my own produce, with RO water Do you really grow enough food to make up most of your diet on RO water? And is this specifically to avoid microplastic exposure, or what?

I grow around 1/3 of my own food. Yes all with RO water. I'd like to get above 50%.

Specifically produce, however we grow most of what we eat. We pressure can, dehydrate and ferment to preserve. I have background and decades of experience in growing, which is to say it's more than just standard hobby garden level.

The RO water is not to avoid microplastics (although that might a side benefit) but rather that the water is highly mineralized. It would be a long post to explain why I do this. Some is theoretical health concerns, some is more practical.

Post reply on HN