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

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#21

Post by rocqua »

coldtea wrote: post #8
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…

> It reminds me of when everyone was afraid of BPA That's still the case. > And what defines a “microplastic”? There’s so many different types of plastics that all have different effects on the body It's not that hard to constrain it to synthetic organic polymers (aka plastics) that are small enough (smaller than 5.0 mm). Even if there are some exceptions also considered plastics, this already covers 99% of the ones…

Do you happen to know whether the worry is about the inertness of microplastics, and hence the physical damage of the particles. Or is it in the plastics being chemically interactive with tissue?

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#22

Post by enether »

Aren't nanoplastics a larger concern?

All microplastics out in the open will degrade to nanoplastics at some point, and those find it much easier to infiltrate the human body. They penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

This leads me to believe that it's literally impossible to avoid. The air/water supply must be getting more poluted by the minute with these things

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#23

Post by tolerance »

ibbih wrote: post #6
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

It's a bit too much of an umbrella term for regulation to fix in one swoop, but if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint.

And not buying plastic is

not always an option and to some this entire concern could be considered a luxury.

Who are you trying to communicate this issue to and what solutions are there that they’d find reasonable until governments address it? If it’s simply “don’t buy plastic” then I understand that I’m out of bounds. Perhaps along with many others.

Nice looking page.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#24

Post by adriand »

ibbih wrote: post #6
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

It's a bit too much of an umbrella term for regulation to fix in one swoop, but if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint.

> if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint

The contamination is so widespread and is in things you can't avoid (like the air) but I have made some lifestyle changes that I hope decrease my exposure at least a little bit. I:

- don't drink water out of plastic bottles

- don't use any plastic dishes at home

- switched from using tupperware for food storage to mason jars

- use bedding made from natural materials (mostly cotton)

- prefer clothing made from cotton as opposed to polyester (exception: some exercise clothing)

- don't eat meat (this was not because of concern about plastic, but I think it's helpful here too)

My family mocks me for this, but I also hold my breath when I clean the lint filter in the dryer, because that cloud of dust that shoots up is, I believe anyway, a whole pile of breathable microplastics.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#25

Post by onion2k »

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?

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

Change to what?

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#26

Post by SeanAppleby »

goelbab wrote: post #5
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

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

Animal studies seem like the best tool for untangling this, and they indicate that high plastic doses cause a variety of health effects, some of which seem to align with broad health trends we see in our population over time, like in fertility.

It's not like there's zero data to inform the risk calculation.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#27

Post by jstummbillig »

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?

If historically worries that arose in mouse studies replicated with high reliability in humans, we would not wait for the results of human trials to apply what we learned for mice to humans on anything of importance.

It's not that we want to do humans trials. We do it because, apparently, it has been observed that it's unreasonable not to do it before applying something we observed in mice to humans.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#28

Post by boudin »

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.

It's saying that there could be a link and a link has been found on mice. That and the fact that the human body is not supposed to be running partially on plastic should trigger some actions.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#29

Post by nick238 »

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?

"Your" behavior??? The second you try to put this on individuals, you lose the plot and it turns into another "personal carbon footprint" scam like what BP pulled in 2004[1]. The only way out of this is public policy and international cooperation.

I don't know what the most common sources of microplastic particles are, but the messaging needs to be such that people know we aren't getting rid of all plastics, just the stupid ones that are most responsible for potentially harming us. I think straws were banned because there was a video of a plastic straw stuck in sea turtle's nose, not because they're one of the top sources.

[1]: https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#30

Post by quirkot »

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.

it took me a minute to parse that sentence also. They are saying that health tissue makes up healthy tissue. It's saying that there is no part of the body that isn't impacted
Post reply on HN