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

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#31

Post by chemotaxis »

pohl wrote: post #12
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?

And where does it point toward? Other some untenable position such as "ban all plastics", which may very well produce more harm?

The discourse around microplastics is pretty wild. The sport is finding them in random places, often at parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion levels that we don't really use to look for most other substances. And the implication is essentially "progress bad" or "consumerism bad". No clear evidence of human harm, no realistic policy prescriptions - so what do we expect to happen, exactly? This it not a case of corporate greed or deception.

Our bodies also contain a fair amount of sand. Probably at levels higher than parts-per-billion. Is it bad? Sometimes! Where does the precautionary principle lead us on that?

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#32

Post by equinoxnemesis »

quirkot wrote: post #30
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

I think it's saying there's more microplastics in unhealthy than healthy tissue is all, your interpretation is technically possible but phrasing it that way would be so misleading as to basically be lying.

The reason more microplastics in unhealthy tissue doesn't necessarily mean microplastics cause unhealthy tissue is that unhealthy tissue would be worse at removing substances irrespective of whether the substances cause the harm.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#33

Post by tigershen23 »

Any thoughts on the temperature of plastics? Looks like a takeout container at 95C (soup, for example) can release 50% more particles than at 50C [1], but how much of overall ingestion comes from this source? Several friends of mine avoid takeout for this reason, is that rational?

[1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/an/d4an0137...

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#34

Post by klevertree1 »

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think microplastics, and the chemicals that leach from them, plasticizers, are incredibly serious issues. In fact, my company, NeutraOat (neutraoat.com), is creating a modified oat fiber supplement to trap plasticizers in the gut and remove them from the bloodstream.

On the other hand, as other commenters mention, a lot of the studies on microplastics are sloppily done and the conclusions are overreaching. These toxicology studies are certainly not up to the standard of the safety studies that are run on pharmaceuticals. The question is if they need to be in order for us to take action on microplastics. Personally, I think the risk/reward ratio is now clearly in favor of taking action on microplastics, even if I have some problems with the studies and I'm not as confident as the OP.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#35

Post by ibbih »

tigershen23 wrote: post #33

Any thoughts on the temperature of plastics? Looks like a takeout container at 95C (soup, for example) can release 50% more particles than at 50C [1], but how much of overall ingestion comes from this source? Several friends of mine avoid takeout for this reason, is that rational? [1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/an/d4an0137...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzw_grLzjw&t=427s

55x for BPA? It's pretty annoying how wide an umbrella term microplastics are.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#36

Post by atmavatar »

chemotaxis wrote: post #31
pohl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And where does it point toward? Other some untenable position such as "ban all plastics", which may very well produce more harm? The discourse around microplastics is pretty wild. The sport is finding them in random places, often at parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion levels that we don't really use to look for most other substances. And the implication is essentially "progress bad" or "consumerism bad". No clear…

Make the plastic manufacturers own the external costs by requiring they fund proper disposal sites/messaging, if only to start making up for all the bullshit propaganda about recycling that's greatly exacerbated the problem.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#37

Post by chilmers »

chemotaxis wrote: post #31
pohl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And where does it point toward? Other some untenable position such as "ban all plastics", which may very well produce more harm? The discourse around microplastics is pretty wild. The sport is finding them in random places, often at parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion levels that we don't really use to look for most other substances. And the implication is essentially "progress bad" or "consumerism bad". No clear…

"Ban all plastics" is a strawman that will not happen and no mainstream opinion is suggesting. But there is a wide spectrum of possibilities between "ban all plastics" and "do nothing".

A principal concern is ingestion of microplastics via food packaging, utensils, cookware, etc. There are non-plastic substitutions available for many of these items, and a precautionary approach would be to regulate to require them, where it is economically feasible, until such time as the effects of microplastic ingestion are better understood.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#38

Post by sixtyj »

nick238 wrote: post #29
ibbih wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In micro and nano scale things can behave differently so it is quite hard to decide what to ban.

Plastic straws and caps attached to bottles - reason was that there are too many of them and people don’t behave properly and don't throw things in the trash and throw them on the ground where they are eaten by animals. At some British beach they counted >100 caps per 100 m (or something similar, it was a surprising number).

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#39

Post by jagged-chisel »

atmavatar wrote: post #36
chemotaxis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where does it point toward? Other some untenable position such as "ban all plastics", which may very well produce more harm? The discourse around microplastics is pretty wild. The sport is finding them in random places, often at parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion levels that we don't really use to look for most other substances. And the implication is essentially "progress bad" or "consumerism bad". No clear…

Make the plastic manufacturers own the external costs by requiring they fund proper disposal sites/messaging, if only to start making up for all the bullshit propaganda about recycling that's greatly exacerbated the problem.

While we're here, let's have them fund future treatment when we discover that illness has been caused by plastic.
Post reply on HN