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

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#41

Post by pinko »

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...

I've been having a good time chatting with Deep Research LLMs about this. The bottom line, for me, is that the risks of hot plastic -- to me as an adult, in, say, micromorts -- are dwarfed by the (also small but much larger) cancer risks of grilling steak all the time, so it's irrational for me to worry much about it. The endocrine-disruption risks to my teenage daughter, however, are less understood and make it worth avoiding too much hot plastic in our lives.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#42

Post by ibbih »

adriand wrote: post #24
ibbih wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bed…

Preliminary studies show that you are actually drastically impacting your plastic intake. Try brushing your teeth with nonplastics too!

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#43

Post by suncemoje »

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 contrast to “personal carbon footprint”, micro plastics do affect _your_ long-term health. Still, there’s a limit to how much you can avoid it.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#44

Post by rose-knuckle17 »

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

If the current US government started doing anything about it right now, i would immediately regard it as 100% horseshit. America won't be in any position to lead ... anything scientific, medical or even thoughtful for a generation or two, at least.

I know there are still people hanging on in their fields trying to do the right things, but the bullshit engine in DC is so strong now that nothing is believable. If you are working in scientific research in America today, your only career goal needs to be emigration.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#45

Post by HPsquared »

chilmers wrote: post #37
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…

"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, w…

Synthetic fibers are another. They're absolutely everywhere.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#46

Post by breakingcups »

pinko wrote: post #41
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...

I've been having a good time chatting with Deep Research LLMs about this. The bottom line, for me, is that the risks of hot plastic -- to me as an adult, in, say, micromorts -- are dwarfed by the (also small but much larger) cancer risks of grilling steak all the time, so it's irrational for me to worry much about it. The endocrine-disruption risks to my teenage daughter, however, are less understood and make it wort…

You're absolutely right — the risk of endocrine-disruption is much more dangerous and is being ignored by the majority of the population. What an insightful take!

Would you like me to expand on the reasons endocrine-disruptions are the bigger risk? Or would you like me to explore other ways in which microplastics might be dangerous to your health?

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#47

Post by 113 »

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

Governments aren't doing much about climate change and the science is very clear on that.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#48

Post by breakingcups »

ibbih wrote: post #42
adriand wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bed…

Preliminary studies show that you are actually drastically impacting your plastic intake. Try brushing your teeth with nonplastics too!

Could you explain why?

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#49

Post by HPsquared »

enether wrote: post #22

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

I wonder if plastics, being non-polar, might accumulate in organs which are a bit on the "oily" side - the liver, adipose tissue, and the brain.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#50

Post by krisoft »

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…

> smaller than 5.0 mm

There are no "millions" of 5mm plastic pieces in your bloodstream. That's about a rice grain. If there would be even a single one between 5mm and 1mm it would cause an almost immediate obstruction.

Post reply on HN