Live data from Hacker News

Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

ibbi.io

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#51

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…

[deleted]

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#53
post #12
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?

I don't think there's any more room for not considering underestimating the importance of beginning to start the process-of mulling over the conceptualisation of starting to worry.

And the time to do it is … very soon.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#54
post #20

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/

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?

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

I'd settle for "at all, even a little."

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#55
post #12
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?

The precautionary principle is bad epistemology and shouldn’t be used to argue in opposition to anything. If we’re considering actions to ban or reduce microplastics it should be backed by a reasoned explanation for why we should do so.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#56
post #5

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

For what it’s worth, you don’t need a randomized controlled trial if you can offer an explanation for how microplastics affect human health.

Hence the classic joke “As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data.”

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#57
post #28
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.

Exactly the same argument could be (and unfortunately, has been) made about vaccines. For all we know, microplastics could be making us healthier. I don't believe that's true, and I'm avoiding plastic where I can, but the fact that we have it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#58

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.

> Make the plastic manufacturers own the external costs by requiring they fund proper disposal sites/messaging,

I think you fail to understand the reality of the problem.

In western countries, plastic "trash" is not really the problem. It's highly visible and it would always be nice to reduce it of course.

The majority of uncontained environmental microplastics comes from vehicle tires and clothing/textiles. Clothing and other textiles (e.g., carpets) being the biggest source, more than 1/3rd. After that it's probably building materials, paints, machinery and factory parts, etc.

Disposal sites and messaging will not do anything. You can be a perfectly compliant goodly consumer who dutifully puts their old clothes in the trash and pays the disposal fees for their old tires or rides busses. You'd still be contributing enormously to environmental microplastic load.

All natural fiber clothes, cycle everywhere, don't wear sneakers or other kind of plastic or synthetic rubber shoes, don't have synthetic carpets or drapes, don't paint your house, etc... now you're starting to get somewhere.

But the machinery required for you to stay alive, moving goods and services around, pumping your water, people going to work to keep your electricity on, package your food, etc... all still pumping out microplastics.

Disposal and messaging just won't cut it. And without a bunch of astounding and vanishingly unlikely breakthroughs, getting rid of microplastics from the top 4-5 sources will make net zero CO2 look like a walk in the park. Therefore we have to accept microplastics at enormous scale and work with that. Not to say we shouldn't attempt to reduce it where possible of course we should, but it won't be reduced to insignificant. So I think what needs to be done is well funded research into the effects of existing and new types of plastics, and into new materials and techniques for cleanup or containment. That way we have a chance to discover and limit or ban the worst of the worst before they can become too pervasive.

As far as reduction goes, possibly some small incentives to avoid plastics in consumer items (clothes, carpets, etc) might help. The messaging really can not be the same idiotic and counterproductive alarmism and blame and guilt campaigns led by wealthy private jet and mega yacht owning billionaires of the climate change debacle. Just gently make people aware they could look for natural fiber clothes, perhaps modest and commensurate added costs on plastics manufacturers to fund this research and containment, etc.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Make the plastic manufacturers own the external costs by requiring they fund proper disposal sites/messaging, I think you fail to understand the reality of the problem. In western countries, plastic "trash" is not really the problem. It's highly visible and it would always be nice to reduce it of course. The majority of uncontained environmental microplastics comes from vehicle tires and clothing/textiles. Clothing…

Another source of microplastics in the human body is from food that was microwaved in a plastic container.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make the plastic manufacturers own the external costs by requiring they fund proper disposal sites/messaging, I think you fail to understand the reality of the problem. In western countries, plastic "trash" is not really the problem. It's highly visible and it would always be nice to reduce it of course. The majority of uncontained environmental microplastics comes from vehicle tires and clothing/textiles. Clothing…

Another source of microplastics in the human body is from food that was microwaved in a plastic container.

Why stop there? It’s in meat, water, mother’s milk, and newborns are even born with microplastics already in them.
Post reply on HN