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

61–70 of 219 posts

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#61

Post by card_zero »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #48
roenxi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unmitigated potential risk The risk does seem fairly mitigated, most of us will make it through today fine. The only part of my brain I can account for now is the 1x credit card worth of plastic, all the other bits are a mystery. Death was inevitable before the microplastics, remains inevitable after the microplastics and things seem fine so far. We don't know much about the risks of anything. People regularly dous…

Would be nice if just once these sorts of things could have beneficial effects.

Like the ship-produced aerosols that seeded clouds, increased albedo, and cooled the planet, in what James Hansen has called a "Faustian bargain". We successfully stopped that with regulations.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#62

Post by mythrwy »

shironandonon_ wrote: post #35
mythrwy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Move away from big cities and high traffic areas in the meantime is my solution.

Doesn’t work. It’s in the rainwater. No rainwater on earth is safe to drink. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62391069

Does osmosis remove? Is it in all groundwater?

Because I have a well. A deep one. And an osmosis system.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#63

Post by throwaway657656 »

adriand wrote: post #14

The only good news here is that it's possible that the body can clear the plastics. This is from the linked study: > While we suspected that MNPs might accumulate in the body over a lifespan, the lack of correlation between total plastics and decedent age (P = 0.87 for brain data) does not support this (Supplementary Fig. 1). However, total mass concentration of plastics in the brains analyzed in this study increased…

>>environmental exposure concentrations ultimately determining the internal body burden.

As another commenter asked "How did the amount of brain microplastic manage to double between 2016 and 2025?" It is doubtful that the environmental concentration level doubled during this time.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#64

Post by throwaway657656 »

russdill wrote: post #16
adriand wrote: post #14

The only good news here is that it's possible that the body can clear the plastics. This is from the linked study: > While we suspected that MNPs might accumulate in the body over a lifespan, the lack of correlation between total plastics and decedent age (P = 0.87 for brain data) does not support this (Supplementary Fig. 1). However, total mass concentration of plastics in the brains analyzed in this study increased…

My understanding is the best thing you can be doing along with reducing exposure is regular blood donation

dilution is the solution to the pollution

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#65

Post by zamadatix »

kijin wrote: post #44
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

> tire wear is proportional to vehicle weight to the fourth power. Does this mean that a bus that weighs 10 times as much as a small car will produce 10000 times as much tire dust? If it does, I'm not sure if investing in buses will reduce tire dust at all. A bus can replace a lot of cars, but 10000 is a stretch. We need more trains.

I think the root observation here comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law which really talks about the inferred stress to the road for given weight on the axle, not tire wear based on vehicle weight. The above seems to be using a simplification based on passenger cars staying with 4 tires across 2 axles but how this relates to tire wear is going to be a bit more complicated when you start talking about vehicles which can have more axles, more tires per axle, and significantly larger tires.

I'd believe buses have a lot of tire wear compared to an individual car but I wouldn't use that relation as proof of just how many times so.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#67

Post by markerz »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #39
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.

How did the amount of brain microplastic manage to double between 2016 and 2025? The amount of cars hasn't changed that much.

Perhaps you're thinking our body is at equilibrium with the amount of plastic in our environment, but the reality may be that our body accumulates microplastics from the environment and they become concentrated over time. Kind of like how we can't get rid of heavy metals from our body, so eating lots of fish accumulates mercury to toxic levels. But eating fish is a conscious decision whereas microplastic exposure is an unavoidable fact of life now.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#68

Post by penjelly »

hatthew wrote: post #56
penjelly wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Solid/particulate pollution from tires is definitely a problem, but in terms of carbon specifically isn't it many orders of magnitude less than the carbon from gas engines or electric power plants?

> These particles can include synthetic rubber, plastics, carbon black, and trace metals (like zinc)

you're correct. I mistakenly thought it was only carbon coming off the tires. So yeah, EVs have a significantly lower carbon output that ICE vehicles. My point still stands but thanks for the callout.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#69

Post by lenerdenator »

linotype wrote: post #55
ethagnawl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you're being down voted for suggesting a practical and fact based solution. The USA is, regrettably, not making a pivot towards public transportation anytime in the near future. So, lighter cars are one way to address this issue. You didn't expound upon your point about the unintended consequences of CAFE standards but they're very real. Instead of making smaller and more efficient sedans per the gui…

Los Angeles would be very difficult to transition at this point, it’s just too low density. It was better 100 years ago than it is now.

Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or Detroit. Or Chicago, even.

Pretty much any major American city is less dense than it was 100 years ago. It was cheaper to build out than it was to build up.

Post reply on HN