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

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#61

Post by K0balt »

breakingcups wrote: post #46
pinko wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Rrrrgh. Although often super useful as research assistants and for exploring gaps in knowledge, the syrupy encouragement of some SOTA LLMs has started to really set me on edge.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#62

Post by boudin »

mcswell wrote: post #57
boudin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really. With vaccines you can have controlled groups (vaccinated or not) and study the benefits versus risks. This is done before any vaccine is introduced to the public, any vaccine showing not enough benefits versus risks is discarded.

We do not have this luxuary with plastic. Controlled groups are not possible, asking that risks inherent to micro-plastics in human body are proven is therefore impossible.

To compare back to vaccines, it would be like vaccinating very single human, with a vaccine which is not tested and which purpose is unknown. Then asking someone to scientifically prove that this vaccine causes health problems as a condition to stop systematically vaccinating every single human.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#63

Post by IAmBroom »

mr_toad wrote: post #53
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?

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.

I intellectually resolve to avoid disagreement with the philosophies your output indicates.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#65

Post by GeekyBear »

stevula wrote: post #60
GeekyBear wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not start with the large sources that you can personally control?

> One 2023 study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found that microwaving plastic food containers releases more than 2 billion nanoplastics (smaller microplastics) and 4 million microplastics for every square centimeter of the container.

https://www.prevention.com/health/a65025549/can-you-microwav...

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#66

Post by magarnicle »

seethishat wrote: post #40

Saying, "I avoid plastic products" is kind of like saying "I never smoke" while sitting in a room filled with people smoking. There is no avoiding it. We are all surrounded by plastics in the air, water, soil, etc.

Surrounded is very much the word, depending on what type of clothing you are wearing.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#67

Post by coldtea »

krisoft wrote: post #50
coldtea wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What part of "smaller than" was difficult to parse?

Microplastics can be defined as But such "sizable" ones in the environment can and are be broken down, digested, shed smaller micro- and nanoplastics by the loads, and so on.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#68

Post by coldtea »

rocqua wrote: post #21
coldtea wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Both cases are considered harmful, the surer and heavier more general case being for the former.

The inertness alone means boost in inflamattion, damaged cells, etc. Just consider that asbestos is biologically/chemically inert too - the issues come from inflammation, scarring, dna damage, etc.

But (and varying per microplastic case on lots of factors: composition, dyes used, etc), the chemical interaction can also play a role.

Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

#69

Post by bossyTeacher »

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…

What about the containers your food comes in? These days its very hard for fruits and vegs not to be in contact with plastic
Post reply on HN