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

91–100 of 219 posts

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#91

Post by repiret »

hammock wrote: post #24
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.

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

Do you have a citation for the vehicle weight to the fourth figure? There is about a 2X variation in the weight of the vehicles I’ve owned, but even accounting for differences in tire size, I can’t come up with a 16x difference in how often I change the tires.

Thinking about it a different way, there isn’t much difference in recommended tire pressure among the autos I’ve owned. That means that the pressure between the road and the tire is relatively constant but the surface area of contact is directly proportional to vehicle weight. For a fixed contact pressure, I am struggling to imagine a physical process by which the rubber loss is not proportional to the contact area.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#92

Post by lenerdenator »

wongarsu wrote: post #73
lenerdenator wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From an infrastructure perspective building out instead of up is incredibly expensive. Not just transport but also water, sewage, electricity and internet.

I should specify: it's more expensive for the developers and their home-buying customers to build up instead of out.

All of that stuff you listed comes from tax dollars, and people ultimately care less about that than what's coming out of their pockets for a home purchase. Well, until it's unsustainable, anyways.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#93

Post by roenxi »

itishappy wrote: post #60
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…

> The risk does seem fairly mitigated, most of us will make it through today fine. This is an incorrect usage of the word "mitigate." To mitigate means to lessen the risk. Mitigation requires action. I suspect you mean that the risks are "overstated."

I barely think the risks have been stated at all. They found a correlation between high levels of microplastics in the brain and dementia. There is a correlation between a bunch of things and dementia. I expect there is a correlation between good health and dementia, unhealthy people would tend to die off young without the time to fall apart mentally.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#94

Post by newsclues »

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.

Fires can solve that.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#95

Post by idiotsecant »

bilbo0s wrote: post #41
dymk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hope you never have to drive to the grocery store

Not only that, but if you're close to a road at all, you'll intake the micro-plastics and nano-plastics. So you really need to move away from roads. That's possible, but it's really hard to do in most developed nations. Just moving away from a city won't get you to where you need to be. Even when you get there, you have other issues. Like, food, energy, water/sewage treatment, etc. I don't think people realize how di…

You can have really very good quality of life in remote areas. You just might die before you get help if you have a heart attack or something. But the rest of the time it's great!

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#96

Post by [deleted] »

ethagnawl wrote: post #45
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

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…

[deleted]

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#97

Post by squigz »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #82
idiotsecant wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously parent post is not making the point you're trying to argue, only making the point that the measurement is flawed. If you are going to address their argument do it in good faith and address the strongest point. This isn't reddit

Thankyou. I think I will quote your last two lines frequently.

Or just quote the guidelines

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

And

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#98

Post by mythrwy »

idiotsecant wrote: post #84
mythrwy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does osmosis remove? Is it in all groundwater? Because I have a well. A deep one. And an osmosis system.

Do you consume drinks? Meat? Produce? All these things are chock full of their own micro plastics. It's unavoidable. We can probably reduce contamination but our children's children's children won't be free of it, not until organisms evolve to efficiently eat it. Then we'll have whole other sets of problems.

Do I consume drinks? No, except water and instant coffee, no soda, no beer. Meat? Yes in small quantities and much of it comes from the local environment. I grow most of my own produce, with RO water.

Yes they are unavoidable, just the plastic containers etc probably give some and I do eat candies and imported bananas and bread etc. But pretty sure I get a lot lower dose than most people.

However I'm not sure it matters that much until a mechanism of actual damage is established.

Re: Microplastics in the human brain

#100

Post by sympil »

idiotsecant wrote: post #78
sympil wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Obviously parent post is not making the point you're trying to argue, only making the point that the measurement is flawed. If you are going to address their argument do it in good faith and address the strongest point. This isn't reddit

I did address their point. The tendency with climate change, micro plastics, etc. is to deny, deny, deny, until it is too late. Perhaps we should err on the side of caution. In this situation its much better to err on the side of being overly cautious.

Experts wrote the research paper. Until otherwise demonstrated I will give them, the experts, the most generous interpretation per site guidelines. The experts addressed the concern by OP but OP calls it “brushing off”.

People can nitpick anything. The question remains, just how much microplastics are OK? If the answer is small then the study has merits despites its alleged issues.

Post reply on HN