Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#2We’ve seen it with lead, asbestos, and PFAS — decades of denial, then belated regulation, then generations living with the consequences. The only difference is timing —and whether you wait for policy to catch up or act on what the science already shows. Think it’s time to push for more studies on the health consequences of microplastics
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#3I 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
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#4Many 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 every tiny little thing
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#5I 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
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#6I 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
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.
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#7I 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
Science works with cases with no control groups all the time
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#8Many 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 to worry about.
And the effects we worry about are from the presense of millions of hard synthetic micromaterials like that in the bloodstream, organs, and even the brain.
That's enough of a concern for the whole class, before we start to care about them "all having different effects on the body" (which is barely a given).
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#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.
Re: Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"
#10I 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
> 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)