You're viewing a single thread.
We don't have enough data to know whether plastic is actually harmful to humans long-term. A better comparison would be lead paint or leaded gasoline.
This is absolutely untrue.
We absolutely have enough data to know that microplastocs are effecting us
Really? BPA is an issue for sure but I've not seen anything about Microplastics specifically. It has to do something...
We know for a fact that they cause fertility issues, and are pretty certain that they're pretty disastrous for hormonal regulation in general
I always thought it was getting lodged in the lungs that made it concerning.
To be fair, most anything being lodged in your lungs would be concerning
Nope, the problem is we're starting to detect it in things like blood and muscle tissue, and the amounts have only been increasing.
This is just the beginning of the issue too. Plastic hasn't been around a super long time, but it does take it a while for plastic to break down to that point.
Our plastic production isn't going to decrease any time soon, so levels are basically going to keep going up.
I firmly believe that plastic will be what ultimately dooms mankind, not climate change.
It's also an issue in the marine environment, where zooplankton will starve to death trying to eat it. These are a keystone species for life on earth. Fucking with them isn't good at all.
I was more thinking about immediate effects on people (analogous to the meme) but this is ... terrifying. Great. This is fine. It's all fine.
Ah, indeed. Here a few excerpts from a literature review:
A major issue when determining the risks of microplastics to human health is the lack of information on human exposure. Adequate analytical tools to sample, isolate, detect, quantify, and characterize small microplastics (<10 µm), especially nanosized plastic particles, are urgently needed.
Increased exposure through indoor air, direct swallowing of house dust or dust settling on food (10), and direct exposure to particles released from plastic food containers or bottles, such as polypropylene infant feeding bottles (11), are of special concern. Larger microplastics are likely excreted through faeces, or after deposition in the respiratory tract or lungs through mucociliary clearance into the gut (1, 2). Given the methodological limitations and measurement bias toward larger particles, existing analyses probably underestimate human external exposure and generally do not include the fraction of smaller-sized particles <10 µm, which are likely more relevant to toxicity (1, 12). Notably, internal exposure measurements of plastic particles in human body fluids and tissues are still in their infancy.
Reported concentrations of microplastics in tap and bottled water vary between 0 and 104 particles/litre, with generally greater particle counts for small-sized microplastics (8). The first atmospheric measurements of larger-sized, predominantly fibrous microplastics indicate that plastic particles are a relevant component of fine dust, with, for example, deposition rates in central London ranging between 575 and 1008 microplastics per square meter per day (9).
Limited in vitro and in vivo data suggest that only small fractions of administered microplastics are capable of crossing epithelial barriers of lungs and intestines, with specific uptake profiles and generally increasing uptake efficiency with decreasing particle size (2).
Studies with human cells in culture, and in rodents and aquatic species indicate translocation of microplastics <10 µm from the gut cavity to the lymph and circulatory systems, causing systemic exposure and accumulation in tissues including liver, kidney, and brain (12). Al though the smallest particles (<0.1 µm) may be capable of accessing all organs, crossing cell membranes (12), the placenta (13), and also the brain (14), major knowledge gaps regarding absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) still exist. Whether there are dose-dependent effects of microplastics in humans also remains unknown.
An additional intriguing, yet understudied, but potentially hazardous property of microplastics is the presence of an eco- or biocorona, i.e., biomolecules and other substances on the surface of the plastic particle, which may influence particle uptake, fate, and effects (6, 13). [Microplastics could act as vehicle for toxic substances]
Vethaak, A. D., & Legler, J. (2021). Microplastics and human health. Science, 371(6530), 672-674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe5041 [but of course it's fucking paywalled]
We have studies showing that sperm count is lowered by microplastics. We might actually have a reproductive crisis on our hands in the future. But, hey, its cheap, so why not right?
Fortunately reproduction is going to be the smallest of our concerns when the planet starts boiling.
Indeed. If anything, this side effect will be a benefit for humanity in the medium term
Humanity can definitely last a very long time if the temperature starts rising. It might require us to move underground, but we'll survive. But, humanity can't survive without creating more humans.
Could you link those studies then?
Ah yes, BPA, which I had already addressed.
For example, bisphenol A (BPA), a plasticizer used for the synthesis of phenol resins, polyacrylates, polyesters, epoxy resins, and polycarbonate plastics, is used for the production of drink and food packaging, and in case of high temperature exposure or pH variation (e.g., washing in washing machines, food heating into the microwave, contact with acid foods) leaches into wastewater, contaminates foods and beverages, thus representing both ecotoxicological and health risks
Other than BPA, there is still not much evidence regarding negative health effects. BPA is in the process of being banned even in many US states, and many companies have already moved away from it because of these health effects. Other plastics seem not to have the same effect.
Go fuck yourself
Permanently Deleted
rofl it's not gore. It's a LetMeGoogleThatForYou link
It’s not gore or anything. It’s just extremely snarky.
Well, looking up something on Google is very easy. I know when I want to know something, I don't expect a stranger to spoon feed me information that takes a few seconds to pull up.
If you disagree with a person's point, you're more than welcome to refute it with your own evidence.
The person I was responding to was saying “we have studies stating that…” but they failed to link the studies. That’s not my fucking problem.
It's your problem if you want that information. This isn't a formal debate, so no one is under any onus to provide sources for their arguments.
I think it has been shown that certain plastic softeners (e.g. phatalates) cause fertility issues, some of that might be included in microplastics but plastic itself I have not seen anything (And these specific softeners can be banned and are already mostly banned in the EU).
I see this as an absolute win.
You know that science gets further the more evidence we can observe right? Please look up your sources and date them for me, will you? Then do another search and pay attention to recent studies on the effects of plastics on the human body.
You’re asking me to prove a negative. Why don’t you post your sources?
? I'm asking you to look at your sources, not to prove anything to anyone. I don't even want to hear your conclusion, you can do that all by yourself or continue to look like a fool that didn't read a single study on the subject.
I don’t think you understand that you’re asking me to prove that something does not exist. You can’t prove that. There has not yet been enough study to prove that it does have a negative effect, aside from BPA which is already being regulated.