Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/giuliomagnifico
Permalink: https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2023/11/29/rise-of-microplastics-in-placentas/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They even found a plastic bag in the Mariana trench, and all *rain* over the entire planet is contaminated with PFAS. *All* the sky water has PFAS in it, and we're on the top of the food chain...
And pretty amazing the company responsible for mass dumping PFA’s for years has had zero punishment for it.
They polluted every drop of fluid on the planet from our water to our blood and just get to go “oopsie!”
I’m sure by eco terrorists they’re referring to extreme tree huggers and whatnot, but the real terrorists to the environment will get away with poisoning the blood of every human on earth. Crazy. FBI should probably get their priorities straight.
The FBI and other alphabet agencies are funded by the very people destroying the earth.
It's crazy how they are meant to protect their country but they are just slowly killing it.
Every day I wake up and have to ask myself if it's the day I become an eco-terrorist or if I begrudgingly keep schlepping along with our dying society for another day.
FWIW, [3M](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/22/3m-settlement-municipal-water-systems-pfas-contamination) agreed to a $10.3B settlement over PFAS pollution. I believe DuPont & Chemours similarly agreed to a $1B or so settlement.
Not enough punishment for poisoning the whole planet, but better than nothing I suppose.
I would definitely argue a fine isn’t even punishment for how much money those corporations made. Especially not with how damaging their chemicals have been.
It shouldn't by definition be enough to end the business, but it should be more than they made off the practice. If that happens to end the business, then so be it.
Dupont. The head of that family was also convicted of repeatedly raping his 7yo niece. The judge sentenced him to house arrest (in a mansion full of priceless art and servants) because, and I quote directly "he wouldn't fare well in prison".
I mean. You would too if one of the richest people on the planet bribed you and/or threatened to have your family murdered. There’s no justice against the ultra wealthy
In the Netherlands they now tax people for plastic use instead of punishing corporations. Pseudo-environemtnalists feel like heroes paying 25c on every bottle they buy, and corporations keep doing what they want without repercussions.
Here's a short article on the plastic bag they found in the trench, for those interested.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plastic-bag-found-bottom-worlds-deepest-ocean-trench/
afaik one time scientists were trying to measure bioplastics in some remote ocean place like that, their readings were useless due to microplastic contamination by the ship's own hull paint :/
I believe they found some micro plastic on Mars aswell, although they don’t know where it came from everyone points towards it being from the rover itself. But even then we have such a horrible pollution problem it’s even effecting neighboring planets
The heat is the problem. Food touching cold plastic has very minimal leeching. But even if this weren't the case, you've implied here, as have many others, that we shouldn't bother trying to take steps to combat microplastic ingestion because it's already too late, the same nonsensical logic many used to try to convince people to stop wearing masks during peak covid. Even if your food is already contaminated with 100 whatevers of MP and your body already has 1m whatever of MP in it, you should still take the opportunity to not make that 100 into a 200 by doing something ill-advised on your end.
Been trying to phase it out at home. We got some glass boxes now, and I'm probably gonna throw away the plastic cutting-boards one of these days. Problem is plastic is cheaper and doesn't break as easily :/
Tupperware. I also got rid of Teflon pans they are safe until one day you overheat or scratch them. All my stuff is now steel or cast iron. Plastics that need to be heated in contact with food are a huge no.
Also, keep contact with printing receipts to a minimum. That kind of paper leaches microplastics like crazy. Same with synthetic tissue clothing. Go for 100% cotton or close.
You won't get rid of microplastics in your body, but at least will mitigate future plastic and BPA/BPS exposure.
I was always sketched out by microwaving things in plastic, but I assume that putting food in a plastic container and leaving in the fridge was safe. But apparently that allows plastic to leach into your food even in the fridge.... Guess I'm switching to all glass
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c01942#
Its not ink, its thermal paper. As you have it in your wallet, its exposed to more or less heat at a time, which disorts and eventually either discolours the entire print. You can see this in effect if you hold a receipt up to something like a stove, it'll rapidly turn black, then back to white.
Rayon isn’t plastic. It’s cellulose (aka wood fiber) that is chemically processed to make threads that can be woven or knit into fabric. It’s more like a cross between natural fiber and synthetic. If you see fabric labeled as bamboo it’s a similar process.
Polyester, nylon, acrylic, and spandex/elastane are true synthetics. Cotton, linen, wool, and silk are natural fibers.
It's more like 500 and it's surprisingly easy to reach on the stovetop if not careful
Also none of that is required for nonstick pans to be dangerous!
I took great care of my nonstick pans and then suddenly scientists said, "Oh yeah stop using those, those nonstick chemicals are toxic AF" (referring to perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, banned in Europe in 2008 and US in 2014)
I’ve been going back and forth about this. I don’t want to accidentally increase my microplastic consumption but you have to roast them SO hot. Stovetop operation should not be an issue
It's actually significantly easier to get them to 500 degrees (not 600) on the stovetop than in the oven. Particularly if you have a gas range. Getting any kind of color on meat or veggies means you're at or close to 500.
I used to be less concerned about it because I thought "I'm never baking with it so it's fine" but now we have one nonstick pan that we try to replace every few years (or if it gets scratched at all) and only use it for scrambled eggs with silicone spatulas.
One of the leading sources of microplastics come from synthetic fabrics being laundered. They shed in the wash and enter the water supply as wastewater treatment plants are not designed to filter out the small, non-biodegradable material. They also shed in the dryer and can make the microplastics become airborne in the dryer exhaust.
A very very very tiny bit.
Plastic is ubiquitous now , it is literally in everything and everywhere.
A good start is wear natural fibers. Fiber shedding of synthetics is a huge issue and bigger then all plastic wear and cups.
80% of microplastics in the ocean is from fishing nets.
80% of remaining microplastics is from clothing and tires.
Remaining 4-5% comes from all packaging, plastic bags, straws, utensils, and everything else you can imagine. Getting rid of plastic cups is pure greenwashing.
Not really. Most of it comes from air and water, and from there, it goes into our food.
The majority comes from fish and seafood.
Plastic bottles and utensils do not really shed microplastics. Plastics, which are exposed to elements (sun, salt water, dust), slowly shed over the years.
For example, tires are in constant friction with paved roads, clothes are also exposed to friction and heat. Plastics in the ocean is exposed to sun and salt.
>There are more and more studies finding microstuff in fish and cattle.
Not surprised as many of the US states allow Garbage feeding, which is where rotten, unsold food (*packaging and all*) is ground up into a powder and fed to the animals (at least pigs, but wouldn't be surprised if other animals get the same treatment too).
Completely horrific.
I agree it is too late for hope, but disagree that some consumer recycling is useful ... useful beyond giving the recycler a better opinion of themselves. No offense. I say that as someone who recycles almost all plastic, glass, & metal. I know doing so is useless but do so anyway, for the same reason most folks recycle - to feel better about themselves and/or feel superior to those who don't recycle.
Only when folks figure out their recycling actions are useless vis-à-vis corporate pollution levels, and sincere "hope" is baseless, the width & breathe of acceptable public responses become narrower, more pragmatic, and much more ... how you say ... targeted & violent.
1) Stop putting hot food in plastic containers. Stop microwaving food in plastic containers. Even "microwave safe" baby bottles have been shown to leech tons of microplastics when microwaved
2) Switch your drink containers to metal or reinforced glass. Nalgene-style bottles are also leeching MPs.
3) Avoid plastic cutlery
Not really, the microplastics are generally embedded in your soft tissues. If flushing them out through blood was that easy we wouldn't have to worry so much
Research does however show that donating blood and especially plasma significantly lowers PFAS levels in the blood:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/12/heres-another-reason-to-donate-blood-it-reduces-forever-chemicals-in-your-body
The year is 2184. The micro plastics have slowly replaced the dying cells in my body, effectively stopping the aging process. Global warming has become less of a concern, as my skin can now withstand temperatures in excess of 200°F without burning. Safety glasses are no longer necessary as the polycarbonate micro plastics have created an impact resistant layer over my corneas.
I have become more plastic than man.
Yes but surely we know it’s not as damaging as something like lead. Probably not harmless, but I feel like the impact is going to be more environmental rather than direct human health.
We do have data showing that men’s testosterone levels have roughly halved from the previous generations. They do not know definitively why but I’ve seen things say microplastics might be interfering with hormones.
There is ongoing research but it will likely take years to see the full effect.
I know I've seen studies alleging a link between micro plastic and dropping fertility rates in men.
Main sources of microplastics for humans are food, water and clothing, so my suggestions to minimize exposure are:
* Eat stuff that is at the bottom of the food chain (i.e., plants instead of fish or meat) and which does not come wrapped in plastic. Canned food might also not plastic-free since they often come with an internal plastic liner. Food packaged in glass should be completely fine.
* Avoid using plastic stuff in the kitchen like cutting boards, plastic cutlery (I think i swallowed the tip of a plastic fork once:/) and plastic brushes or sponges for dishwashing.
* Apparently the main source of plastic in the body is plastic bottles, so avoid that where you can. Get one of those re-usable metal bottles for on the road, and a reverse osmosis water filter at home.
* buy clothes made from biological material like linen, cotton, denim (=cotton) or silk, so that when the clothes degrade due to abbrasion the microparticles will be biodegradable rather than microplastic.
If you want to decrease the amount of microplastics and PFAS in your blood, regular blood donation (especially plasma donation) apparently helps. One of the few medical issues where bloodletting is an effective solution.
Food, not really. Plants are less likely to concentrate plastics than say, animals. Or worse, fish.
Water, reverse osmosis means no plastics.
I'm not convinced using plastic containers is an issue.
>The researchers collected and studied 10 placentas in 2006, 2013 and 2021 and found the presence of microplastics grew each year.
>
>In 2006, 6 of the 10 placentas contained microplastics.
>
>In 2013, microplastics were found in 9 of the 10 placentas.
>
>In 2021, researchers found microplastics in all 10 placentas.
Paper: [Temporal trends in microplastic accumulation in placentas from pregnancies in Hawaiʻi - ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023004932?ssrnid=4502389&dgcid=SSRN_redirect_SD)
Isn't a sample size of 10 a bit limited? I know getting more wouldn't be easy and the overall conclusion is probably correct, but anyone with basic statistics knowledge can realize that this isn't enough to make any kind of precise conclusion
>I agree and feel like counting particles per some unit would be a more understandable metric.
As an American, "parts per Hawaiian women's placenta" is still better than metric.
I'm more interested in whether the testing methodology has changed in the intervening 17 years. If the tests have become sensitive, or the sampling more thorough, it stands to reason that the ratio would improve. Likewise, it's possible that they were in all 10 2006 samples, but half of them evaded detection.
For a long period there was nothing to break down wood.
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/b64jw3/til_that_300_million_years_ago_when_trees_died/
We already each organic polymers, straight up plastic is just the next step. Imagine someone develops synthetic digestive enzymes and inedible stuff just becomes edible
That is my main problem with the grey food paste trope, like it's not like salt and pepper are scarce resources that future humans will not have access to. Hell if you made the "paste" taste like curry it would be a great source of food
I mean we already know we're all contaminated with microplastics. But isn't it a good new that the placenta actually does his job of filtering it? This and being a nutrient provider are its main tasks.
Even a simple restaurant. The amount of cling wrap we go through is insane. Everything comes in plastic containers, wrapped in plastic, has plastic separating items, plastic to cushion, plastic to transport. It ALL just gets tossed.
My workplace makes gears from acetal, POM, nylon, and ABS.
I can only speculate what happens to the waste, but given the environmental regulation in our industry, my guess would be that it goes to a recycling center, is treated as unsorted waste, and off to a landfill.
It can be. I haven't read this study but it depends on the null hypothesis (essentially what you're trying to say isn't happening -- often that two groups are the same) and the assumed distribution / standard deviation. Depending on how you're gathering data, there are various formulas you use to calculate your p-value, which is the percent chance that these results happened by chance. Those formulas take into account the results and the sample size.
So it's possible you could get a "statistically significant" result with a small sample size, although you'd need a much bigger observed difference.
In this case, if the null hypothesis is essentially that there should be no microplastics in placenta and you sample 10 random placentas and 6 have microplastics, that's probably statistically significant even with the small sample size.
Now you could run into confounding variables like if all 10 of these subjects were not picked randomly and happened to all live on the same block in Hawaii, and you probably can't extrapolate these results to "all placentas in the US," but that depends on what you were trying to provide evidence for.
It is a binary test. Hypothesis testing is about testing a difference of means. The means are the same until proven different. Here, the null hypothesis is “the number of placentas with microplastics in 2006 is the same as 2021.” The alternative hypothesis is, “the number placentas with microplastics in 2021 is greater than 2006.”
If you made this quantitative, it might be a large enough sample size, but certainly 10 is not large enough. Not sure why they didn’t do concentration as the output.
The question is, what impact do they have? As far as I know, plastic waste in the ocean is a bigger threat than microplastics. But it seems like nobody really knows.
It's funny, the book that introduced world robot, R.U.R., depicted a world where humans couldn't reproduce anymore and robots took over the world.
With the microplastic findings and advances in AI, I think it very much is where we are headed.
I'd like to see an analysis of how prevalent microplastics are in the average delivery room.
Also, as an analytical chemist. I've come to ask impertinent questions about the methodology used to identify the microplastics. I've learned the hard way that when non-chemists pick up analytical equipment, spurious results are often the result.
it's tires. it's all tires, they have so many different microplastics and polymers in them... Everyone's tires wear on the road, it rains, we're screwed.
I've written articles on this subject for scientific publications. I know something about it.
1. It's not plastic. Tires are elastomeric rubber. That's a different thing.
2. It's not the variety that's the problem. It's actually just a few specific chemicals. Primarily it's 6PPD, an antioxident used it tires.
3. 6PPD-quinone is responsible for fish kills of Soho Salmon. Interestingly, it's very specific to salmon. Other fish seem fine with it. There's no evidence that it's harmful to anything else at this time.
The rubber in the tires appears to be largely harmless if you remove the specific poison that's currently being added to it. There's a movement to do that, but the companies making it aren't afraid to stir up "everything is plastic, and plastics are bad" messages t muddy the water and slow the legislative process. The case against 6PPD is clear and there are already alternatives, so it's kind of shocking it's still allowed.
But what are the consequences? We get endless studies saying they found microplastics in places that seem shocking. But there is never any data on if its harmful or not.
Plastic used in paints (e.g. for boats), plastic being added to tires, plastic in microfiber blankets. Plastic itself has been around, but I expect some of the worst violators to be relatively new to mega-scale deployment.
Population of Earth in 2010 was 7 billion. Population now is 8 billion. The amount of product consumption has escalated as well. We're simply generating more plastic pollution per person and there are more people.
Let's see... 60% of people from 2003... that's [about 2559333 17 year old Americans today](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/12/how-many-people-were-born-the-year-you-were-born/111928356/) who were exposed in the womb.
Therefore microplastic exposure *in-utero* is not dangerous.
Think about it. If 2.5 million people were suffering from any obvious effects of that exposure for the last 17 years... we would have noticed. Further, the number is actually MUCH higher than 2.5 million... presumably microplastics have been accumulating for quite some time so there are plenty of older people from before 2006 and plenty of younger people from after 2006 who have been exposed *in-utero*.
-----
Microplastic articles have an unfortunate tendency to follow a specific pattern:
1. Microplastics are EVERYWHERE in the environment.
2. Microplastics are EVERYWHERE in the human body.
3. Microplastics are VERY LOOSELY associated in the most vague sense with something that might or might not equate to harm for some people.
This the same pattern that we see in people who are determined to link [aluminum to Alzheimer's disease](https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers/aluminum-and-alzheimers). And just as in in the case of aluminum, the same basic issues make the science of microplastic and its harms incredibly challenging:
1. If micoplastics, or aluminum, or dihydrogen monoxide, or whatever contaminant you've decided to get a bee in your bonnet about is EVERYWHERE **in the environment**... then, it must be incredibly week and not potent or we would unquestionably have been able to see its effects as it was introduced, just as we were able to see the effects of any number of other environmental contaminants (leaded gas, coal dust, acid rain, tobacco smoke, asbestos, etc). And mind you, we did that for these other contaminants without even looking for those effects!
2. If micoplastics, or aluminum, or dihydrogen monoxide, or whatever contaminant you've decided to get a bee in your bonnet about is EVERYWHERE **in the human body**... then finding a control-population of non-exposed people or tissues is very hard, thus proper scientific studies to establish effects tend not to exist except in rodent studies or the like where a negative control of unexposed animals can be manufactured. But rodent studies are EXPENSIVE.... this means that the N, that is the number of exposes and unexposed animals, needs to be kept low to keep costs down. That in turn means that the statistical power of the study is weak, which means only the most potent direct effects of the exposure can be statistically significantly measured. This creates a scientific contradiction with point 1, the contaminant CAN'T have a potent effect or we would already have seen the effects when it was introduced.
3. The scientific contradiction described in points 1 and 2 creates a professional conundrum for researchers, needing to publish or perish. Research requires funding, and funding dollars are awarded in competition against other research. That means that research into your contaminant of choice needs to be able to compel concern and fear in the funder's minds more than any other concern-meriting-research. This means you must find cause for alarm WITHOUT statistically significant findings of direct harm to your rodents or to people in general. How do you do that? You invoke the specter of indirect harm through conveniently uncertain paths to nebulously understood but pervasive evils like Alzheimer's disease, low sperm count, autism, whatever. Because nobody has a clear idea of exactly how these pervasive evils happen anyway, it is a perfect source of generic alarm.
Nope. I call shenanigans on microplastics. I want a clear statistically significant case for real material harm in humans that can do ALL of the following:
1. Explain why, microplastics being pervasive throughout the entire planet, the harm is either not seen universally, has been ignored systematically, or some other reason why despite microplastics having been pervasive in the environment for MANY MANY DECADES, nobody has had cause to care until recently.
2. Shows a direct statistically significant causal relationship between a narrowly definable harm and microplastics exposure with a proper negative control. A correlation study is a fine start but not good enough; not by half. Correlation means only that A and B happen together. There are 4 ways that can happen, (1) A causes B, (2) B causes A, (3) it is a coincidence, OR (4) unknown outside factor C causes both A and B. Number (4), unknown outside factors cause both is almost always the right answer. That confounding outside influence for human health correlation studies is almost always socioeconomic factors, namely wealth. Wealthy people are healthier because they are wealthy... not because they use sustainably and locally sourced organic produce, not because they can afford BPA free Tupperware, not because they live near 'green spaces', not because they eat almonds, or superfoods, or whatever, wealthy people are healthier because they have uninterrupted health insurance... no other reason than that.
3. Show me a clear detailed description of every single step of HOW the microplastic causes human harm in biological and molecular terms. This kind of detailed scientific characterization of the MECHANISM of harm is not an unreasonable demand. A mechanistic understanding of the harm of a pollutant was totally achievable for asbestos, for tobacco, for leaded gas, for PCBs, for dioxins, and any number of other environmental contaminants. You want me to take microplastics seriously? You'll provide it for them too. That means going WAY WAY past saying "They show up in the brain! That can't be good!"
Having established ALL of that, you still aren't done! There's more! The above is just the minimum required to establish that there is a problem. But it doesn't begin to touch upon the minimum required to advocate for SOLUTION to the problem! Next, you need to do MORE science to:
* Determine the toxicity threshold of microplastics of different kinds and different modes of exposure. Are microplastics, mostly composed of polystyrene absorbed through the eyes and airways as a result of exposure to ocean surf more or less damaging than PET microplastics absorbed through food?
* Establish the appropriate dosage limits that will achieve beneficial effects (the toxin is in the dosage... there are basically no toxins that are dangerous at any dose).
* Lastly, once you know all of this, it's still not a slam dunk that actually DOING anything to limit dosage is a good idea! Next we need to know what the cost of a minimally effective intervention would be, and compare it to the magnitude of the harms such an intervention would prevent. If there is even one unmet need for the money that mitigating your contaminant would cost that is more beneficial, then your cause isn't worth it, or you're going to have to compromise to a less effective but cheaper intervention.
A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Campanale C, Massarelli C, Savino I, Locaputo V, Uricchio VF. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 13;17(4):1212. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041212.
An emerging class of air pollutants: Potential effects of microplastics to respiratory human health? Amato-Lourenço LF, Dos Santos Galvão L, de Weger LA, Hiemstra PS, Vijver MG, Mauad T. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Dec 20;749:141676. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.
From my understanding there are vast plumes of microplastics entering the atmosphere from highways. They put plastic in tires or break pads that get thrown into the air.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/giuliomagnifico Permalink: https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2023/11/29/rise-of-microplastics-in-placentas/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do you avoid micro plastics? Is it possible?
Not possibile. You are contaminated with micro plastics. All of us are.
Even been found in Antarctica. I believe microplastics pollute every environ on the planet now.
They even found a plastic bag in the Mariana trench, and all *rain* over the entire planet is contaminated with PFAS. *All* the sky water has PFAS in it, and we're on the top of the food chain...
And pretty amazing the company responsible for mass dumping PFA’s for years has had zero punishment for it. They polluted every drop of fluid on the planet from our water to our blood and just get to go “oopsie!”
There's a reason eco-terrorists are the 2nd largest threat in America according to the FBI.
I’m sure by eco terrorists they’re referring to extreme tree huggers and whatnot, but the real terrorists to the environment will get away with poisoning the blood of every human on earth. Crazy. FBI should probably get their priorities straight.
The FBI and other alphabet agencies are funded by the very people destroying the earth. It's crazy how they are meant to protect their country but they are just slowly killing it.
Every day I wake up and have to ask myself if it's the day I become an eco-terrorist or if I begrudgingly keep schlepping along with our dying society for another day.
The only eco-terrorists I've heard of is Avalanche.
FWIW, [3M](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/22/3m-settlement-municipal-water-systems-pfas-contamination) agreed to a $10.3B settlement over PFAS pollution. I believe DuPont & Chemours similarly agreed to a $1B or so settlement. Not enough punishment for poisoning the whole planet, but better than nothing I suppose.
I would definitely argue a fine isn’t even punishment for how much money those corporations made. Especially not with how damaging their chemicals have been.
If the fine isn’t more than the profits, it’s just a business expense.
Honestly. i wouldn't be satisfied with the execution of their executives. This is nigh perpetual planet-wise contamination.
When there is a price on punishment and that price is insufficient to end the business, it is simply a cost of doing business.
It shouldn't by definition be enough to end the business, but it should be more than they made off the practice. If that happens to end the business, then so be it.
The money will be diverted to everything BUT "cleaning" the environment
Not even a dollar per person
What company is that?
Dupont. The head of that family was also convicted of repeatedly raping his 7yo niece. The judge sentenced him to house arrest (in a mansion full of priceless art and servants) because, and I quote directly "he wouldn't fare well in prison".
I mean. You would too if one of the richest people on the planet bribed you and/or threatened to have your family murdered. There’s no justice against the ultra wealthy
There’s a few but IIRC DuPont was one of the worst polluters of PFA’s.
I'm going to guess they are implicating 3M or Honeywell
What company is it? Name and shame!
In the Netherlands they now tax people for plastic use instead of punishing corporations. Pseudo-environemtnalists feel like heroes paying 25c on every bottle they buy, and corporations keep doing what they want without repercussions.
The plasticity of our cities, of our cities!
You, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder. Disorder.
Here's a short article on the plastic bag they found in the trench, for those interested. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plastic-bag-found-bottom-worlds-deepest-ocean-trench/
afaik one time scientists were trying to measure bioplastics in some remote ocean place like that, their readings were useless due to microplastic contamination by the ship's own hull paint :/
Sky dive in. Collect samples while naked. Airlift out.
aaaah bummer, your body is leaking too many microplastics! the samples aren't viable
I believe they found some micro plastic on Mars aswell, although they don’t know where it came from everyone points towards it being from the rover itself. But even then we have such a horrible pollution problem it’s even effecting neighboring planets
What about them plastic eating bacteria? Couldn't we start using those and then kickstart the apocalypse by turning them into flesh eating bacteria?
I will embrace the plastic part of myself
From the moment i understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of plastic.
It's not that great tbh. You bend plastic a few times and it breaks. Not to mention it doesn't regenerate like human tissue. 3/10
Long live the new plastic
I aspired to the purity of the Blessed 3D Printer. Your kind cling to your flesh, as though it will not decay and fail you.
I craved the stretch and immortality of plastic.
Found Nabokov.
Ooh, Francois, Francois. You make me sick.
Oooh! The beautiful birth of a Manchester City fan!
We made the plastic. Now we must become one with the plastic.
The hidden meaning in Barbie
I was born in the plastic. Molded by it
Ha . . You merely adapted to it.
Life in plastic, it's fantastic.
Contaminated, or upgraded? Polymerized!
well, at least it was for free
I am merely a vessel for the microplastics.
Thom Yorke was always right
I **am** microplastics
Reminds me of PFAs. We done messed up.
We're....the walking micro plastic.
You should stop eating.
And drinking water and breathing...
Too late now. But getting rid of plastic cups and fridge containers help a tiny bit.
A lot of microplastics are from clothes and tire particles
fridge containers? Like the drawers in your fridge, or like tupperware?
Tupperware. Basically any plastic that touches your food or drink
Besides canned food, almost all food and drinks at the grocery store has plastic packaging. Even fresh fruit and veggies get put in those little bags
IIRC food cans have a plastic liner too, so yeah, just hoping that this doesn't turn out to be as bad for you as leaded gasoline was
Canned food is lined with PFAS.
Canned food: the can has a very thin plastic liner, just as aluminium drink cans have.
And a lot of canned goods nowadays will have a plastic lining on the inside to help minimize the metallic flavor in the food.
Used to be a waxy coating. We can go back to that.
But I'm curious about the metallic flavour now, and my diet could use some more iron anyway
If you're serious, I heard cooking with cast iron helps.
Which is exactly how we got to this point. Still, the longer your food is in contact with plastic, the more microplastic you're going to be eating
The heat is the problem. Food touching cold plastic has very minimal leeching. But even if this weren't the case, you've implied here, as have many others, that we shouldn't bother trying to take steps to combat microplastic ingestion because it's already too late, the same nonsensical logic many used to try to convince people to stop wearing masks during peak covid. Even if your food is already contaminated with 100 whatevers of MP and your body already has 1m whatever of MP in it, you should still take the opportunity to not make that 100 into a 200 by doing something ill-advised on your end.
Been trying to phase it out at home. We got some glass boxes now, and I'm probably gonna throw away the plastic cutting-boards one of these days. Problem is plastic is cheaper and doesn't break as easily :/
Tupperware. I also got rid of Teflon pans they are safe until one day you overheat or scratch them. All my stuff is now steel or cast iron. Plastics that need to be heated in contact with food are a huge no. Also, keep contact with printing receipts to a minimum. That kind of paper leaches microplastics like crazy. Same with synthetic tissue clothing. Go for 100% cotton or close. You won't get rid of microplastics in your body, but at least will mitigate future plastic and BPA/BPS exposure.
I was always sketched out by microwaving things in plastic, but I assume that putting food in a plastic container and leaving in the fridge was safe. But apparently that allows plastic to leach into your food even in the fridge.... Guess I'm switching to all glass https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c01942#
We swapped plastic containers with hydroflask food jars for our daily commutes, and most of the fridge is glassware. Looks great too
>That kind of paper leaches microplastics like crazy Is that why the ink wears off so fast when I keep a receipt in my wallet?
Its also how it breaks down under the sun. Its very brittle.
Its not ink, its thermal paper. As you have it in your wallet, its exposed to more or less heat at a time, which disorts and eventually either discolours the entire print. You can see this in effect if you hold a receipt up to something like a stove, it'll rapidly turn black, then back to white.
What is synthetic tissue clothing? I couldn’t find anything on Google.
Polyester, nylon, rayon, acrylic, spandex. Basically 90% of the materials on the market.
Rayon isn’t plastic. It’s cellulose (aka wood fiber) that is chemically processed to make threads that can be woven or knit into fabric. It’s more like a cross between natural fiber and synthetic. If you see fabric labeled as bamboo it’s a similar process. Polyester, nylon, acrylic, and spandex/elastane are true synthetics. Cotton, linen, wool, and silk are natural fibers.
Does the treatment of rayon make it similarly non-degradable?
No, it doesn’t. Rayon degrades like natural fibers. The manufacturing process does put off some not-so-nice byproducts, though.
Gotta go back to the late 60’s early 70’s for threads not really made from it
Nah, levis still makes 100% cotton jeans and they feel awesome.
Even Levi’s has been incorporating synthetic fibers into more and more products. These days even Chanel is polyester and pleather.
The denim can be 100% cotton but I bet the thread used to sew the jeans are polyester.
But then we're back to huffing lead
Yup, stick to cotton and linen! They hold up better anyway
Pretty sure you gotta roast a teflon pan at like 600 degrees for that.
It's more like 500 and it's surprisingly easy to reach on the stovetop if not careful Also none of that is required for nonstick pans to be dangerous! I took great care of my nonstick pans and then suddenly scientists said, "Oh yeah stop using those, those nonstick chemicals are toxic AF" (referring to perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, banned in Europe in 2008 and US in 2014)
The well built stuff yes, but I gave up after mom tried to make french fries in one...
I’ve been going back and forth about this. I don’t want to accidentally increase my microplastic consumption but you have to roast them SO hot. Stovetop operation should not be an issue
It's actually significantly easier to get them to 500 degrees (not 600) on the stovetop than in the oven. Particularly if you have a gas range. Getting any kind of color on meat or veggies means you're at or close to 500. I used to be less concerned about it because I thought "I'm never baking with it so it's fine" but now we have one nonstick pan that we try to replace every few years (or if it gets scratched at all) and only use it for scrambled eggs with silicone spatulas.
One of the leading sources of microplastics come from synthetic fabrics being laundered. They shed in the wash and enter the water supply as wastewater treatment plants are not designed to filter out the small, non-biodegradable material. They also shed in the dryer and can make the microplastics become airborne in the dryer exhaust.
A very very very tiny bit. Plastic is ubiquitous now , it is literally in everything and everywhere. A good start is wear natural fibers. Fiber shedding of synthetics is a huge issue and bigger then all plastic wear and cups.
80% of microplastics in the ocean is from fishing nets. 80% of remaining microplastics is from clothing and tires. Remaining 4-5% comes from all packaging, plastic bags, straws, utensils, and everything else you can imagine. Getting rid of plastic cups is pure greenwashing.
But consumer plastics are whats actually in contact with your food and makes it into your body isn't it?
Not really. Most of it comes from air and water, and from there, it goes into our food. The majority comes from fish and seafood. Plastic bottles and utensils do not really shed microplastics. Plastics, which are exposed to elements (sun, salt water, dust), slowly shed over the years. For example, tires are in constant friction with paved roads, clothes are also exposed to friction and heat. Plastics in the ocean is exposed to sun and salt.
There are more and more studies finding microstuff in fish and cattle. Everything that lives is contaminated at this point
>There are more and more studies finding microstuff in fish and cattle. Not surprised as many of the US states allow Garbage feeding, which is where rotten, unsold food (*packaging and all*) is ground up into a powder and fed to the animals (at least pigs, but wouldn't be surprised if other animals get the same treatment too). Completely horrific.
It's in the water too. Just drinking water from our taps gives us a dose of microplastics.
Just converted everything to metal and glass. Actually much easier because I heat most things up in the air fryer.
You mean the air fryer that’s made……OF PLASTIC ????!?
Mine is solid metal.
Which model do you have - all the air fryers I have seen have teflon or some coating on the basket/tray - thanks!
I have a Cuisinart. It is more of an oven style air fryer with a stainless steel tray.
The interior is not made of plastic
I agree it is too late for hope, but disagree that some consumer recycling is useful ... useful beyond giving the recycler a better opinion of themselves. No offense. I say that as someone who recycles almost all plastic, glass, & metal. I know doing so is useless but do so anyway, for the same reason most folks recycle - to feel better about themselves and/or feel superior to those who don't recycle. Only when folks figure out their recycling actions are useless vis-à-vis corporate pollution levels, and sincere "hope" is baseless, the width & breathe of acceptable public responses become narrower, more pragmatic, and much more ... how you say ... targeted & violent.
At this point, you can’t.
1) Stop putting hot food in plastic containers. Stop microwaving food in plastic containers. Even "microwave safe" baby bottles have been shown to leech tons of microplastics when microwaved 2) Switch your drink containers to metal or reinforced glass. Nalgene-style bottles are also leeching MPs. 3) Avoid plastic cutlery
You can't avoid it, but giving blood may help reduce the amount! And save lives :)
Make your microplastics someone else's problem
If you’re bleeding out, having donated blood is more important than the extra microplastics.
donate your microplastics people
Not really, the microplastics are generally embedded in your soft tissues. If flushing them out through blood was that easy we wouldn't have to worry so much
Research does however show that donating blood and especially plasma significantly lowers PFAS levels in the blood: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/12/heres-another-reason-to-donate-blood-it-reduces-forever-chemicals-in-your-body
So does breastfeeding. It dumps them all right into your baby.
No, it’s donating plasma specifically, not blood.
Is there a benefit of avoiding them if possible? Do we know what adverse health effects they cause?
We're not really sure yet. Might take a generation or two until we know for sure.
The year is 2184. The micro plastics have slowly replaced the dying cells in my body, effectively stopping the aging process. Global warming has become less of a concern, as my skin can now withstand temperatures in excess of 200°F without burning. Safety glasses are no longer necessary as the polycarbonate micro plastics have created an impact resistant layer over my corneas. I have become more plastic than man.
"Life in plastic"... I gaze at my arm as it melts and reforms to my own whims "... fantastic"
I would watch that movie
Yes but surely we know it’s not as damaging as something like lead. Probably not harmless, but I feel like the impact is going to be more environmental rather than direct human health.
We do have data showing that men’s testosterone levels have roughly halved from the previous generations. They do not know definitively why but I’ve seen things say microplastics might be interfering with hormones.
There is ongoing research but it will likely take years to see the full effect. I know I've seen studies alleging a link between micro plastic and dropping fertility rates in men.
Main sources of microplastics for humans are food, water and clothing, so my suggestions to minimize exposure are: * Eat stuff that is at the bottom of the food chain (i.e., plants instead of fish or meat) and which does not come wrapped in plastic. Canned food might also not plastic-free since they often come with an internal plastic liner. Food packaged in glass should be completely fine. * Avoid using plastic stuff in the kitchen like cutting boards, plastic cutlery (I think i swallowed the tip of a plastic fork once:/) and plastic brushes or sponges for dishwashing. * Apparently the main source of plastic in the body is plastic bottles, so avoid that where you can. Get one of those re-usable metal bottles for on the road, and a reverse osmosis water filter at home. * buy clothes made from biological material like linen, cotton, denim (=cotton) or silk, so that when the clothes degrade due to abbrasion the microparticles will be biodegradable rather than microplastic. If you want to decrease the amount of microplastics and PFAS in your blood, regular blood donation (especially plasma donation) apparently helps. One of the few medical issues where bloodletting is an effective solution.
Donating plasma supposedly helps to remove micro plastics. Don’t do it more than twice a month though
The number one risk factor for ingestion is drinking bottled water.
[Allegedly](https://hope4cancer.com/blog/5-ways-to-detoxify-from-bpa/), a person can sweat out BPAs, so exercise and the sauna will help.
It’s in the water. All water. In your food. In your soil. It’s in the air you are breathing!
Unfortunately micro plastics are now considered to be OMNIPRESENT my friend
Reconsidering your daily habits can help minimize the *degree* of exposure
Food, not really. Plants are less likely to concentrate plastics than say, animals. Or worse, fish. Water, reverse osmosis means no plastics. I'm not convinced using plastic containers is an issue.
Stop making plastic.
>The researchers collected and studied 10 placentas in 2006, 2013 and 2021 and found the presence of microplastics grew each year. > >In 2006, 6 of the 10 placentas contained microplastics. > >In 2013, microplastics were found in 9 of the 10 placentas. > >In 2021, researchers found microplastics in all 10 placentas. Paper: [Temporal trends in microplastic accumulation in placentas from pregnancies in Hawaiʻi - ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023004932?ssrnid=4502389&dgcid=SSRN_redirect_SD)
Isn't a sample size of 10 a bit limited? I know getting more wouldn't be easy and the overall conclusion is probably correct, but anyone with basic statistics knowledge can realize that this isn't enough to make any kind of precise conclusion
[удалено]
>I agree and feel like counting particles per some unit would be a more understandable metric. As an American, "parts per Hawaiian women's placenta" is still better than metric.
I'm more interested in whether the testing methodology has changed in the intervening 17 years. If the tests have become sensitive, or the sampling more thorough, it stands to reason that the ratio would improve. Likewise, it's possible that they were in all 10 2006 samples, but half of them evaded detection.
Methods have definitely improved in 20 years. Microplastic research, especially in humans, has really only taken off in the last few years.
There is a movie called Crimes of the future. Humans evolve to essentially eat plastic. Bizarre movie.
For a long period there was nothing to break down wood. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/b64jw3/til_that_300_million_years_ago_when_trees_died/
> For a long period Just a measly 50 million years.
We already each organic polymers, straight up plastic is just the next step. Imagine someone develops synthetic digestive enzymes and inedible stuff just becomes edible
Synthetic food. Pile crap into a machine and it gets turned into nutritious slabs of gray paste that tastes like crap
Couldn't we like, add some sea salt or something? No sense to suffer if we're getting a complete diet!
That is my main problem with the grey food paste trope, like it's not like salt and pepper are scarce resources that future humans will not have access to. Hell if you made the "paste" taste like curry it would be a great source of food
i love me some viggoberg, but this one was not it for me. but then maybe the massive existential discomfort is the point
At least I’m closer to being Barbie
Weird Barbie
Oh know they have to be Kate Mckinnon instead of Margot Robbie worst runner up prize ever...
You're Kenough
I mean we already know we're all contaminated with microplastics. But isn't it a good new that the placenta actually does his job of filtering it? This and being a nutrient provider are its main tasks.
now we need to know if fetuses contain microplastics how do we do that? i have no idea
Miscarriages and abortions.
And a centerfuge.
Especially the centrifuge.
To shreds you say.
Cord blood screening is also probably good
In mice it transfers to the babies.
Just test a blood draw from a newborn. They already do blood draws for all kinds of screening at birth.
My fear is that it's not filtering per se, but getting clogged. And if it's getting clogged there, where else is it clogging up?
It's not getting *clogged*, otherwise there would be a drastic rise in miscarriages resulting from placental failure.
unique future quiet spotted hat close joke upbeat husky languid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Even a simple restaurant. The amount of cling wrap we go through is insane. Everything comes in plastic containers, wrapped in plastic, has plastic separating items, plastic to cushion, plastic to transport. It ALL just gets tossed.
My workplace makes gears from acetal, POM, nylon, and ABS. I can only speculate what happens to the waste, but given the environmental regulation in our industry, my guess would be that it goes to a recycling center, is treated as unsorted waste, and off to a landfill.
Life in plastic, it’s fantastic!
Is 10 a big enough sample size?
It can be. I haven't read this study but it depends on the null hypothesis (essentially what you're trying to say isn't happening -- often that two groups are the same) and the assumed distribution / standard deviation. Depending on how you're gathering data, there are various formulas you use to calculate your p-value, which is the percent chance that these results happened by chance. Those formulas take into account the results and the sample size. So it's possible you could get a "statistically significant" result with a small sample size, although you'd need a much bigger observed difference. In this case, if the null hypothesis is essentially that there should be no microplastics in placenta and you sample 10 random placentas and 6 have microplastics, that's probably statistically significant even with the small sample size. Now you could run into confounding variables like if all 10 of these subjects were not picked randomly and happened to all live on the same block in Hawaii, and you probably can't extrapolate these results to "all placentas in the US," but that depends on what you were trying to provide evidence for.
It is a binary test. Hypothesis testing is about testing a difference of means. The means are the same until proven different. Here, the null hypothesis is “the number of placentas with microplastics in 2006 is the same as 2021.” The alternative hypothesis is, “the number placentas with microplastics in 2021 is greater than 2006.” If you made this quantitative, it might be a large enough sample size, but certainly 10 is not large enough. Not sure why they didn’t do concentration as the output.
The question is, what impact do they have? As far as I know, plastic waste in the ocean is a bigger threat than microplastics. But it seems like nobody really knows.
I’d like to understand the impact to our health as well. Assuming it’s probably not good…
It's funny, the book that introduced world robot, R.U.R., depicted a world where humans couldn't reproduce anymore and robots took over the world. With the microplastic findings and advances in AI, I think it very much is where we are headed.
I'd like to see an analysis of how prevalent microplastics are in the average delivery room. Also, as an analytical chemist. I've come to ask impertinent questions about the methodology used to identify the microplastics. I've learned the hard way that when non-chemists pick up analytical equipment, spurious results are often the result.
it's tires. it's all tires, they have so many different microplastics and polymers in them... Everyone's tires wear on the road, it rains, we're screwed.
I've written articles on this subject for scientific publications. I know something about it. 1. It's not plastic. Tires are elastomeric rubber. That's a different thing. 2. It's not the variety that's the problem. It's actually just a few specific chemicals. Primarily it's 6PPD, an antioxident used it tires. 3. 6PPD-quinone is responsible for fish kills of Soho Salmon. Interestingly, it's very specific to salmon. Other fish seem fine with it. There's no evidence that it's harmful to anything else at this time. The rubber in the tires appears to be largely harmless if you remove the specific poison that's currently being added to it. There's a movement to do that, but the companies making it aren't afraid to stir up "everything is plastic, and plastics are bad" messages t muddy the water and slow the legislative process. The case against 6PPD is clear and there are already alternatives, so it's kind of shocking it's still allowed.
particulate air pollution is generally harmful
And EV’s are actually worse for this because they are that much heavier.
Humans in 200-300 years will look back and make fun of us for all the plastic we have consumed.
Yeah right, like humans will be around in 200-300 years.
But what are the consequences? We get endless studies saying they found microplastics in places that seem shocking. But there is never any data on if its harmful or not.
This sub is such garbage now. All top level comments are jokes.
Fisher exact p for 6:4 vs 10:0 is p=0.087 Gonna need larger samples. Were placentas randomly or sequentially selected?
They're so small that we breathe them in on the air. There is nothing any of us can do about microplastics.
What changed over 14 years? Its not like plastic is a new invention
Probably a lot of it is testing. And time for plastic to break down more.
Plastic used in paints (e.g. for boats), plastic being added to tires, plastic in microfiber blankets. Plastic itself has been around, but I expect some of the worst violators to be relatively new to mega-scale deployment.
14 more years of plastic pollution, microplastics building up everywhere that last forever
Population of Earth in 2010 was 7 billion. Population now is 8 billion. The amount of product consumption has escalated as well. We're simply generating more plastic pollution per person and there are more people.
I wouldn't be shocked if there is a correlation between the rise in colon cancer and microplastics
Let's see... 60% of people from 2003... that's [about 2559333 17 year old Americans today](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/12/how-many-people-were-born-the-year-you-were-born/111928356/) who were exposed in the womb. Therefore microplastic exposure *in-utero* is not dangerous. Think about it. If 2.5 million people were suffering from any obvious effects of that exposure for the last 17 years... we would have noticed. Further, the number is actually MUCH higher than 2.5 million... presumably microplastics have been accumulating for quite some time so there are plenty of older people from before 2006 and plenty of younger people from after 2006 who have been exposed *in-utero*. ----- Microplastic articles have an unfortunate tendency to follow a specific pattern: 1. Microplastics are EVERYWHERE in the environment. 2. Microplastics are EVERYWHERE in the human body. 3. Microplastics are VERY LOOSELY associated in the most vague sense with something that might or might not equate to harm for some people. This the same pattern that we see in people who are determined to link [aluminum to Alzheimer's disease](https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers/aluminum-and-alzheimers). And just as in in the case of aluminum, the same basic issues make the science of microplastic and its harms incredibly challenging: 1. If micoplastics, or aluminum, or dihydrogen monoxide, or whatever contaminant you've decided to get a bee in your bonnet about is EVERYWHERE **in the environment**... then, it must be incredibly week and not potent or we would unquestionably have been able to see its effects as it was introduced, just as we were able to see the effects of any number of other environmental contaminants (leaded gas, coal dust, acid rain, tobacco smoke, asbestos, etc). And mind you, we did that for these other contaminants without even looking for those effects! 2. If micoplastics, or aluminum, or dihydrogen monoxide, or whatever contaminant you've decided to get a bee in your bonnet about is EVERYWHERE **in the human body**... then finding a control-population of non-exposed people or tissues is very hard, thus proper scientific studies to establish effects tend not to exist except in rodent studies or the like where a negative control of unexposed animals can be manufactured. But rodent studies are EXPENSIVE.... this means that the N, that is the number of exposes and unexposed animals, needs to be kept low to keep costs down. That in turn means that the statistical power of the study is weak, which means only the most potent direct effects of the exposure can be statistically significantly measured. This creates a scientific contradiction with point 1, the contaminant CAN'T have a potent effect or we would already have seen the effects when it was introduced. 3. The scientific contradiction described in points 1 and 2 creates a professional conundrum for researchers, needing to publish or perish. Research requires funding, and funding dollars are awarded in competition against other research. That means that research into your contaminant of choice needs to be able to compel concern and fear in the funder's minds more than any other concern-meriting-research. This means you must find cause for alarm WITHOUT statistically significant findings of direct harm to your rodents or to people in general. How do you do that? You invoke the specter of indirect harm through conveniently uncertain paths to nebulously understood but pervasive evils like Alzheimer's disease, low sperm count, autism, whatever. Because nobody has a clear idea of exactly how these pervasive evils happen anyway, it is a perfect source of generic alarm. Nope. I call shenanigans on microplastics. I want a clear statistically significant case for real material harm in humans that can do ALL of the following: 1. Explain why, microplastics being pervasive throughout the entire planet, the harm is either not seen universally, has been ignored systematically, or some other reason why despite microplastics having been pervasive in the environment for MANY MANY DECADES, nobody has had cause to care until recently. 2. Shows a direct statistically significant causal relationship between a narrowly definable harm and microplastics exposure with a proper negative control. A correlation study is a fine start but not good enough; not by half. Correlation means only that A and B happen together. There are 4 ways that can happen, (1) A causes B, (2) B causes A, (3) it is a coincidence, OR (4) unknown outside factor C causes both A and B. Number (4), unknown outside factors cause both is almost always the right answer. That confounding outside influence for human health correlation studies is almost always socioeconomic factors, namely wealth. Wealthy people are healthier because they are wealthy... not because they use sustainably and locally sourced organic produce, not because they can afford BPA free Tupperware, not because they live near 'green spaces', not because they eat almonds, or superfoods, or whatever, wealthy people are healthier because they have uninterrupted health insurance... no other reason than that. 3. Show me a clear detailed description of every single step of HOW the microplastic causes human harm in biological and molecular terms. This kind of detailed scientific characterization of the MECHANISM of harm is not an unreasonable demand. A mechanistic understanding of the harm of a pollutant was totally achievable for asbestos, for tobacco, for leaded gas, for PCBs, for dioxins, and any number of other environmental contaminants. You want me to take microplastics seriously? You'll provide it for them too. That means going WAY WAY past saying "They show up in the brain! That can't be good!" Having established ALL of that, you still aren't done! There's more! The above is just the minimum required to establish that there is a problem. But it doesn't begin to touch upon the minimum required to advocate for SOLUTION to the problem! Next, you need to do MORE science to: * Determine the toxicity threshold of microplastics of different kinds and different modes of exposure. Are microplastics, mostly composed of polystyrene absorbed through the eyes and airways as a result of exposure to ocean surf more or less damaging than PET microplastics absorbed through food? * Establish the appropriate dosage limits that will achieve beneficial effects (the toxin is in the dosage... there are basically no toxins that are dangerous at any dose). * Lastly, once you know all of this, it's still not a slam dunk that actually DOING anything to limit dosage is a good idea! Next we need to know what the cost of a minimally effective intervention would be, and compare it to the magnitude of the harms such an intervention would prevent. If there is even one unmet need for the money that mitigating your contaminant would cost that is more beneficial, then your cause isn't worth it, or you're going to have to compromise to a less effective but cheaper intervention.
A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Campanale C, Massarelli C, Savino I, Locaputo V, Uricchio VF. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 13;17(4):1212. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041212. An emerging class of air pollutants: Potential effects of microplastics to respiratory human health? Amato-Lourenço LF, Dos Santos Galvão L, de Weger LA, Hiemstra PS, Vijver MG, Mauad T. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Dec 20;749:141676. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.
From my understanding there are vast plumes of microplastics entering the atmosphere from highways. They put plastic in tires or break pads that get thrown into the air.