In Pictures: How much plastic are you eating?(aljazeera.com)
aljazeera.com
In Pictures: How much plastic are you eating?
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2020/12/11/in-pictures-how-much-plastic-are-you-eating
171 comments
So you’re correct in saying you’d need more information to draw conclusions, but the big concern at this point in time is that we really have no idea what impact this has. This is potentially much worse than eating a bunch of plastic one time that you’ll ultimately pass right on through (given that these are microscopic particulates in the digestive tract).
In essence the big concern here is cancer. We know that particulates at or around 0.3 microns (the Most Penetrating Particle Size) have been linked to a variety of abdominal cancers in humans throughout the last hundred years.
Critically, these types of cancers can take up to 50 years to form and cause serious enough problems to be detected (and seldom less than a couple of decades), so although billions of people have consumed micro-plastics, we still have no way of knowing what impact that will have on their health in later years.
This is exactly what happened in the case of asbestos - it took so long for the consequences to show up after exposure that it seemed far-fetched to draw a correlation between asbestos and the cancers it caused. When coupled with cover-ups of the evidence by mining companies, the common use of asbestos skyrocketed long after it was known how deadly it was in private - but before public awareness had sounded alarm bells.
The worry is that accumulated micro-plastics could be deadly in later life, but that we don’t find that out until hundreds of millions of people have become terminally ill.
In essence the big concern here is cancer. We know that particulates at or around 0.3 microns (the Most Penetrating Particle Size) have been linked to a variety of abdominal cancers in humans throughout the last hundred years.
Critically, these types of cancers can take up to 50 years to form and cause serious enough problems to be detected (and seldom less than a couple of decades), so although billions of people have consumed micro-plastics, we still have no way of knowing what impact that will have on their health in later years.
This is exactly what happened in the case of asbestos - it took so long for the consequences to show up after exposure that it seemed far-fetched to draw a correlation between asbestos and the cancers it caused. When coupled with cover-ups of the evidence by mining companies, the common use of asbestos skyrocketed long after it was known how deadly it was in private - but before public awareness had sounded alarm bells.
The worry is that accumulated micro-plastics could be deadly in later life, but that we don’t find that out until hundreds of millions of people have become terminally ill.
The example of asbestos is interesting, because it was actually know since the roman empire that it was toxic. Juvenal wrote about the disease suffered by asbestos miners in the beginning of the 2nd century!
As you mentioned, the problem is never knowledge: it's the political fact between wealthy corporations and people's interest. Companies try to cover their mess up for as long as they can, by every possible mean. They know it won't last forever, but it doesn't really matter since they banked up their profits in the meantime and people in charge almost never suffer legal consequences for their actions…
As you mentioned, the problem is never knowledge: it's the political fact between wealthy corporations and people's interest. Companies try to cover their mess up for as long as they can, by every possible mean. They know it won't last forever, but it doesn't really matter since they banked up their profits in the meantime and people in charge almost never suffer legal consequences for their actions…
Currently, I don't like the comparison to asbestos.
Asbestos was known early to be bad. Early mining towns lives were shorter[0]. Information was slow to communicate and I 100% agree there was a lot of money to keep the dangers from being known by the general public.
But asbestos, has a long and clear history of being bad.
Plastics are no where near as bad and are pretty much ubiquitous.
I think the opioid crisis or even sugar is more closely related to asbestos's style of danger combined with misinformation.
As this whole thread is discussing, the jury is still out, but there seems to be hardly the study that can point to an asbestos level problem.
If we all start developing cancer in about 20 years, I'll be the first to raise my hand admitting I didn't see that coming.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Discovery_of_toxicity
Asbestos was known early to be bad. Early mining towns lives were shorter[0]. Information was slow to communicate and I 100% agree there was a lot of money to keep the dangers from being known by the general public.
But asbestos, has a long and clear history of being bad.
Plastics are no where near as bad and are pretty much ubiquitous.
I think the opioid crisis or even sugar is more closely related to asbestos's style of danger combined with misinformation.
As this whole thread is discussing, the jury is still out, but there seems to be hardly the study that can point to an asbestos level problem.
If we all start developing cancer in about 20 years, I'll be the first to raise my hand admitting I didn't see that coming.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Discovery_of_toxicity
I actually agree with you in part - if this were anything like as bad as asbestos per capita surely we would know that by now.
The point I was trying to make was that so very many people, essentially everyone, are being exposed to micro-plastics that even if this were several orders of magnitude less toxic than asbestos that's still a major health crisis.
That and as you've said we just don't know what we don't know really.
The point I was trying to make was that so very many people, essentially everyone, are being exposed to micro-plastics that even if this were several orders of magnitude less toxic than asbestos that's still a major health crisis.
That and as you've said we just don't know what we don't know really.
I don't disagree, but 50 years is a very unintuitive number to give because it makes it sound like you're going to die of natural causes before the cancer causes you harm, which is pretty harmless as cancers go.
Not if you die at 50. Or 40.
> The worry is that accumulated micro-plastics could be deadly in later life, but that we don’t find that out until hundreds of millions of people have become terminally ill.
But even if this scenario were to happen, is there anything we can do about it? Maybe it is already too late and we can only analyze what we could have made better, not what we can.
But even if this scenario were to happen, is there anything we can do about it? Maybe it is already too late and we can only analyze what we could have made better, not what we can.
It is certainly establishes an obligation to be good ancestors.
Already fucked up there.
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
The time is always now.
The first problem reported with plasticizers was endocrine disruption [1]. This has been linked to the reduction of fetal anogenital distance, a key marker in determining the sex of a fetus [2]. This causes various reproductive disorders [3].
I am convinced that this contributes to the apparent feminization of human societies, a topic that apparently cannot be brought up for discussion in the US due to the ludicrous contemporary political climate.
1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001664801...
2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16079079/
3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-018-2350-5
I am convinced that this contributes to the apparent feminization of human societies, a topic that apparently cannot be brought up for discussion in the US due to the ludicrous contemporary political climate.
1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001664801...
2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16079079/
3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-018-2350-5
>the apparent feminization of human societies
Wow, could you elaborate or backup this claim? Do you mean that it explains that there are more female born than male? Probably not since you say it can't be talked about so you're hinting at a more ideological and thus controversial claim : That masculine values are on the down or something of that kind. If that's your opinion, well it is a classic overheard reactionary argument about the pacification of social relationships and how war forge "real" men and you just disappointed me.
Wow, could you elaborate or backup this claim? Do you mean that it explains that there are more female born than male? Probably not since you say it can't be talked about so you're hinting at a more ideological and thus controversial claim : That masculine values are on the down or something of that kind. If that's your opinion, well it is a classic overheard reactionary argument about the pacification of social relationships and how war forge "real" men and you just disappointed me.
Parent is unintentionally supporting grandparent's point.
In any event the secular testosterone decline[1] corresponds roughly with the mass production of consumer plastic goods. No way to tease apart all the confounding variables though so it could be something else causing that.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17895324/ and many many many others.
In any event the secular testosterone decline[1] corresponds roughly with the mass production of consumer plastic goods. No way to tease apart all the confounding variables though so it could be something else causing that.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17895324/ and many many many others.
Average testicle size has been shrinking for decades too. And as you say, nobody knows why.
I don’t know, but they may be referring to studies that postulate environmental (as well as other) factors contributing to the general lowering of testosterone and fertility in men over the past few decades.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-testosterone-levels-dc...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-testosterone-levels-dc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A?wprov=sfla1
It was used in baby bottle mouthpieces and dummys as a plasticizer.
It was used in baby bottle mouthpieces and dummys as a plasticizer.
[deleted]
yarcob(1)
Your comment about the political climate made me remember this. I cannot find the specific reference but in one of his lectures (on Youtube), Sapolsky talks about how some gay people felt offended in the 70's by research about the relation between brain structure and sexual orientation, since they felt it treated their sexual orientation as a pathology. Sapolsky contrasts it with the more recent enthusiasm about similar research, because people felt it would prove being gay was not a matter of choice or bad nurture. In political contexts, people blindly replace connotation for implication. Whereas implication is a concern of Logic (and hence, Science), connotation is a concern of intuition (or should I say, instinct) about constantly changing cultural ideals.
I have seen that lecture and it's great but please see my comment below and consider that the parent may not be that lone hero of hard science and facts against the politics of emotion which I suspect is the narrative it's trying to establish. (It's a trap ;)
The plastic/oil industry likely subsidizes that political stuff so the pitchforks will not come for them.
> apparent feminization of human societies
I have heard something similar is happening to domestic dogs too, which is very interesting, but makes sense as they will be exposed to a lot of what we are. I have no idea what to search for to bring that study up though. I did find one study about BPA levels in canned food causing marked changes just after a few weeks but that's a very small part of the whole picture.
I have heard something similar is happening to domestic dogs too, which is very interesting, but makes sense as they will be exposed to a lot of what we are. I have no idea what to search for to bring that study up though. I did find one study about BPA levels in canned food causing marked changes just after a few weeks but that's a very small part of the whole picture.
If you'd prefer to read one of a million articles that lay out what you suggest (most say we need more data), then I suggest you google the topic. I'd imagine more people will do just that, thanks to this piece!
I personally have done that reading and so was already familiar with micro plastics. However, I had never had a good sense of the quantity until these photos visualized it. I hope this "In Pictures" article introduces more people to this subject because most people aren't aware of this being a potential issue.
(The person down thread who noted this piece uses upper limits without noting it has a valid critique.)
I personally have done that reading and so was already familiar with micro plastics. However, I had never had a good sense of the quantity until these photos visualized it. I hope this "In Pictures" article introduces more people to this subject because most people aren't aware of this being a potential issue.
(The person down thread who noted this piece uses upper limits without noting it has a valid critique.)
>So what?
Many plasticizers mimic the function of hormones like estrogen. Would you like to dose yourself with unregulated amounts of hormone analogs and hope it all works out?
Many plasticizers mimic the function of hormones like estrogen. Would you like to dose yourself with unregulated amounts of hormone analogs and hope it all works out?
I'd be interested on how much dust, pollen and sand I eat in comparison.
...and insects.
> Don’t just tell me I eat a lot of plastic—on its own, that’s useless information.
Is it though? I don't think I've read an article that quantifies how much plastic we ingest in relatable terms or quantities. Most people may even be unaware that we ingest any appreciable amount.
Many people remember the BPA bottle recalls and know what/why everything says BPA free on it these days. And I think this article would inspire people to start asking themselves if that's a problem.
Not everyone gets upset and dismissive when something they read isn't a one stop shop for any and all information on a subject. They do occasionally seek additional information.
Is it though? I don't think I've read an article that quantifies how much plastic we ingest in relatable terms or quantities. Most people may even be unaware that we ingest any appreciable amount.
Many people remember the BPA bottle recalls and know what/why everything says BPA free on it these days. And I think this article would inspire people to start asking themselves if that's a problem.
Not everyone gets upset and dismissive when something they read isn't a one stop shop for any and all information on a subject. They do occasionally seek additional information.
One thing that scares me is that this amount of plastic consumption is only increasing as we dump more and more plastic. I’m not sure when it will reach that point that it’s clearly too much even if the amount we consume isn’t harmful for now. Many of these plastics take thousands of years to break down completely.
My lay understanding is that we don't know about the plastics themselves as other commenters have said. However, apparently, other toxic chemicals in the environment bond readily to the plastics and that becomes a mechanism by which those chemicals get into our bodies.
I'm equally curious. Lets say for the sake of argument that I eat as much plastic per year as I do clay and sand. How would that affect me in ways that those other minerals don't.
Hmm. I'd be more curious about the mechanisms of how it's consumed and whether there's anything I could do to avoid it. Or changes in production that could be made to avoid it.
Since there were big headlines ~2010 about food in plastic heated in microwaves, I've switched to using glass containers for leftovers. Does that decrease the amount described in this article? Or is this some other mechanism of plastic consumption?
Since there were big headlines ~2010 about food in plastic heated in microwaves, I've switched to using glass containers for leftovers. Does that decrease the amount described in this article? Or is this some other mechanism of plastic consumption?
Or why we should be concerned.
We should be concerned because the plastic acts like xenoestrogens in the body. Hormone disruption is bad.
Is that also the case for BPA-free plastics? "Plastics" covers a wide range of chemicals, and I'm not up to date on the latest health information in this area.
>Is that also the case for BPA-free plastics
be careful, the "BPA free" plastic products on the market might have just replaced BPA with BPS (or other plasticizers), which might be as bad as BPA when it comes to your health. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_S#Health_Effects
be careful, the "BPA free" plastic products on the market might have just replaced BPA with BPS (or other plasticizers), which might be as bad as BPA when it comes to your health. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_S#Health_Effects
I'm using a wooden toothbrush handle with "BPA free" bristles and this potential switcheroo has me worried. Are there toothbrushes out there that avoid plastic entirely?
Lot of natural foods do the exact same thing. Soy isoflavones have a very strong estrogen effect.
There is no strong evidence of any link between phytoestrogen consumption and adverse health effects, as shown by a cursory look at the Wikipedia page for phytoestrogens, and the literature.
I’ve consumed minimum 1 cup soy milk almost my entire life. No man boobs and my sperm works just fine.
What’s funny is people usually warn me that eating soy will somehow harm my masculinity, yet they aren’t aware milk, eggs, and meat also contain phytoestrogens https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf801344x
I’ve consumed minimum 1 cup soy milk almost my entire life. No man boobs and my sperm works just fine.
What’s funny is people usually warn me that eating soy will somehow harm my masculinity, yet they aren’t aware milk, eggs, and meat also contain phytoestrogens https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf801344x
So does wheat, coffee, sesame seeds - in fact: most grains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Food_sources
But soy gets all the press. People believe what they desire to believe...
And good on you. I too drink 1/2 Liter of Westsoy Unsweetened Soymilk daily. Silk just came out with an unsweetened variety too! :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Food_sources
But soy gets all the press. People believe what they desire to believe...
And good on you. I too drink 1/2 Liter of Westsoy Unsweetened Soymilk daily. Silk just came out with an unsweetened variety too! :-)
This is like saying both water and botulinum are technically toxins, so it’s okay to drink liters of botulinum a day.
What matters is the quantity of phytoestrogens in foods, and soy products happens to have significantly higher phytoestrogens than other foods.
What matters is the quantity of phytoestrogens in foods, and soy products happens to have significantly higher phytoestrogens than other foods.
I am not making a two wrongs make a right argument. I argue that grains are pervasive in our society and have no noticable ill effects. You strawmanned by claiming soy has way higher phytoestrogens than other foods. It's not true. It is just more studied due to its increasing popularity. Lignan forms of phytoestrogens are in potent concentrations in common cereal grains.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24284429_Phytoestro...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5302234/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24284429_Phytoestro...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5302234/
From the first link's abstract:
> Phytoestrogens were detected in all foods analyzed; bread contained the highest amount of phytoestrogens-many as isoflavones-with an average content of 375 +/- 67 microg/100 g wet weight (excluding soya-linseed bread with 12,000 microg/100 g).
This is what I'm saying. You are comparing 375 and 12,000 and saying the difference doesn't matter. It's a two orders of magnitude difference.
So no, what you're saying is not true. Soy products have significantly higher levels of phytoestrogens than other foods.
> Phytoestrogens were detected in all foods analyzed; bread contained the highest amount of phytoestrogens-many as isoflavones-with an average content of 375 +/- 67 microg/100 g wet weight (excluding soya-linseed bread with 12,000 microg/100 g).
This is what I'm saying. You are comparing 375 and 12,000 and saying the difference doesn't matter. It's a two orders of magnitude difference.
So no, what you're saying is not true. Soy products have significantly higher levels of phytoestrogens than other foods.
I stand corrected. This source also confirms your observations.
http://www.pkdiet.com/pdf/pld/phytoestrogen.pdf
Thank you for enlightening me.
http://www.pkdiet.com/pdf/pld/phytoestrogen.pdf
Thank you for enlightening me.
Cow milk also contains actual mammalian estrogens.
As a general rule, one should be cautious about adding new substances into the human body, especially if you’re doing it accidentally and without prior planning or study.
These aren’t “new” substances. We have been using plastic for decades now and there isn’t clear knowledge that it is very bad to ingest. If it was super bad we would have seen the effects by now.
Look up the history of leaded gasoline sometime... There were studies asserting a certain 'natural' level of lead in the bloodstream which we now consider quite toxic. But everyone was poisoned together, due to ubiquity, so it took a massive effort to get people to understand that something was wrong.
If you change enough variables at once, it's pretty hard to get clear knowledge of harm. We're not out there running controlled experiments on every new substance, or collecting robust data. The rapid rise of unexplained autoimmune disease over the past few decades (one of quite a few negative health trends) indicates that our knowledge of what is harmful is incomplete.
It wouldn’t surprise me if plastic usage correlated strongly with rising obesity, but I don’t know if anybody has studied it.
We might already be seeing effects but haven’t yet made the connection.
We might already be seeing effects but haven’t yet made the connection.
Lead was in petrol for several decades.
>Since there were big headlines ~2010 about food in plastic heated in microwaves, I've switched to using glass containers for leftovers. Does that decrease the amount described in this article?
AFAIK that's for BPA? I don't think microplastics are generated just by having the food being in contact with the plastic, so I doubt that makes a difference. If you read the study[1], it looks like most of the plastic comes from the drinking water, not through food.
[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxvyl3v5s9d0a1v/PLASTIC%20INGESTIO...
AFAIK that's for BPA? I don't think microplastics are generated just by having the food being in contact with the plastic, so I doubt that makes a difference. If you read the study[1], it looks like most of the plastic comes from the drinking water, not through food.
[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxvyl3v5s9d0a1v/PLASTIC%20INGESTIO...
I wouldn’t be too sure of that: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-00171-y
One way that surprised me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kttVyakHN4
Chewing gum / Bubble gum uses a mix of synthetic rubber and plastic as its base.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kttVyakHN4
Chewing gum / Bubble gum uses a mix of synthetic rubber and plastic as its base.
Which is why I was delighted to discover True Gum [1] at my local organic food market. It's plastic-free chewing gum.
[1] https://truegum.com/
[1] https://truegum.com/
> I'd be more curious about the mechanisms of how it's consumed and whether there's anything I could do to avoid it.
Same
> Or changes in production that could be made to avoid it.
Not as interested in this, as its a moot point. Corporations that make things have my worst incentives as their goals, so if they found out, they might learn to make it even worse for me. God forbid the health care industry find out (I'm sure they have and we'll find out the effects decades down the road, similar to cigarettes).
Same
> Or changes in production that could be made to avoid it.
Not as interested in this, as its a moot point. Corporations that make things have my worst incentives as their goals, so if they found out, they might learn to make it even worse for me. God forbid the health care industry find out (I'm sure they have and we'll find out the effects decades down the road, similar to cigarettes).
[deleted]
One thing you can do is stop buying clothes with nylon and polyester (which is hard to find but not impossible) since these release plastic particles when you wash them which eventually enters the sea and the food chain.
While this makes sense to reduce plastic overall, it doesn’t help to eat less plastic right now.
Furthermore, I kinda think that this must be solved on a political level. It’s good if more and more people ask for plastic-free products, but don’t think that this changes anything on the individual level, especially if you consider that a lot of plastic in the oceans come from fishing nets.
It might actually make more sense to stop eating fish, if you want to have less plastic in your ocean.
So generelly: yes, try to reduce plastic, but also make it vocally (and vote) that this is important to you/all of us.
Furthermore, I kinda think that this must be solved on a political level. It’s good if more and more people ask for plastic-free products, but don’t think that this changes anything on the individual level, especially if you consider that a lot of plastic in the oceans come from fishing nets.
It might actually make more sense to stop eating fish, if you want to have less plastic in your ocean.
So generelly: yes, try to reduce plastic, but also make it vocally (and vote) that this is important to you/all of us.
This is a big one. I have been making diligent efforts to buy everything cotton and wool I possibly can, and telling retailers why I want cotton and wool products. Wool is an especially good alternative for active wear given its natural anti-odor properties.
That last part is a big plus. Most of us are so used to cotton shirts and synthetics that pick up odors and need to have the funk washed out all the time. A wool shirt can be aired out overnight, given a quick shake and be completely odor-free the next morning.
I've worn merino wool underpants on trips where - for various reasons - I took barely anything except the clothes I wore. Hanging the underpants in the steamy bathroom while taking a shower will almost completely refresh them. Heck, even keeping them on in circumstances where showers weren't available didn't seem to pick up any odors, at least for a couple of days.
Not that I would normally recommend regularly wearing underwear for several days or even a week, but wool is clearly superior to cotton or synthetic fabrics.
I've worn merino wool underpants on trips where - for various reasons - I took barely anything except the clothes I wore. Hanging the underpants in the steamy bathroom while taking a shower will almost completely refresh them. Heck, even keeping them on in circumstances where showers weren't available didn't seem to pick up any odors, at least for a couple of days.
Not that I would normally recommend regularly wearing underwear for several days or even a week, but wool is clearly superior to cotton or synthetic fabrics.
Ditto, and I'd like to throw a punch for linen too – perfect material on hot summer days!
Hemp is like linen without the wrinkles. (I have both.)
And additionally these clothes feel much better on the skin, at least in my experience. It's also great to see how great wool e.g. repels water. Wool has so many great properties but it is of course also significantly more expensive.
The feel on your skin certainly depends on the type of wool used. I have some merino wool boxer briefs, which are utterly soft and comfortable. They're made from organic mulesing-free wool, which is what you should be looking for, if at all possible.
I also have some military surplus (Finnish M65) wool pants, which are made primarily for warmth and durability, not so much for soft comfort. Even after a sorely-needed rejuvenation with lanolin, they are still made from thick and somewhat coarse wool, which is obviously better for winter pants than silky soft merino.
Personally I don't find wool to be annoyingly scratchy. While I certainly do feel it a little bit when I put on a coarse wool flannel shirt before it warms to my body temperature, but it doesn't bother me. I know some people absolutely can't stand it, but I don't think anyone would have issues with good merino.
I also have some military surplus (Finnish M65) wool pants, which are made primarily for warmth and durability, not so much for soft comfort. Even after a sorely-needed rejuvenation with lanolin, they are still made from thick and somewhat coarse wool, which is obviously better for winter pants than silky soft merino.
Personally I don't find wool to be annoyingly scratchy. While I certainly do feel it a little bit when I put on a coarse wool flannel shirt before it warms to my body temperature, but it doesn't bother me. I know some people absolutely can't stand it, but I don't think anyone would have issues with good merino.
Among other sources, microplastics are often used in toothpaste.
Quoted from Colgate's site [1]:
> Because microbeads aren't biodegradable, they pose a significant environmental concern. Research from the New York State Office of the Attorney General shows that microbeads can escape undetected into rivers and oceans after being washed down the drain, since their small size means they often aren't captured by regular sewage treatment systems. The report found that approximately 19 tons of microbeads are washed down New York drains each year!
> The beads can be mistaken as food by fish, birds and other wildlife. When animals fill their stomachs with microbeads, they may spread the plastic up the food chain. This can lead to contamination of the fish we eat, since microplastics soak up pollutants in waterways, according to the Australian Department of Environment and Energy. Once in the environment, microbeads are almost impossible to remove.
[1] https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/brushing-and-floss...
Quoted from Colgate's site [1]:
> Because microbeads aren't biodegradable, they pose a significant environmental concern. Research from the New York State Office of the Attorney General shows that microbeads can escape undetected into rivers and oceans after being washed down the drain, since their small size means they often aren't captured by regular sewage treatment systems. The report found that approximately 19 tons of microbeads are washed down New York drains each year!
> The beads can be mistaken as food by fish, birds and other wildlife. When animals fill their stomachs with microbeads, they may spread the plastic up the food chain. This can lead to contamination of the fish we eat, since microplastics soak up pollutants in waterways, according to the Australian Department of Environment and Energy. Once in the environment, microbeads are almost impossible to remove.
[1] https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/brushing-and-floss...
The cited 5 grams is the upper limit in an estimate from a 2019 publication done for WWF Singapore.
> "we estimated that globally on average, humans may ingest 0.1 to 5 g of microplastics weekly through various exposure pathways"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/plastic_ingestion_press...
> "we estimated that globally on average, humans may ingest 0.1 to 5 g of microplastics weekly through various exposure pathways"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/plastic_ingestion_press...
Wow. How this got published is beyond me. I'll have some of whatever the reviewers on this manuscript were smoking.
"""The interpretation of the 95% confidence intervals is that the "true" mass ingested for each food source and total mass will be within the ranges calculated (Table 7). However, this depends critically on the shape of the uniform distribution chosen and the assumed 50% relative uncertainty in number of particles and mass of particles. This uncertainty was chosen arbitrarily to help in understanding the sensitivity of the mass ingested to errors in the estimates reported."""
This is literally pulling numbers put of thin air, since no actual numbers exist. The upper limit of error propagation from a completely arbitrary estimate, which turns into three full orders of magnitude or uncertainty, then gets reported as "fact" by news outlets...
I've said it before, the science of microplastics today is where chemistry was in the 17th century. The people working in this field seem to have very limited understanding of basic math, physics and chemistry. Either step up and do shit properly, or go home. This is just embarassing.
"""The interpretation of the 95% confidence intervals is that the "true" mass ingested for each food source and total mass will be within the ranges calculated (Table 7). However, this depends critically on the shape of the uniform distribution chosen and the assumed 50% relative uncertainty in number of particles and mass of particles. This uncertainty was chosen arbitrarily to help in understanding the sensitivity of the mass ingested to errors in the estimates reported."""
This is literally pulling numbers put of thin air, since no actual numbers exist. The upper limit of error propagation from a completely arbitrary estimate, which turns into three full orders of magnitude or uncertainty, then gets reported as "fact" by news outlets...
I've said it before, the science of microplastics today is where chemistry was in the 17th century. The people working in this field seem to have very limited understanding of basic math, physics and chemistry. Either step up and do shit properly, or go home. This is just embarassing.
[deleted]
> People could be ingesting the equivalent of a credit card of plastic a week, a 2019 study by WWF International concluded, mainly in plastic-infused drinking water but also via food like shellfish, which tends to be eaten whole so the plastic in their digestive systems is also consumed.
It is what it is, could be. Yes the worst water in the world contains this much plastic, but I seriously doubt it is anywhere close to normal(I wouldn't mind to be wrong though)
It is what it is, could be. Yes the worst water in the world contains this much plastic, but I seriously doubt it is anywhere close to normal(I wouldn't mind to be wrong though)
Link to WWF 2019 study: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/plastic_ingestion_press...
Link to press release for study: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-inges...
> The literature was interrogated for several counts of microplastics in staples such as water, shellfish, fish, salt, beer, honey and sugar. This project did not take into account other possible direct ingestion sources such as the honey, fish, sugar (for which data was collated) or rice, pasta, bread, milk, utensils, cutlery, toothpaste, toothbrushes, food packaging and a multitude of other sources that would only add to the amount consumed. As such, there is confidence that based on the literature reviewed and subsequent analysis performed that up to 5 g/week of microplastic particles is potentially ingested by humans. Having said that, it should be stressed that the amount of the microplastics ingested by an individual will depend on a combination of parameters that is highly variable not only pertaining to the characteristics of the microplastics but also to each’s age, size, geographic location, demographics of the location, nature of development and life-style options.
> This study is being reviewed for publication; the full methodology and supplementary data will be available upon acceptance.
I believe the published paper is "Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested – A pivotal first step towards human health risk assessment" (2020): https://sci-hub.do/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124004 (Same authors.)
Table 6 in the study has the "5g of plastic/week" number quoted by the article. That number is the "global average rate of microplastics ingested" ("GARMI"). GARMI is calculated as:
GARMI = Average Number of Microplastics Ingested (ANMP) x Average Mass of Individual Microplastic Particle (AMIMP)
ANIMP can be calculated in different ways. It seems the average mass of microplastic particles found in drinking water was higher than the average mass of microplastic particles found in different foods. The study says 90% of ingested plastic particles come from drinking water, so it seems reasonable to use the AMIMP of water particles rather than food particles.
ANMP_drinking_water = 91994 ("the amount of water consumed per person was assumed to be 0.6 L/day" "The figures assumed are well below the World Health Organisation's guidelines of 3 to 4 L/person/day". 0.6 L/day comes from minimum 0.45 L/day of tap water + 0.15 L/day of bottled water. 91,994 is calculated as average of min (9029 particles) and max (174,959). If you only drank tap water, this number would be 42,298.)
AMIMP_aquatic = 2.8g / 1000
ANMP_drinking_water * AMIMP_aquatic = 257g
257 / 52 ~= 5g
Challenging those variables would be where to start. But assuming they're right, probably makes sense to focus on filtering plastics from drinking water.
Link to press release for study: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-inges...
> The literature was interrogated for several counts of microplastics in staples such as water, shellfish, fish, salt, beer, honey and sugar. This project did not take into account other possible direct ingestion sources such as the honey, fish, sugar (for which data was collated) or rice, pasta, bread, milk, utensils, cutlery, toothpaste, toothbrushes, food packaging and a multitude of other sources that would only add to the amount consumed. As such, there is confidence that based on the literature reviewed and subsequent analysis performed that up to 5 g/week of microplastic particles is potentially ingested by humans. Having said that, it should be stressed that the amount of the microplastics ingested by an individual will depend on a combination of parameters that is highly variable not only pertaining to the characteristics of the microplastics but also to each’s age, size, geographic location, demographics of the location, nature of development and life-style options.
> This study is being reviewed for publication; the full methodology and supplementary data will be available upon acceptance.
I believe the published paper is "Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested – A pivotal first step towards human health risk assessment" (2020): https://sci-hub.do/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124004 (Same authors.)
Table 6 in the study has the "5g of plastic/week" number quoted by the article. That number is the "global average rate of microplastics ingested" ("GARMI"). GARMI is calculated as:
GARMI = Average Number of Microplastics Ingested (ANMP) x Average Mass of Individual Microplastic Particle (AMIMP)
ANIMP can be calculated in different ways. It seems the average mass of microplastic particles found in drinking water was higher than the average mass of microplastic particles found in different foods. The study says 90% of ingested plastic particles come from drinking water, so it seems reasonable to use the AMIMP of water particles rather than food particles.
ANMP_drinking_water = 91994 ("the amount of water consumed per person was assumed to be 0.6 L/day" "The figures assumed are well below the World Health Organisation's guidelines of 3 to 4 L/person/day". 0.6 L/day comes from minimum 0.45 L/day of tap water + 0.15 L/day of bottled water. 91,994 is calculated as average of min (9029 particles) and max (174,959). If you only drank tap water, this number would be 42,298.)
AMIMP_aquatic = 2.8g / 1000
ANMP_drinking_water * AMIMP_aquatic = 257g
257 / 52 ~= 5g
Challenging those variables would be where to start. But assuming they're right, probably makes sense to focus on filtering plastics from drinking water.
[deleted]
Please don't post blogspam, especially from a source such as aljazeera. The actual article is here:
https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/how-much-plastic-are-yo...
https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/how-much-plastic-are-yo...
What's wrong with Al Jazeera as a source?
Reuters is a newswire, although you can get their work directly there's nothing untoward about a network republishing it: that's their principal business model.
Reuters is a newswire, although you can get their work directly there's nothing untoward about a network republishing it: that's their principal business model.
I have no issue with Al Jazeera itself, but if they just republish a story they provide no value. It's not the original article and in this case they don't act like anything more than an (inflexible) aggregator.
This made sense in newspaper times (since compiling your news from multiple sources was hard), but in the internet age I don't see why it would.
The closer to the actual source the better (HN policy I strongly agree with).
This made sense in newspaper times (since compiling your news from multiple sources was hard), but in the internet age I don't see why it would.
The closer to the actual source the better (HN policy I strongly agree with).
Al Jazeera is a clownish propoganada mouthpiece for the Qatar regime. You can read here:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera
>Al Jazeera is a clownish propoganada mouthpiece for the Qatar regime
So, like CNN is for US interests, BBC for Britain, RT for Russia, and so on. Let's have some variety...
So, like CNN is for US interests, BBC for Britain, RT for Russia, and so on. Let's have some variety...
Al Jazeera is 100% owned by the Qatari state (itself lacking democratic institutions), with its 2 last CEOs being from the ruling Qatari family. The current editorial standards are supervised by AJ chair man, who is Qatar's former minister of information.
So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC and it's a problem that articles and information from AJ is shared without any caution.
So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC and it's a problem that articles and information from AJ is shared without any caution.
>So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC
Yes, in the sense that the US (CNN) and the UK (BBC) have had and have their gruby hands all over the globe, in occupation, colonisation, invansions, interventions, trade wars, national interests, resource grubbing, etc., whereas the Qatari interests are somewhat limited.
So, I'd take the AJ editorials on most matter with smaller grains of salt than CNN and BBC.
Yes, in the sense that the US (CNN) and the UK (BBC) have had and have their gruby hands all over the globe, in occupation, colonisation, invansions, interventions, trade wars, national interests, resource grubbing, etc., whereas the Qatari interests are somewhat limited.
So, I'd take the AJ editorials on most matter with smaller grains of salt than CNN and BBC.
CNN is not owned by the US government.
At the price of not posting links of original source ?
> Please submit the original source.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And anyway:
> For years, critics have assailed what they see as anti-Semitic, anti-American bias in the channel's news content. In the wake of 9/11, Al Jazeera broadcast statements by Osama bin Laden and reported from within the ranks of the Taliban, earning a reputation as a mouthpiece for terrorists. In October 2001, a New York Times editorial took Al Jazeera to task for reporting Jews had been informed in advance not to go to work at the World Trade Center the day of the attacks.
Source : https://web.archive.org/web/20120120215822/http://ajr.org/Ar...
And: https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/05/31/al-jazeera-english...
I wonder if we can find comparable content in BBC controversies...
> Please submit the original source.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And anyway:
> For years, critics have assailed what they see as anti-Semitic, anti-American bias in the channel's news content. In the wake of 9/11, Al Jazeera broadcast statements by Osama bin Laden and reported from within the ranks of the Taliban, earning a reputation as a mouthpiece for terrorists. In October 2001, a New York Times editorial took Al Jazeera to task for reporting Jews had been informed in advance not to go to work at the World Trade Center the day of the attacks.
Source : https://web.archive.org/web/20120120215822/http://ajr.org/Ar...
And: https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/05/31/al-jazeera-english...
I wonder if we can find comparable content in BBC controversies...
CNN? Maybe you're thinking of NPR or VOA?
Also, throwing all news sources affiliated with a national government into the same basket is like throwing all the media, or all of humanity, into the same basket. Obviously they are not all the same or guilty of equivalent sins. It is the fair starting place, but it is only a good place to remain if you are too lazy, ignorant, uninterested, or incompetent to go further. If the accuracy of statements means something to you and you are capable of doing better you don't stick with "let's assume they are all the same".
Also, throwing all news sources affiliated with a national government into the same basket is like throwing all the media, or all of humanity, into the same basket. Obviously they are not all the same or guilty of equivalent sins. It is the fair starting place, but it is only a good place to remain if you are too lazy, ignorant, uninterested, or incompetent to go further. If the accuracy of statements means something to you and you are capable of doing better you don't stick with "let's assume they are all the same".
Wrong link.
It was just extracted on another page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c...
You had to click "controversies and criticism" at the bottom of the original link. Probably this section was getting so big it was promoted to having its own page.
Anyway, even the aljazeera link ends with [Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters] and is a clearly a copy/paste from reuters.
You had to click "controversies and criticism" at the bottom of the original link. Probably this section was getting so big it was promoted to having its own page.
Anyway, even the aljazeera link ends with [Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters] and is a clearly a copy/paste from reuters.
>especially from a source such as aljazeera
As if aljazeera is a bad source?
As if aljazeera is a bad source?
Saw this yesterday on Reddit ("First evidence of microplastics in human placenta"):
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/kbwac0/first_evi...
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/kbwac0/first_evi...
What are practical things I can do to avoid eating plastic? Data about the source of the plastics seems very incomplete. The known advice seems to be:
- avoid bottled water
- avoid eating out of plastic containers
- don't heat food with plastic
- avoid bottled water
- avoid eating out of plastic containers
- don't heat food with plastic
Not sure if people should be worried about possible plastic they might be eating or the loads of junk food they're stuffing themselves with every day.
It isn't a zero sum game and not everyone eats junk food.
> Not sure if people should be worried about possible plastic they might be eating or the loads of junk food they're stuffing themselves with every day.
Why not both?
Why not both?
Not "possible", you _definitely_ consume plastic one way or another.
Sounds like a source of fibre
What about us who don't eat junk food in the first place? Ever thought of that possibility?
I also want to know how much I am drinking - the mesh filter in my faucet catches a significant amount of visible flakes of plastic, ones big enough that that I can roll them between my fingers. I think it goes without saying there is a lot more in that water that I cannot see.
Don't drink tap water.
If it goes in your mouth, it goes through reverse osmosis first.
Just get used to the fact that your house needs two water supplies, the one you drink and the one you use to shower and flush your toilet. Human population has grown far too much for us to be able to keep the latter supply as clean as the former supply.
If it goes in your mouth, it goes through reverse osmosis first.
Just get used to the fact that your house needs two water supplies, the one you drink and the one you use to shower and flush your toilet. Human population has grown far too much for us to be able to keep the latter supply as clean as the former supply.
Which country do you live in? I had never heard of this happening anywhere before.
Medford, OR. USA. I’ve been here 2.5 years and my faucet clogged about 8 months after I moved in to the house... with blue plastic particles. They have continued to show-up in my faucet filters every since, so it was not a one off incident. I called the county and sent photos, but who knows if that did anything. I’m lucky in that I have always had additional filtration systems for everything I drink.
Edit: Jackson County, OR.
Edit: Jackson County, OR.
You might want to overthink whether you want to drink that water at all - if such big particles make it through the system, what else does too?
Personally, I filter all the water I drink after it leaves the tap where I currently live... most of the population can’t afford additional filtration or has no idea that it may even be necessary. That’s what infuriates me.
Except if you have very specialized filtration systems, I doubt this helps. The over the counter ones I am pretty sure do not.
None of the people whining about "plastic" ever really define it.
Cellophane? No worse than paper. Poly Ethelene? Probably fine. PVC? Maybe not. ABS? No.
Sometimes people who say "plastic" really mean paint. We could probably cut down but communicating precisely would help.
Cellophane? No worse than paper. Poly Ethelene? Probably fine. PVC? Maybe not. ABS? No.
Sometimes people who say "plastic" really mean paint. We could probably cut down but communicating precisely would help.
I read articles like this and think, "It's time to give up 3D printing as a hobby."
same. I'm patiently watching the market for viable recycling solutions which can be used at home.
I do applaud the article for using visual aids to show the 'size' of the problem.
I do feel that there should have been mention of microplastic coming from tires and brakes and that it should be mentioned that not all 'plastic' is the same. (in chemical composition, chemical activity and by that the impact on nature/human health)
I learned about the microplastic issue (coming from tyres) from my college professor. he argued that it's a major problem and yet most people don't know about. That's because stakeholders (global leaders) know there's nothing much that can be done to avoid this issue so they withhold this info from the general public.
[deleted]
"Using the findings, Reuters news agency reported we ingest the weight of a 4×2 Lego brick in plastic in a month. In a year, that amounts to the plastic in a firefighter’s helmet."
A firefighters helmet has the same amount of plastic as 12 Lego bricks? Bullshit.
A firefighters helmet has the same amount of plastic as 12 Lego bricks? Bullshit.
They show the helmet design they are referring to in the gallery below (it's from the caption of the helmet picture on the Reuters site). It's obviously not the kind of helmet you'd fight a structural fire with.
I'm pretty sure that's a toy or costume helmet. Calling it a "firefighter's helmet" is hilariously, intentionally deceptive.
Aren't we also eating lots of other things that are non-digestible (for example, tiny spores from algae in the water)? Maybe our bodies can handle the plastic, after all.
Another simple example of indigestible things that could be in our food are stones and dirt.
Another simple example of indigestible things that could be in our food are stones and dirt.
I would rather it focused on the sources, so if the main source is drinking water, is it not being filtered out? What is the distribution around the whole US?
I am not sure the general public is aware of how pervasive this is.
Microplastics have contaminated the _whole_ Earths' water cycle, including mountain glaciers. [1]
The only difference between water supplies is just how big the concentration of these particles is. In practical terms you can assume all water sources are affected, water treatment facilities do not filter this.
You can reverse osmosis the water you drink but all the vegetables, fish, animals in your food chain are equally contaminated.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...
Microplastics have contaminated the _whole_ Earths' water cycle, including mountain glaciers. [1]
The only difference between water supplies is just how big the concentration of these particles is. In practical terms you can assume all water sources are affected, water treatment facilities do not filter this.
You can reverse osmosis the water you drink but all the vegetables, fish, animals in your food chain are equally contaminated.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...
This is explaining all the weight I was putting on.
[deleted]
> could eat
What does this mean? Without a reference this is pointless information. One could eat plastic because he/she is crazy.
What does this mean? Without a reference this is pointless information. One could eat plastic because he/she is crazy.
Chill just wash your food before you eat it.
Serious question.
Why do people believe this article?
(Nothing to do with Al Jazeera, I think it's a refreshing change from Western media and this article has also been in CNN and Fox)
Why do people believe this article?
(Nothing to do with Al Jazeera, I think it's a refreshing change from Western media and this article has also been in CNN and Fox)
It's from reuters who a citing a 2019 study by WWF International https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/how-much-plastic-are-yo...
Or was it more of a general questions, why do people believe the media?
Or was it more of a general questions, why do people believe the media?
I guess my question is, with perhaps my bad assumption - People know Reuters is not always correct.
Why believe this story?
Under what conditions do they not believe. Under what conditions do they believe.
Again, perhaps a bad assumption, eating a credit card each week would not make sense to most people. Why believe it's true? When does media override personal beliefs?
Why believe this story?
Under what conditions do they not believe. Under what conditions do they believe.
Again, perhaps a bad assumption, eating a credit card each week would not make sense to most people. Why believe it's true? When does media override personal beliefs?
I didn't. The pictures show one meal, and then the plastic consumed over a week. They could have shown the amount of plastic likely to be in a single meal, but it wouldn't have been as dramatic.
And I know that they explain it in the captions. That's a dodge, they know people don't read the captions and they certainly aren't emotionally influenced by the captions.
So I immediately wrote it off as dishonest.
And I know that they explain it in the captions. That's a dodge, they know people don't read the captions and they certainly aren't emotionally influenced by the captions.
So I immediately wrote it off as dishonest.
Visa cards tend to be the tastiest, followed by American Express. Discover comes in a number of flavors, but they are all a bit spicy for my taste. Occasionally I’ll grate one over my lego sushi for a bit of a kick, otherwise I stick with the classics. And you can’t beat Julia Child’s original recipe for Beef Bourguignon with Braised Debit Card.
Debit cards are like bay leaves. Add good flavor but need to pick them out before eating.
peasants. I only eat metal credit cards (my chase CC is metal)
is there a problem to eating microplastic? serious question
Unfortuantely, we don't know.
Generally speaking when it comes to health stuff, we know disappointingly little, and the stuff we do know is often from past mistakes (e.g. smoking). We don't have enough knowledge to say what the effects of something will be usually, so unless there are obvious correlations and an obvious control group (again think smoking) we might never really know.
What the FDA will do, with pesticides for example, is test an 1000x dose on a rat, and look for immediate effects. If they don't see immediate effects, then perhaps it doesn't do longterm damage to humans. It's not very convincing, but it historically things used to be much worse.
Generally speaking when it comes to health stuff, we know disappointingly little, and the stuff we do know is often from past mistakes (e.g. smoking). We don't have enough knowledge to say what the effects of something will be usually, so unless there are obvious correlations and an obvious control group (again think smoking) we might never really know.
What the FDA will do, with pesticides for example, is test an 1000x dose on a rat, and look for immediate effects. If they don't see immediate effects, then perhaps it doesn't do longterm damage to humans. It's not very convincing, but it historically things used to be much worse.
Yes. Plastic often in them self contain endocrine disrupting or even cancerous chemicals but also plastic when released in to water has proven to bind itself to different toxins.For anyone interested in this subject I can recommend the book Plastic - A toxic love story by Susan Freinkel.
That is bad. But how much bad is it? Are we getting endocrine disruptors and toxins in worrying doses from plastics?
The real question is what we do in the face of uncertainty.
I'll use two comparisons, one positive and one negative for fairness sake. Before we knew that there wasn't much COVID spread in schools, did it make sense to close them just based on the uncertainty involved? Here's an example from the other end: Before we knew for sure leaded gasoline was a bad idea, should it have been banned? The impact of all the lead, particularly on children, was incredibly damaging and had lifelong effects that continued after the science was in.
Obviously, you want to take action based on data. But before we've got enough information to know, what do you do? I'd imagine the risk analysis has something to do with the rate at which micro plastics are being introduced and how far we are from an answer.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. For example, it could be that items that cause the most issues are taxed a bit more to slow the growth of this potential issue. (Not suggesting that specifically; I don't know enough to say if action should be weaker or more severe.)
I'll use two comparisons, one positive and one negative for fairness sake. Before we knew that there wasn't much COVID spread in schools, did it make sense to close them just based on the uncertainty involved? Here's an example from the other end: Before we knew for sure leaded gasoline was a bad idea, should it have been banned? The impact of all the lead, particularly on children, was incredibly damaging and had lifelong effects that continued after the science was in.
Obviously, you want to take action based on data. But before we've got enough information to know, what do you do? I'd imagine the risk analysis has something to do with the rate at which micro plastics are being introduced and how far we are from an answer.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. For example, it could be that items that cause the most issues are taxed a bit more to slow the growth of this potential issue. (Not suggesting that specifically; I don't know enough to say if action should be weaker or more severe.)
I guess future will tell. An interesting thing from the book mentioned is that how toxic something is is not only about the amount we are exposed to, but also at what stage in life. Apparently premature babies have higher cancer rate later in life because they where exposed to these endocrine disruptors from intubation at such a sensitive period in their development.
I too wonder this.
Sure we're consuming it, but how much is retained? Aren't we passing much of it along undigested? Plastic is mostly inert, right? So even if we consume and retain it, what harm is there?
When you buy food-safe plastic (BPA/BPS-free plastic) it won't contain one of many bad ingredients, but microplastic comes from many sources of plastic, some which do contain BPA/BPS. BPA is known to harm the brain & prostate, BPS is known to cause hormone disruption. BPA is found in lining of aluminum cans, toys, & polycarbonate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A
I don't know how much is retained, but the plastics have been found in the meat of cows & fish, so it's likely spread all throughout our bodies as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A
I don't know how much is retained, but the plastics have been found in the meat of cows & fish, so it's likely spread all throughout our bodies as well.
> The smallest microplastic particles are capable of entering the bloodstream, the lymphatic system, and may even reach the liver.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/22/micropla...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/22/micropla...
This is the real question. I get the sense saying "we're consuming plastics" causes concern because plastics are generally demonized and looked upon as "bad".
But we consume a lot of stuff unintentionally. Fine sand is blown around and deposited on food that we consume. But sand is "natural" so it's ok. But it's really just silicon dioxide mixed with other random minerals. Is that a problem? We know inhaling silicon dioxide is bad for you, but eating it? It is an approved food additive.
But we consume a lot of stuff unintentionally. Fine sand is blown around and deposited on food that we consume. But sand is "natural" so it's ok. But it's really just silicon dioxide mixed with other random minerals. Is that a problem? We know inhaling silicon dioxide is bad for you, but eating it? It is an approved food additive.
The term “plastics" contains a big bag of substances that have very different chemical structure and properties. We don't know what the long-term effects of many of these substances are. Stuff like Dioxins and friends are obviously bad, and still took a significant amount of time to root out. Plastics are everywhere now, so in case it turns out that more substances are bad, we are in deep shit.
Edit: regarding non-organics, it took a long time to realize that inhaling fine dust causes long-term health problems, and quite longer until dust filters became required and commonplace. We are still not done regarding fine dust emitted by traffic.
Edit: regarding non-organics, it took a long time to realize that inhaling fine dust causes long-term health problems, and quite longer until dust filters became required and commonplace. We are still not done regarding fine dust emitted by traffic.
Agree that there are unknowns, but it's important to keep in mind that plastics have been used in medicine for quite some time. Devices for injection, inhalation, etc. Plastic are long-chain polymers which tend to be pretty non-reactive in the body, but you are correct additives/plasticizers can leech and be an issue.
I guess my point is - sure, maybe we'll find out one day that plastics are causing cancer, but we have a lot of data to suggest they don't at this point.
I guess my point is - sure, maybe we'll find out one day that plastics are causing cancer, but we have a lot of data to suggest they don't at this point.
Maybe? If I had to guess, it’s probably as harmful on a per weight basis as sugar. Note that we eat well over 100x more sugar.
Nah, sugar is pretty safe. Proteins can be pretty dangerous to eat.
legalize it and regulate it
I recently noticed plastic pieces getting into my food from a plastic cutting board I had used for several years. While this was easy to replace with wood, it's not going to be easy to replace plastic pipes, packaging and other materials that regularly contact our food.
Microplastics don't only come from plastics that touch your food. When you turn on your kitchen faucet to make chicken broth, plastic is coming from your faucet. If you eat fish or chicken, the plastic is found in the meat. When you wash your clothes, you are generating new microplastics that get dumped into the sewers that slowly make it back into the meats of chickens and your bottled water.
If you want to completely avoid microplastics, you'll have to use reverse osmosis water for everything, grow animal feed using this purified water, raise chickens using this animal feed, etc. Live in a bubble where the air is ultra filtered.
If you want to completely avoid microplastics, you'll have to use reverse osmosis water for everything, grow animal feed using this purified water, raise chickens using this animal feed, etc. Live in a bubble where the air is ultra filtered.
This is a legitimate question, not a dismissive hand-wave. So what? What does this mean? Is this bad? Why?
Surely all that plastic doesn’t stick around forever—I’m fairly certain I don’t have any PVC pipes in my gut, though it’s been a while since I’ve checked. What are the consequences of eating this much plastic? They certainly aren’t obvious.
I don’t want an article that just throws a bunch of analogies in my face with pictures of various comparably-sized plastic objects. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the artistic touch, but I’m much more interested in understanding what this means. Where’s the research to go along with this? I expect journalists to dig deeper. Interview some experts; summarize studies of the consequences. Don’t just tell me I eat a lot of plastic—on its own, that’s useless information.