9 ms·

I wonder when and if microplastics will get it's Asbestos moment. Obviously they are not as carcinogenic, but it seems we don't have the full picture, and micro

by rusch 5mo ago

I wonder when and if microplastics will get it's Asbestos moment. Obviously they are not as carcinogenic, but it seems we don't have the full picture, and microplastics are present at an insanely higher degree than asbestos where.

phyzome 5mo ago
TV ads 20 years from now: "If you or a family member have suffered from Spandex Kidney, you may be entitled to compensation..."
sigmoid10 5mo ago
Given the fact that they are so ubiquitous and yet no causal relation between microplastics and any health issue whatsoever has been identified in any rigorous study until today [1], I'd say a lot of this reporting is fear mongering by the eco/organic industry, aimed at gullible people who know very little about science. Not as insane and unphysical as electro smog, but definitely nowhere near asbestos. The linked article even goes into detail how warped the perceptions are among the general population and how doctors should educate people better, because there are real risks from other things out there. If you're really concerned about health effects of common pollutants, there are much bigger risks with actual proven causal effects in everyday compounds. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12620896/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12620896/
- strogonoff 5mo ago
  > BPA is a known endocrine disruptor. Although initially considered to be a weak environmental estrogen, more recent studies have demonstrated that BPA may be similar in potency to estradiol in stimulating some cellular responses. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21605673/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21605673/ > In 2017 the European Chemicals Agency concluded that BPA should be listed as a substance of very high concern due to its properties as an endocrine disruptor.[30] In 2023, the European Food Safety Authority re-evaluated the safety of BFA and significantly reduced tolerable daily intake (TDI) to 0.2 nanograms (0.2 billionths of a gram), 20,000 times lower than the previous TDI from 2015. > In 2012, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of BPA in baby bottles intended for children under 12 months.[31] The Natural Resources Defense Council called the move inadequate, saying the FDA needed to ban BPA from all food packaging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_Bisphenol_A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_Bisphenol_A > This followed another paper in early 2024, where a group of Italian researchers identified microplastics in plaques found in the carotid arteries – a pair of major vessels which deliver blood to the brain – of people with early-stage cardiovascular disease. This linked their presence to worsening disease progression. Over the following three years, individuals carrying these microplastics in their plaques had a 4.5-fold greater risk of stroke, heart attack or sudden death. > Then in February 2025, another group of scientists identified microplastics in the brains of human cadavers. Most notably, those who had been diagnosed with dementia prior to their death had up to 10 times as much plastic in their brains compared to those without the condition. "We were shocked," says Matthew Campen, a University of New Mexico toxicology professor who led this study. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250723-how-do-the-microplastics-in-our-bodies-affect-our-health https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250723-how-do-the-mic...
  - sigmoid10 5mo ago
    This is exactly the kind of fear mongering reporting I was talking about and explains the general public's warped perception described in the research review I linked above. If you look at the brains of dead people with dementia, you'll also find more aluminum, which has caused people to panic about antiperspirants. But there is zero actual causal evidence that Al exposure causes dementia, if you do the science right. The same goes btw. for amyloid plaques, which has actually hindered real Alzheimer's research. So not even scientists are safe from the correlation!=causality problem. You can make up all kinds of potential hazards by comparing similar molecules and inventing bioavailability pathways. But at the end of the day this is just speculation and you need hard data to prove these assumptions.
    - OutOfHere 5mo ago
      The aluminum relations are easily explained with the observation that healthy kidneys excrete aluminum well, whereas unhealthy kidneys don't and so it accumulates. There might also be similar variations in aluminum deposition in the brain depending on the brain's innate ability to wash out chemicals. In contrast, the excretory mechanisms of plastics seems less trustworthy. The user is deliberately and blatantly ignoring a wealth of scientific literature that exists. Also, plastics come bundled with numerous other harmful classes of chemicals, e.g. phthalates, bisphenols, etc. The risk is not merely in the brain, but also in blood vessels, including those adjacent to the heart. Beware the plastics industry shills on this page. They will have you ignore the science, become infertile, and then have you die, all for their temporary gain.
      - sigmoid10 5mo ago
        It doesn't change the fact that there is no actual causal evidence. Perhaps the demented brains simply suck at flushing out microplastics as well. If you ever find people with more microplastics exposure have more dementia (like they did for asbestos and lung cancer), then you're onto something. But no rigorous study has found this yet. And if they do, you will hear of it immediately for sure, given how much reporting there is for microplastics=bad for you.
dijit 5mo ago
I think microplastics has been directly linked to the decrease of male hormones and an sperm quality. source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12989-022-00453-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12989-022-00453-2 So, it's having an effect of some kind.
- sigmoid10 5mo ago
  This was in mice that were given up to 1000 mg/L of microplastics in their drinking water. If you have this level of contamination, you probably should stop whatever it is you are doing anyways, disregarding your testicles. But even then, there is no evidence for this in humans. Research shows that most microplastics simply passes through your digestive system unhindered.
  - dijit 5mo ago
    Yeah, typically we test adverse effects in mice before doing trials on larger animals. That we haven't observed such extreme behaviour in a scientific way in humans doesn't mean it isn't there, it's just that we haven't yet scientifically observed anything. That there is some evidence in favour of it having adverse effects somewhat defeats the idea that it's "provably non-harmful", which is your current stance. It might be interesting; instead of downplaying the harm, to see if we can observe any patterns that fit with these findings over the course of human history with the introduction of microplastics... and if we were to do that, we'd find some interesting correlation, even if it's not provably causation yet. https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20120325/generational-decline-in-testosterone-levels-observed https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20120325/generatio... We also know that plastics are a source of hormone disrupting chemicals; https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-environmental-toxins-can-impact-your-health https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-environmental-toxins-... Bury your head I guess? Just make sure it's not a polyester pillowcase.
    - sigmoid10 5mo ago
      Sorry, I still subscribe to science and not speculation. But I guess I am increasingly alone with that idea on HN. And to be clear if someone points out a rigorous causal link, I'd be onboard immediately. But this purely speculative fear mongering based on random scientific observations targeted at non-scientists is similar to what you see in the homeopathy and energeticism circles. Except noone here would believe that 5G makes you sick, because techies know at least this kind of science a little bit.
shubhamjain 5mo ago
Probably never. I think it's been at least a decade since the fear over them became mainstream. Yeah, it's possible these things can take time to show up but considering the scale of their presence and how long we have been using them, we would have at least seen some definite relationship between them and some serious health concern. Look at the article itself, the health impact is conveniently buried in the last section, and it just repeats over and over how they can found everywhere in the body but nothing on what can possible happen. So much of the scare revolves around the same framing, "microplastic" have been found in breast milk/blood whatever, but never seen one mentioning what it can possibly cause. Is it too hard to fathom that the answer is "nothing"?
bertil 5mo ago
Not as long as there are powerful car lobbies and the main source of microplastic will remain car tires. Instead, you have articles like this trying to tell people to look away from that main source of problem, and blame, say, indoors or food preparation, and skip details like how the homes with the most microplastic in them are… close to the highway.
- pocksuppet 5mo ago
  Powerful oil lobbies didn't stop the important guy from starting a dumb war that tripled the price of gasoline. Why not?
scotty79 5mo ago
I wonder when celulose and silica will get their microplastics moment and it turns out we were always full of micro garbage.

by rusch 5mo ago

phyzome 5mo ago

TV ads 20 years from now: "If you or a family member have suffered from Spandex Kidney, you may be entitled to compensation..."

sigmoid10 5mo ago

Given the fact that they are so ubiquitous and yet no causal relation between microplastics and any health issue whatsoever has been identified in any rigorous study until today [1], I'd say a lot of this reporting is fear mongering by the eco/organic industry, aimed at gullible people who know very little about science. Not as insane and unphysical as electro smog, but definitely nowhere near asbestos. The linked article even goes into detail how warped the perceptions are among the general population and how doctors should educate people better, because there are real risks from other things out there. If you're really concerned about health effects of common pollutants, there are much bigger risks with actual proven causal effects in everyday compounds. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12620896/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12620896/

strogonoff 5mo ago
> BPA is a known endocrine disruptor. Although initially considered to be a weak environmental estrogen, more recent studies have demonstrated that BPA may be similar in potency to estradiol in stimulating some cellular responses. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21605673/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21605673/ > In 2017 the European Chemicals Agency concluded that BPA should be listed as a substance of very high concern due to its properties as an endocrine disruptor.[30] In 2023, the European Food Safety Authority re-evaluated the safety of BFA and significantly reduced tolerable daily intake (TDI) to 0.2 nanograms (0.2 billionths of a gram), 20,000 times lower than the previous TDI from 2015. > In 2012, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of BPA in baby bottles intended for children under 12 months.[31] The Natural Resources Defense Council called the move inadequate, saying the FDA needed to ban BPA from all food packaging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_Bisphenol_A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_Bisphenol_A > This followed another paper in early 2024, where a group of Italian researchers identified microplastics in plaques found in the carotid arteries – a pair of major vessels which deliver blood to the brain – of people with early-stage cardiovascular disease. This linked their presence to worsening disease progression. Over the following three years, individuals carrying these microplastics in their plaques had a 4.5-fold greater risk of stroke, heart attack or sudden death. > Then in February 2025, another group of scientists identified microplastics in the brains of human cadavers. Most notably, those who had been diagnosed with dementia prior to their death had up to 10 times as much plastic in their brains compared to those without the condition. "We were shocked," says Matthew Campen, a University of New Mexico toxicology professor who led this study. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250723-how-do-the-microplastics-in-our-bodies-affect-our-health https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250723-how-do-the-mic...
- sigmoid10 5mo ago
  This is exactly the kind of fear mongering reporting I was talking about and explains the general public's warped perception described in the research review I linked above. If you look at the brains of dead people with dementia, you'll also find more aluminum, which has caused people to panic about antiperspirants. But there is zero actual causal evidence that Al exposure causes dementia, if you do the science right. The same goes btw. for amyloid plaques, which has actually hindered real Alzheimer's research. So not even scientists are safe from the correlation!=causality problem. You can make up all kinds of potential hazards by comparing similar molecules and inventing bioavailability pathways. But at the end of the day this is just speculation and you need hard data to prove these assumptions.
  - OutOfHere 5mo ago
    The aluminum relations are easily explained with the observation that healthy kidneys excrete aluminum well, whereas unhealthy kidneys don't and so it accumulates. There might also be similar variations in aluminum deposition in the brain depending on the brain's innate ability to wash out chemicals. In contrast, the excretory mechanisms of plastics seems less trustworthy. The user is deliberately and blatantly ignoring a wealth of scientific literature that exists. Also, plastics come bundled with numerous other harmful classes of chemicals, e.g. phthalates, bisphenols, etc. The risk is not merely in the brain, but also in blood vessels, including those adjacent to the heart. Beware the plastics industry shills on this page. They will have you ignore the science, become infertile, and then have you die, all for their temporary gain.
    - sigmoid10 5mo ago
      It doesn't change the fact that there is no actual causal evidence. Perhaps the demented brains simply suck at flushing out microplastics as well. If you ever find people with more microplastics exposure have more dementia (like they did for asbestos and lung cancer), then you're onto something. But no rigorous study has found this yet. And if they do, you will hear of it immediately for sure, given how much reporting there is for microplastics=bad for you.

dijit 5mo ago

I think microplastics has been directly linked to the decrease of male hormones and an sperm quality. source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12989-022-00453-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12989-022-00453-2 So, it's having an effect of some kind.

sigmoid10 5mo ago
This was in mice that were given up to 1000 mg/L of microplastics in their drinking water. If you have this level of contamination, you probably should stop whatever it is you are doing anyways, disregarding your testicles. But even then, there is no evidence for this in humans. Research shows that most microplastics simply passes through your digestive system unhindered.
- dijit 5mo ago
  Yeah, typically we test adverse effects in mice before doing trials on larger animals. That we haven't observed such extreme behaviour in a scientific way in humans doesn't mean it isn't there, it's just that we haven't yet scientifically observed anything. That there is some evidence in favour of it having adverse effects somewhat defeats the idea that it's "provably non-harmful", which is your current stance. It might be interesting; instead of downplaying the harm, to see if we can observe any patterns that fit with these findings over the course of human history with the introduction of microplastics... and if we were to do that, we'd find some interesting correlation, even if it's not provably causation yet. https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20120325/generational-decline-in-testosterone-levels-observed https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20120325/generatio... We also know that plastics are a source of hormone disrupting chemicals; https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-environmental-toxins-can-impact-your-health https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-environmental-toxins-... Bury your head I guess? Just make sure it's not a polyester pillowcase.
  - sigmoid10 5mo ago
    Sorry, I still subscribe to science and not speculation. But I guess I am increasingly alone with that idea on HN. And to be clear if someone points out a rigorous causal link, I'd be onboard immediately. But this purely speculative fear mongering based on random scientific observations targeted at non-scientists is similar to what you see in the homeopathy and energeticism circles. Except noone here would believe that 5G makes you sick, because techies know at least this kind of science a little bit.

shubhamjain 5mo ago

Probably never. I think it's been at least a decade since the fear over them became mainstream. Yeah, it's possible these things can take time to show up but considering the scale of their presence and how long we have been using them, we would have at least seen some definite relationship between them and some serious health concern. Look at the article itself, the health impact is conveniently buried in the last section, and it just repeats over and over how they can found everywhere in the body but nothing on what can possible happen. So much of the scare revolves around the same framing, "microplastic" have been found in breast milk/blood whatever, but never seen one mentioning what it can possibly cause. Is it too hard to fathom that the answer is "nothing"?

bertil 5mo ago

Not as long as there are powerful car lobbies and the main source of microplastic will remain car tires. Instead, you have articles like this trying to tell people to look away from that main source of problem, and blame, say, indoors or food preparation, and skip details like how the homes with the most microplastic in them are… close to the highway.

pocksuppet 5mo ago
Powerful oil lobbies didn't stop the important guy from starting a dumb war that tripled the price of gasoline. Why not?

scotty79 5mo ago

I wonder when celulose and silica will get their microplastics moment and it turns out we were always full of micro garbage.