I know, lots of articles are published that cite one another. But none of them have any actual harm documented. They just vaguely refer to one another with "It's well-known that these things are harmful" and then cite another article that says the same thing.
It reminds me of 'solar roads', another hyped-up internet sensation based on nothing.
[0]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/worms-fa...
So, a graduate student and half a dozen flower pots are the sum total of evidence driving this hysteria?
We could possibly be having an effect on our environment directly with our actions and we are trying to figure out how to stop it. Solar roads is more of a fad "solution" to the issue. Microplastic is the problem.
https://www.ecowatch.com/microplastics-hurt-earthworms-too-2...
There's sand of every size, everywhere. To show another kind of sand is of importance requires some evidence.
"The WHO says the evidence suggests that all larger plastic particles, and most of the smaller ones, simply pass through the body without being absorbed at all"
So while the plastic might not be absorbed, can we say the same thing about what’s stuck to the plastic?
Science involves measuring things. So far, all that's been measured (unreliably) is that these things exist.