Hacker News Reader

Comment by WithinReason | Hacker News Reader

>I’m aware that consumption of microplastics is a huge problem.

Is it? Is there any research showing this?

From a presentation last year by a researcher that works on the toxicity of nanoplastics at The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, I recall that they so far haven't found evidence of the toxicity of nano- and microplastics even if you would assume high exposure scenarios (e.g. having a diet consisting of only plastic-laden oysters), but that further research needs to be undertaken.

Their website on the topic (in German[0]) states the same thing: No evidence that they pose any health risk to humans, but further research is necessary for any conclusive statements.

[0]: https://www.bfr.bund.de/de/mikroplastik__fakten__forschung_u...

Adding microplastics to food on purpose would be illegal in the EU because there have been no extensive studies about the safety of microplastics as a food ingredient. So I don’t feel as if we should get used to microplastics inf food - and in out bodies - by accident.

It's incredible how acceptable seems the idea to ingest all kind of unusual stuff just because "if there's no research against it then it's fine". We animals didn't evolve as a species by ingesting plastics, also not by inhaling smokes, so unless you live in the Marvel universe you should assume that anything unnatural you take in will harm you sooner or later.

And yet many things are completely unnatural and are beneficial to us as well… this argument of “unusual stuff” doesn’t really hold.

It’s the naturalistic fallacy.

It seems to be a major endocrine disruptor.

Could you cite a study that shows this? I can find lots of hand-waving about microplastics possibly acting as carriers for such substances, but nothing that indicates these substances themselves can be directly linked to this particular problem.

What does this mean for mere mortals?

For men, lower testosterone levels and lower sperm count.[1]

[1] https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero

Heh, that's a killer. I saw this joke a while back:

A man buys a pack of cigarettes at a corner store. The attendant hands him a packet, and on it says: "WARNING: smoking causes impotence and erectile dysfunction". The guy looks at it for a moment, and says "Sorry, can I have the ones with cancer instead?".

I read somewhere in a newspaper article that it is now know to seriously affect aquatic life. Different environment but maybe not a good indication?

Sorry no source and I’m not remotelt a biologist.

Is a problem because most plastic products release substances that mimic sexual hormones and in particular femenine hormones [1].

In small boys, having more foreign estrogens in their body than the expected amount [2] will affect deeply their entire development, happiness with their self-image, and life opportunities.

I invite you to take the extra step and understand that we all use computers made of plastic for hours and hours. Are we being feminized all the time?. The probable answer is yes, we are.

And this would promote A) accumulating more fat B) developing gradually a desire to change sex Wachowsky sisters style, that is crying loud: "environmental cause" when we have several men in the same place gradually changing gender.

But talking seriously about LGTB issues further that "we all must accept it without making us answers that could hurt the feelings of somebody" is a huge taboo.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/

[2] both sexes share female and male hormones, women have also a small amount of testosterone.

> Is a problem because most plastic products release substances that mimic sexual hormones

This is simply not true. There is a small set of softened plastics (BPA, DEHP & DBP) that are widely known to have some endocrine disruption consequences and these are being phased out for the most part, but 'most plastic products' are NOT endocrine disruptors. Please keep bullshit gay panic 'feminization' crap out of HN, it is just embarrassing.

Is a published scientific article. Claiming that many plastics advertised as safe were found releasing endocrine disruptors under a different test and different circumstances.

So maybe the list of problematic plastics is wider that we though previously?. Have you anything to say about this? Or even better, can you disprove what the article claims?

You can choose to ignore it, is a popular response, but ignoring a problem will not made it disappear magically.

There is. Let me show you this neat search engine for such things.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=micr...

2 of the first 3 results had the word "potential" in the preview. I had to follow the link to see what was in the other one, it had these:

> The knowledge on the adverse effects on human health due to the consumption of marine organisms containing microplastics is very limited, difficult to assess and still controversial.

I'm not sure that really answers the question you responded to.

That’s just careful wording. Scientists are wary of making hard statements, unless they have absolute proof, which in this case requires massive epidemiological studies over many decades.

It doesn’t mean there isn’t any reason to look at the potential risks; on the contrary, the sooner we acknowledge the risks and take steps to mitigate them, the sooner we have pre-empted any possible health outcomes, independent of what exactly the cause and effect turns out to be.

That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you.

I'm fully aware of careful wording. I'm also aware that to presume some meaning other than what the wording explicitly states as if that is the most likely possibility is not careful. Not only that, to infer something stronger and then imply that it is the actual meaning of that careful wording is simply an assumption not merited by the facts.

> It doesn’t mean there isn’t any reason to look at the potential risks

Yes, that is what the careful wording actually implies. If you'd been more careful with your reading then you could've saved writing the first 2 paragraphs.

> That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you.

You provided some evidence (that is a generous description) wrapped in some snark that didn't back up your claims. What I believe has nothing to do with that, and to intimate that my assessment is based on belief is absurd, I read the results you "provided" - believers don't tend to bother with facts that might contradict them.

Be more careful with your words in future, that'd be my advice.

> That is, unless you really, really believe microplastics are somehow good for you.

This is excluding the middle.

Scientists aren't careful because that's some natural state of scientists that has no meaning in the real world. They're careful because drawing noncareful conclusions (or fallacious ones such as excluded middle) is just making stuff up.

I couldn't find anything on reduced life expectancy.

I think increased incidence of cancer, hormone disruption and general inflammation count, no?

Please cite your sources for these claims. No one is claiming it is good thing, but when you start to spray FUD around you run the risk of having a few of your wilder claims (cancer, really?) shown to be complete bullshit and then no one cares about any other claims you might make.

”The potential hazardous effects on humans by alternate ingestion of microparticles can cause alteration in chromosomes which lead to infertility, obesity, and cancer”

(”Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human health: a short review” by Shivika Sharma, Subhankar Chatterjee; Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24 (27), 21530-21547, 2017)

”In all biological systems, microplastic exposure may cause particle toxicity, with oxidative stress, inflammatory lesions and increased uptake or translocation. The inability of the immune system to remove synthetic particles may lead to chronic inflammation and increase risk of neoplasia. Furthermore, microplastics may release their constituents, adsorbed contaminants and pathogenic organisms.”

(”Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects” by Joana Correia Prata, João P da Costa, Isabel Lopes, Armando C Duarte, Teresa Rocha-Santos; Science of the Total Environment 702, 134455, 2020)

"Might", "possible", "may", "potential" all seem to be the most damning terms applied to this issue in those papers. Lots of suggestions, no proof. Given the ubiquity that the original research is suggesting the effects should be obvious and pervasive, particularly in animals with shorter lifecycles. At this point I am going to assume that if this is the best you have the answer to the question is 'no, there is no evidence but we are still looking' and that the rest of your grand claims are equally suspect.

I have this same argument every time someone brings up microplastics and I ask them if thats a bad thing or something we should worry about. They send me articles for days trying to prove me wrong and every single one just says it "might" as if they are the first ones to come up with an untested hypothesis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com