Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

Considering we’ve been implanting plastic parts (joints, heart valves, Central lines) and using plastic IV lines, syringes, IV bags, etc, all of which need to go through safety trials, I’m not too concerned that there is some massive unseen safety risk here.

If it wasn’t plastics it would likely be glass. And there are millions of acre of fine powdered glass all over the world that we breath in (sand).

View on HN

That hope that is true. All of this plastic might just be inert and not cause any damage. Who knows how long have people been having microplastics in their bloodstream. Decades? It is just that no one tested for it.

The “better detection” excuse is always there. The major source of microplastics is probably clothes dryers according to one recent study. That means you can associate its risk to probably clothes dryers, microfiber cloths, and plastics in clothing. Adoption of those is going to have accelerated dramatically in the last 30 years or so.

I hope you're not breathing it in with any measureable amount. That can cause silicosis.

Ever go to the beach? You’re breathing in sand.

The dose makes the poison.

That's why I said measurable. The type of sand at the beach generally has a composition that doesn't pose a risk because there isn't enough of the fine particles to be inhaled. There's no measurable amount as it's too low. If it were measurable, that would be a problem as silicosis damage is cumulative (mall doses over a lifetime).

It is perfectly measurable. When you are approaching this with the precision that folks looking for micro-plastics do to get published.

I believe there are orders of magnitude between something like that being measurable and causing any symptoms that would make it worth considering from medical point of view.

Sources?

There's nothing specific about it being plastic. Detection methods are the same.

https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/33/2/mzab091/6295061

"Any glass participles smaller than 20 µm were marked by the examiner as ‘sandy particles’ and not precisely measured."

People don't research that subject a lot because it's known that small 'sandy particles' in the body are not causing problems. But that doesn't mean they are immeasurable.

So nothing about particles on the beach, silicosis, and your claim that we inhale them at a measurable rate?

Yes. Because finding 'sandy particles' in the body is common and expected to the point that nobody cares about them if you don't have any symptoms.

What “symptoms” did people have from plastics in their blood?

None. But they might have some because it's a new thing, therefore it's interestiing and fashionable to research that.

Nobody expects any symptoms from the substance humans are in contact with since our species came to be.

It's not a problem to find random garbage in our bodies. It is there because we came to be from dirt, metaphorically speaking. It's just that not all garbage is worth a grant.

Again, source? I don't believe silica based dust is common to breath in at any measurable amount on a beach. If it's really common, then you'd have sources. The prior source was dealing with glass contamination of ampules. You can follow these comments back for context.

Repeatedly stating that something is common, does not make it so.

Again, same source I already gave.

This source mentiones if something is smaller than some arbitraty limit there's no sense counting it because it's probably just sand not something that came from the glass ampule. Therefore small sand is common enough that it would skew their result to be something nonsensical.

You need to read between the lines because apparently nobody researched how much sand average person has in their bodies because it's not interesting.

Why don't you show me research supporing your claim that body doesn't contain sand particles in amounts at least comparable to amounts of microplastics detected?

"Why don't you show me research supporing your claim that body doesn't contain sand particles in amounts at least comparable to amounts of microplastics detected?"

Because that's not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is breathing in sand, that beach sand can cause silicosis, etc.

> What is being discussed is breathing in sand, that beach sand can cause silicosis, etc.

Who's telling that it can't?

My point was that amount of sand in your body that doesn't cause silicosis yet is not immesurable or undetectable.

You are fully expected to have some sand in your body all the time. Just at levels way too low to cause any symptoms.

And probably it's exactly the same with microplastics.

It’s just…obvious. I got sand in my mouth at the beach the other day… you get dirt in your mouth when you go hiking, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com