Hacker News Reader

When the risk is small enough, it seems rational to ignore it.

The more we learn, the less reasonable it seems to dismiss the risk as small enough to ignore.

in many cases it's the opposite: the more we've learned, the more we recognize that the body is able to tolerate small doses of many things in a way where the effects at larger doses don't scale down (IE, the linear no-threshold model is probably wrong in many cases, beyond radiation)

I'm not making claims about a specific harmful threshold, just pointing to the rationality of concern given the ubiquity of plastic and our increasing understanding of its harm.

Unless you're saying we understand the specific threshold for plastic and the risk of reaching that threshold can be reasonably extrapolated from typical levels of exposure, I think we're getting at different points.

When the risk is significant but there's no viable solution, it's also reasonable to ignore it. There's no way to fix the microplastic problem at the individual level so the best thing to do is to ignore it. Actively avoiding plastics will only cause hardships without any significant results in exposure.

Emphasis on /seems/. It all adds up, small or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com