Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue | Hacker News Reader

Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue

sciencedirect.com

54 pointsgoplayoutside30 comments

Tire rubber is a huuuuge source of airborne microplastics.

IMO this is why EVs aren't really the solution, not only is the mining bad, we still have tire rubber happening and that's also bad.

E-bikes and public transport would make for a much healthier world.

Yes bikes have tires but the dust would pale in comparison.

Pardon my ignorance here. Isn't rubber (used in tires) different from plastics? Honest question. I've always thought of them as being different things. Not that I want micro-rubber particles in my lungs either.

Great question. I think because plastic and rubber are both petrolium byproducts, the 'shreds' of both are bad.

I googled, found: > Current tires consist of 19% natural rubber and 24% synthetic polymers (plastics), as well as metal and other materials.

So tires have both rubber and plastics. both are bad, and both get ejected into the environment at a horrific rate. :(

And now they're experimenting with using it in road paving.

This stuff is is everywhere in most homes and offices. Pillows, carpet, furniture. Pretty much every time you take a step, sit, or lay down, you are adding some more microplastics to the air you are about to inhale.

> Polymeric particles (n = 33) and fibres (n = 4) were observed in 13 of 20 tissue samples. All polymeric particles were smaller than 5.5 µm in size, and fibres ranged from 8.12 to 16.8 µm.

Definitely very captueable by n95 or the madcap Dyson face mask. Catches most 0.3 micron particles.

Just uggg at the idea of masking regularly.

Masks are plastic fibers, too, more pollution will not solve this issue.

I'm very interested in whether there's any actual risk here or not. This potential hazard both reeks of fear mongering horseshit crap & also seems feasible.

I tend to expect that in 90+ AQI environments the net benefit is colossal. But that's a purely intuitive guess.

I don't know if there's a direct risk, but the amount of masks I found in waterways and thrown into the gutters is definitely not sustainable.

If there's a direct risk it's just strictly worse.

I would assume the direct risk of most masks is VOCs, since most new masks had a smell like a new car. Especially after they got mass produced by shady companies that didn't need certification anymore, thank you German state corruption.

But even then it might be a net benefit for someone living in Delhi.

A related discussion is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36240325

In a hundred years we'll be replacing our organic lungs with plastic ones that we can hot-swap.

Sure... but that's far from the ideal world where we don't need to replace our lungs. Replacing lungs is very inefficient.

According to this, there's some level of lung rejection in 90% of patients.

https://utswmed.org/medblog/lung-transplant-rejection/

That's a lot of management for a critical system... even if it's treatable.

Medical science is moving fast (relativly speaking). 60 years ago, no one has a lung transplant. Nowadays, they require broad immunosupprents.

Howevee, with current advances in mRNA treatments, CRISPR gene therapy, lab grown organs, and general medical, scientific, and computational advances, it seems inevitable that the outcome of transplants will increase greatly. I wouldn't be suprised if we see rejection become the rare outcome within my lifetime.

Lungs are overrated. See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/science/rectum-breathing-...

Phew,I was starting to get worried. Thankfully asshole instead.

Maybe it’s plastic roads.

Wearing those disposable masks causes a lot of this. I'm apparently allergic to polyester so I notice this from sofas and uncovered mattresses and various other materials that (to me) surprisignly, emit a lot of plastic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com