Hacker News Reader

Comment by sickblastoise | Hacker News Reader

We’ve really screwed the pooch on this one. How many cancers, chronic diseases, birth defects, are a result of our mass pollution of this once pristine oasis of life, the only one we have?

View on HN

If microplastics are directly causing illnesses and birth defects then we would've found out already. Past cases of mass illness caused by pollutants (lead gasoline, asbestos, minamata disease, thalidomide, chimney sweep's carcinoma, etc.) were uncovered quickly and usually addressed not long after. The fact we still can't pinpoint exactly how microplastics are harming us beyond that they are in places where they are not supposed to be, The one reassuring thing about this whole ordeal is plastics are largely inert, that's why they take forever to degrade.

I didn't go and look up the others but this argument by similarity, at least when applied to asbestos says the exact opposite to the claim you're trying to make. It's generally considered that industry/government was aware of the issues relating to asbestos in the '30s (and _started_ doing things about it then) but it wasn't until the 70's/80's (depending on the country) that its use was mostly stopped (and in places like Australia it wasn't outright banned until 2003).

And? That span is within an individual's lifetime, which is not very long in the context of human history. As of now there's zero sign any entity with regulatory power is doing anything about microplastics.

Also, why are you trying to deliver a point without looking up most of the examples I've listed? Do you expect that to be a convincing argument?

Each of us only gets one life. If most of that time is spent being unnecessarily exposed to pollutants with adverse health effects, then we have good reason to be outraged.

Consider also that some pollutants accumulate in the food chain, impacting future generations, for an indefinite time. Such as mercury in seafood.

Good news is tuna is not the only form of seafood you can eat! Perhaps you can try channeling that outrage into real tangible activism, any minute now.

You cannot be serious?

Do you think the problem will go away over time? Are you OK with having fewer things that you can eat without poisoning yourself? Do you realize we only have so many reservoirs from which calories can come from?

Take care where your rice is grown.

Why do you accuse me of being against addressing these issues? I am merely pointing out these are not existential crises because there is currently no evidence supporting such claims. It may change in the future, but until then I'm not jumping on this ship.

Ultraprocessed foods are already poison and most of us, probably including you, are consuming them regularly. Are you OK with that? And what is this talk about caloric reservoirs? Humans 8000 years ago had far fewer options and they still survived long enough to pass cultural lineages down to us. Most of your "caloric reservoirs" did not exist before the 20th century because the science and industry that created them did not exist.

Compared with the other examples you gave, I think one of the differences with micro- and nanoplastic and their growing bioaccumulation, is that if/when we discover that some level of concentration of it causes noticeable issues, it will be very hard to reverse, and it will be globally abundant (i.e. throughout the entire food chain). We'll be stuck with the problem for a very very long time.

It's not like we'll be able to just outlaw it and be done with the issue after a few years. So for this specific polluant, it feels right that we should be cautious and look for solutions as quickly as we can.

Humans 8000 years ago got their food from an environment that wasn't contaminated with ubiquitous, unnaturally occurring, forever chemicals.

Ultra processed foods are a problem and likely contributing to the plastic problem. I do what I can to reduce my reliance on both. Yet the solution won't be the few educated among us stopping ourselves. It must be regulated collectively or we'll remain in a prisoners dilemma as the pollutants accumulate.

> And? That span is within an individual's lifetime, which is not very long in the context of human history. As of now there's zero sign any entity with regulatory power is doing anything about microplastics.

Primarily, I _am_interested with health outcomes within my and my children's lifespan so that's the sort of time span I'm primarily concerned about. If the comparison to asbestos hold's true then we still have a _long_ time (long enough that any potential deleterious effects will be felt by all currently living and soon to be living members of my family) before any sort of regulatory action will be taken regardless of the health impacts.

> Also, why are you trying to deliver a point without looking up most of the examples I've listed? Do you expect that to be a convincing argument?

Because I'm _not_ your fact-checker. You're other examples may well follow a much quicker time-frame between discovery and strong regulatory action; I don't really care one way or the other, since at least one example shows a course of history which would play out poorly for those of us alive _now_ and exposed to increasing levels of environmental plastics.

Nature killed more people when the oasis was pristine. Life pre-plastic was shorter, more brutish and a lot less comfortable.

We can get rid of plastics without throwing out every medical and QoL invention...

This comment won't age well if we keep polluting the environment the way we are. Plastics will continue to grow as a problem if we keep using them at the scale we do.

The world retarded backwards socially in the last decade, standard of living declined, lowered testosterone levels, lower sperm counts, lower fertility rates, and perhaps lower IQ.

I suspected mass induced psychosis around Covid times. Now I suspect all the plastic people are consuming.

I’m wondering the same thing. What is the evidence they Microplastics are harmful?

> The extent to which microplastics cause harm or toxicity is unclear, although recent studies associated MNP [micro- and nanoplastic] presence in carotid atheromas with increased inflammation and risk of future adverse cardiovascular events²⁻³. In controlled exposure studies, MNPs clearly enhance or drive toxic outcomes⁴⁻⁶. The mantra of the field of toxicology – “dose makes the poison” (Paracelsus) – renders such discoveries as easily anticipated; what is not clearly understood is the internal dose in humans.

In plain English? And is correlation causation or no?

In plain English: There exists a dosage that causes problems, we don't know what it is. If this trend continues, we will most likely find out what it is the painful way.

I'll take a stab at it, but I'm not a doctor or a biologist.

Cyanide will kill you. Almonds have trace amounts of cyanide. You can eat almonds till you get sick, but that tiny amount of cyanide won't kill you. The dose makes the poison. On the other hand, those fancy car-fentanyl, if a flake touches your skin, you'll od and die. It's super super toxic.

One flake of microplastics in your body isn't going to do anything.

Now,

> although recent studies associated MNP [micro- and nanoplastic] presence in carotid atheromas with increased inflammation and risk of future adverse cardiovascular events

It's not like every muscle fires on every heartbeat. They try, but some are old or dead. There are a lot of them, all working together. And they're constantly repairing or regrowing new muscle cells. How does the heart shed microplastic? Can it? How much till the immune system kicks in and starts causing inflammation? Inflammation is generally good, but super dangerous in the heart. Too much inflammation, and well, it stops firing correctly.

> what is not clearly understood is the internal dose in humans.

How much microplastic is too much? nobody knows. Seems like, you get too much, and repair systems start kicking in. The repair systems can't actually fix anything, but make you weak/sick, and you're generally worse off. When some other thing shocks the system, your body is already in panic mode, so the "normal" response of panicking doesn't change anything. Odds are, you just die.

Not that this was your point, but you can't absorb carfentanyl through your skin.

While it's still debated, it seems likely that the BPAs in plastic will be classified as mildly carcinogenic at some point. It's probably not a big concern to be touching your phone case but maybe more so if it's millions of particles permanently inside you.

Maybe so, but think of the shareholders!!!

Blaming shareholders is an easy cop out, but most people’s appetite for cheap plastic things is insatiable.

It’s not like corporations are taking plastics out into the wilderness just for fun.

Indeed. Which is why we need collective action to overcome the power corporations have over an uneducated and apathetic population. A population they oversee through regulatory capture, advertising, curated studies, and (increasingly legalized) bribery of government officials.

Are the microplastics found in the environment coming from corporations production residues or from people’s consumption residues ?

I would say a relevant part of them comes from individuals. If you believe the issue is important enough, then raising awareness is the right direction so they take healthier choices. However most of the worlds population lives in developing countries, and microplastics are very low in their list of priorities, their top priority is actually making to the end of the month with enough food, shelter and some medical care or even education for them or their kids.

Blaming everything on greedy corporations is a very superficial analysis.

Individuals don’t make the plastic. It may come from post consumer waste, but it is manufactured by the corporations. Individual action is unlikely to make a dent in this issue.

Agreed though I see the current situation as just yet another result of the inherent flaws in human reasoning where some significant percentage of the population can't reason sufficiently well to make reasonably optimal choices (e.g., conservative science denialism).

This is why we, as a population, won't agree to curb CO2 sufficiently to address climate change but instead will simply adjust and, maybe eventually, accept geoengineering based approaches. That said, the next 10 years will be telling in how conservatives react to much higher home owner's insurance premiums...

Countries where micro plastics are more prevalent are ones where shareholders are less powerful (e.g. China).

https://www.newsweek.com/microplastic-map-reveals-countries-...

> When it comes to microplastic inhalation, Mongolia and China came in joint first place, with citizens of both countries inhaling more than 2.8 million microplastic particles a month. The United Kingdom came in third place, in joint place with Ireland, inhaling 791,500 particles per month. By comparison, the U.S. came in near the bottom of this list, in position 104 out of the 109 countries assessed, with only 10,500 microplastic particles inhaled per month.

Which country has the biggest stock market? US https://www.statista.com/statistics/710680/global-stock-mark...

Which country comes near last in inhalable microplastics: US

So you should be thanking shareholders if you live in the US (most are probably voters too!).

I think China is special case because they’re the world’s factory. They produce for several countries’ shareholders, including their own.

They're special case because they don't care about environmental protection unless there's a photo-op and headline that the government can use to look good.

Then what are you waiting for?

Ask your representatives today to ban all goods using China’s supply chain, and start producing all your country’s needs in your own soil.

Then measure the inhalable microplastics stats, that way we can know for sure if your country’s “environmental protection” is viable or just an excuse to offload dirty work to developing countries.

Shareholders have more power than the CCP in China?

Remember the US is second in manufacturing next to China.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/global-manufacturing-scor....

Why isn’t the US as polluted then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com