Since hitting the market 75 years ago, plastic has become ubiquitous -- and so, presumably, have nanoplastics
1950? Polyethylene and nylon appeared in the 1930s. Celluloid in the mid-1800s. We have been exposed to "nanoplastics" (including things like petroleum jelly and other hydrocarbon fractions) for more than a century, with very very little evidence it's "dangerous".
We've certainly seen evidence of hormone disruption caused by some plastifiers. I suspect many more negative effects will become more apparent as time goes on and "dosage" increases in various organisms.
Full article is paywalled, but the point remains. Point is that scale matters, obviously.
Almonds contain trace amounts of amygdalin, you can eat a handful of almonds every day of your life, but if I asked you to eat a kg in one sitting, you're not gonna have a good time.
Plastics have gone from niche to absolutely ubiqutous worldwide in ~100 years. Even if it turns out to be totally and completely harmless to humans and every other animal, wouldn't you want to know that for sure?
It seems kind of crazy to look at history and believe that exogenous matter accumulating in tissues and cells doesn't have a negative effect, but I guess we have to wait to see.
So have radio waves. There was a lot of paranoia back then, much like with plastics today, and a similar amount of studies showing that exposure to RF radiation causes cancer, but that has mostly died down as people realised the truth.
As time goes on, the harmlessness only proves itself.
>As time goes on, the harmlessness only proves itself.
I cant find any recently published study that /doesnt/ demonstate a link between microplastics exposure and adverse health effects. Please share if you have any