I agree that these finding are potentially of great interest (even though I am surprised that people are surprised about these finding as it is obvious that the pollutants in our environment will also be accumulating in our bodies as it was seen before in animal studies). At the same time working in the drug discovery field in academia and industry I have seen way too many studies with results in a very small sampling set which turned out to be much less clear in a statistical significant set (often “promoted” from academic groups to establish larger grants). I am not expecting that in larger studies that we won’t find microplastic in human bodies but how often and which consequences it might have are completely unclear until now (it is also good to remember that over the last 50 years the use of plastic has dramatically increased worldwide but at the same time life expectancies have also increased quite a lot). It is good to use much less plastic for environmental reasons but all other correlations have to be much more investigated.
There are lots of things we do, generally to make lives easier and to generate profits, that are either not thought through or analyzed sufficiently. So for this one I pose the question: Is having microplastics in your blood good or at least neutral?
There are, as noted above, other examples where the right question is pretty basic. Is the manufacture of nonstick surfaces and using them as we do environmentally positive or at least neutral? Is it a good idea to consume all of our petroleum in the span of less than two centuries? Is putting tons of mercury into the air we breathe by burning coal a good idea?
It seems obvious to me that until we are certain that these things are not harmful we ought to use them with care and circumspection.
Well put, Tim.
Still, what we learn has to come from somewhere to get into the public consciousness enough to even formulate the questions, and then it takes years–if ever–to get answers.
Part of this is due simply to the pace of scientific progress. In this case, until there are tests for microplastics in the blood and organs, who would think to ask? But another, infuriating part, is that the necessary science usually comes of age long before the questions enter public awareness. Our history is replete with instances where the industries, and the agencies purporting to regulate them, simply ignore and obfuscate solid scientific conclusions. They do so for filthy lucre–money.
Until towns get poisoned wholesale and the poisoning is exposed, nothing is done. Even then, regulatory measures are put off for years or decades while regulators are lobbied and those responsible litigate to preserve profits.
This is perverse–new materials, their precursors and byproducts should be proven safe before they enter our bloodstreams or aquifers.
Aloha,
Kaleo
Amen!
I heard a piece on NPR recently, and it started me looking into this more deeply. It turns out likely to be more extreme than I would have imagined. One study found that an average person may consume as much as a credit card’s worth of microplastics in a week. Another analogized to a 4x2 Lego brick in a month, 20 pounds over a lifetime. I have no idea how these numbers were derived or how accurate they are, but regardless, it seems to be a very large amount of plastic we consume. Of course, it is probable that this consumption includes a wide range of plastics, and some may be more, or less, hazardous than others.
Uh oh. This just in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/12/18/microplastics-colon-cancer-link-study/
[edited by moderators]
Not a PC term.
Not a serious term, either.
Let’s see how long it takes for someone here to fault the study.
I knew about the runoff from tire dust, but had only heard of the chemical effects of the compounds included in the rubber to protect tires from UV degradation.
dangers of the “popular” use of old tires as (food) gardening containers has been known/documented/published for 45 years, that I am aware of . . .
Was it the preservatives used?
Highway runoff of these is a leading candidate for explaining the cratering of salmon runs and the decline of the orcas who eat them.
just took out all my credit cards and put them on the digital scale.
average: 4 grams each.
4g/wk x 52 wks = 208g = 0.459 pounds per year
“microplastics” are defined as “particles less than 5mm”
my question is, would one notice chomping on a quarter inch chunk of plastic in one’s grits?
another thing occurred to me . . . how small does a microplastic particle need to be in order to enter the blood stream?
good overview:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-81931-9
note: not light reading . . .
bottom line:
findings: (most) microplastic sizes observed in human blood stream (36 Korean subjects)
20 - 50 microns
#levity
