Americans May Be Ingesting Thousands of Microplastics Every Year (smithsonianmag.com) 94
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Smithsonian: A new study is shining troubling light on the quantity of microplastics Americans are consuming each year -- as many as 121,000 particles, per a conservative estimate. A research team led by Kieran Cox, a PhD candidate at the University of Victoria and a former Link Fellow at the Smithsonian Institute, looked at 26 papers assessing the amount of microplastics in commonly consumed food items, among them seafood, sugars, salts, honey, alcohol and water. The team also evaluated the potential consumption of microplastics through inhalation using previously reported data on microplastic concentrations in the air and the Environmental Protection Agency's reported respiration rates. To account for factors like age and sex, the researchers consulted dietary intakes recommended by the U.S. Health Department.
Based on this data, the researchers calculated that our annual consumption of microplastics via food and drink ranges between 39,000 and 52,000 particles, depending on age and sex. Female children consume the least and male adults consume the most, the team reveals in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. When microplastics ingested through inhalation are taken into account, the range jumps from 74,000 to 121,000 particles per year.
Based on this data, the researchers calculated that our annual consumption of microplastics via food and drink ranges between 39,000 and 52,000 particles, depending on age and sex. Female children consume the least and male adults consume the most, the team reveals in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. When microplastics ingested through inhalation are taken into account, the range jumps from 74,000 to 121,000 particles per year.
May (Score:2)
be?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, all that sown plastic is also being reaped by other creatures didn't have anything to do with sowing it, like fish and turtles and birds.
Yep, and one day it will all come back to us because we actually depend on having fish and turtles and birds out there. A sterile planet is bad for us, too.
Re: (Score:2)
So they've officially proven microplastics don't do anything bad to people, then? If we all digest hundreds of thousands of the things each year without having any ill effects...
Re: (Score:2)
1/3rd of the population dies of cancer, causes unknown. Why do you assume there are no ill effects?
It's fearmongering bullshit... ergo "may" weaselin (Score:5, Interesting)
"Study" is nothing but sensationalist fearmongering bullshit.
You can tell right away just by looking at those HUGE EXTRAPOLATED NUMBERS WITH LOTS OF ZEROES - while counting something without an actual measurable size.
Thus "39000 to 52000 particles". How big are those particles? Who knows!
Looking at images in TFA we're talking HUGE polyester fibers!
Polyester fibers from polar fleece fabrics can wind up in your stomach.
OH MY GOOOOODDDDD!!! THEY ARE HUUUGEEEEE!!!
Which would be a good thing cause then you just shit them out. It's the really small ones that count, according to the study.
CYA weasel words and phrases are in bold for your convenience.
The degree of uptake will vary according to the shape, size, solubility, and surface chemistry of MPs.
Particles on the scale of a few microns or less may be directly taken up by cells in the lungs or gut, while particles up to 10 microns may be taken up by specialized cells in the Peyer's patch of the ileum.26
Particles as large as 130 microns can enter tissue through paracellular transport in the form of persorption, although the rate of particle transfer to blood over 24 h may be as low as 0.002%.27
Given the data limitations surrounding the size classes of microplastic particles present in consumed items, it is still unclear to what extent our estimate of human consumption of MPs poses a risk to human health.
I.e. The only part of the study talking actual sizes literally admits that most of the "particles" actually do nothing.
As the absorption rate is around 0.002% of a substance measured in microns.
But WHY is it measured in microns? Aren't lethal and toxic doses measured by weight, unless it's radiation? [wikipedia.org]
It's because That Fallacious Study is cribbing data from various studies, [acs.org] which can not agree on common measurement standards (as some are measuring quantities in fluids while other measure them in solids) - and because they are doing the count visually.
I.e. They are counting particles under a microscope, as they are too light to measure by weight, being plastics and all.
E.g. Those polyester fibers in TFA photo have a diameter of some 10 microns at 1 denier of linear mass density. [wikipedia.org]
Which comes out to 0.00011 micrograms per micron.
I.e. Those "particles on the scale of a few microns" each weigh less than a nanogram.
Ergo, they can't measure actual weight with any kind of reliability at such small quantities, values ranging from an average of 0.10 particles for honey to an average of 94.37 for bottled water.
Incidentally, that bottled water average is from 4 studies with values of 0.33, 325.33, 48.25, 3.57 particles per... something.
Study gathers data from such varying sources and just bunches them all together without any regard of scale - it's all just particles per g/L/m3. Like... whatever.
Feel free to guess if those values are per gram or liter or a cubic meter of water.
And they can't publish approximate values based on average weight of plastics - cause it would be obvious how irrelevant and tiny those values are.
E.g. At 0.00011 micrograms per micron that upper ANNUAL quantity of "particles" comes out to 743.6 micrograms. That's using the "as large as 130 microns" and "up to 52000 particles" values.
At 2 liters of water per day, FUCKING NPDWR VALUES FOR ARSENIC are at 7300 micrograms annually. [epa.gov]
You can literally chug TEN TIMES AS MUCH ARSENIC without any ill effects.
Re: (Score:2)
blame the EPA (Score:1)
why do they allow plastics in many products such as toothpaste and face washes? That crap goes into our water. P&G is particularly bad.
is there any effort to curb plastics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Plastics went everywhere to replace paper and glass container products unnecessarily. Beyond coming up with solutions to filter the ocean, has anyone seriously considered taxing the living fuck out of the plastic manufacturing of items that ends up as microplastic to severely reduce it's ability to compete in the market and end up in our oceans, food and bodies? How did glass and paper become so evil we had to switch to plastics?
Re: (Score:1)
Plastics were cheaper, lighter, derp. Paper and glass didn't "become evil", market-minded chislers found a way to save pennies on the dollar and nobody thought about it long-term until it was way, way too late. Like most things we do.
The Cherokee were correct about us.
Re: is there any effort to curb plastics? (Score:1)
A plastic wrapper might have saved that apple from going bad though!
Re: is there any effort to curb plastics? (Score:1)
Re: is there any effort to curb plastics? (Score:3)
Cloth bags? Before plastic was paper, but we had to stop using paper bags to save the forests.
And you might want to check the label on that cloth bag, it's probably polyester, which is of course a plastic.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think microplastics are a problem, just wait until you find out how much microglass people used to consume. Sometimes they'd even be injured by big honking shards of it. In addition, glass bottles can be readily repurposed to become deadly weapons. You never have that problem with plastics!
Re: (Score:2)
Paper became evil because the environmental
Re: (Score:2)
When Ocean Spray changed from glass to plastic, the flavor of Crab-grape changed for the worse. I wouldn't be surprised to see a sales increase for any fruit juice that goes back to glass.
Re: (Score:3)
When Ocean Spray changed from glass to plastic, the flavor of Crab-grape changed for the worse.
Having a hard time imagining Crab-grape tasting anything but terrible to begin with.
That's a relief (Score:2)
So that will work out to a few milliplastics a year? Literally, I can live with that.
Re: (Score:2)
So that will work out to a few milliplastics a year? Literally, I can live with that.
Microplastics?
My German friends always answer with:
Hält länger; schmeckt besser!
Re: (Score:1)
My German friends always answer with:
Hält länger; schmeckt besser!
Awesome how you can manage German accents in a place where all the Apple hipsters fail to type simple apostrophes.
Luckily plastic is mostly inert (Score:2, Interesting)
Luckily most plastic is inert...right?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, inert just like miniature stabby knives are.
Re: Luckily plastic is mostly inert (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it turns lab mice gay. Good thing we're not mice, sweetie.
Re: (Score:2)
The article does not provide any useful information, unfortunately. Just the number of pieces is meaningless, without describing the properties of the pieces, like size, shape, chemical analysis and biological effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Inert is only part of the issue. The potential problem is one of accumulation. The most inert things can kill you if they accumulate in the wrong place. e.g. Nitrogen is a completely inert gas, but if you get it in your bloodstream you're going to have a really bad time.
What I want to see is a study of people to see how much of this plastic is actually retained in the body vs how much of it is excreted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, BPA et. al ... collapsing male fertility ... just a coincidence?
Re: (Score:2)
That's because multiple studies are required to flesh out complex issues. This study is one of ingestion. Another study would need to determine if it results in accumulation. Another study would help determine health impacts.
The issue here is purely that people are ingesting things of which the impact is completely unknown at this time.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue here is purely that people are ingesting things of which the impact is completely unknown at this time.
Which makes the whole article useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism (Score:1)
is poisoning us. Because it is profitable. What else is there to say?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, how about start with explaining how consuming plastic that has no biological effect constitutes poisoning someone?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do a thousand microplastics make a milliplastic ?
AND... (Score:2)
And? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And? (Score:2)
Sweet! (Score:2)
So we just need to hire lots of Americans to get rid of our plastic waste?
only that many? (Score:2)
Is that a problem? (Score:2)
How does that compare to the amount of plastic accidentally consumed when a bit of cellophane wrapper is left in my food?
I'd be curious (Score:2)
...how these are materially different in impact than other particles?
I mean, how much soot, dust, dirt, insects, even feces, etc do we call consume regularly as well on a given day? To a point, our systems have evolved to filter and remove particulates (thanks snot!) without issue. How are these particulates any different?
...and metal and glass microfragments (Score:2)
We ingest all kinds of stuff that isn't "food." If you cook something in a metal pot, you're going to get some tiny shavings into the food. Same for glass dinner ware. So what? If you look at your food under a microscope, you'll find all kinds of undesirable bits.
Our bodies are really, really good at filtering out what they don't want. That doesn't mean we should intentionally ingest things that aren't food. But--OMG there are microplastics in your food--by itself this is neither a surprise nor automaticall
Re: (Score:1)
And then there's the rodent droppings ....