Fruits and Flowers May Counteract Harmful Effects of Microplastics 34
New research suggests that anthocyanins, the antioxidants responsible for the vibrant colors of fruits and flowers, may help counteract reproductive harm caused by microplastics. The Guardian reports: The new review of scientific literature on anthocyanins found that the compounds are probably protective against a range of plastic-induced impacts on hormones, reductions in testosterone and estrogen, decreased sperm counts, lower sperm quality, erectile dysfunction and ovarian damage. [...] Researchers said that mice exposed to microplastics, then treated with anthocyanins, showed increased sperm quality, including increased sperm count and motility, and the antioxidants overall reduced testicular damage. The new paper also pointed to research that found some microplastics reduce testosterone levels because they harm Leydig cells, which are responsible for the hormone's production. Anthocyanins seem to helped restore testosterone production and protect Leydig cells.
In women, impacts on fertility and sexual development could be mitigated by anthocyanins that seem to protect hormone receptors from plastic chemicals such as bisphenol, phthalates and cadmium. The chemicals can mimic hormones, or cause hormonal responses. Microplastics in ovarian tissue cause inflammation that seems to lower levels of estrogen and other hormones. Research found that treating rats exposed to microplastics protected the ovarian tissue and normalized levels of estrogen and other hormones. "Its antioxidant properties help preserve ovarian function and potentially maintain fertility, highlighting its therapeutic potential in managing ovarian damage," the authors wrote.
In women, impacts on fertility and sexual development could be mitigated by anthocyanins that seem to protect hormone receptors from plastic chemicals such as bisphenol, phthalates and cadmium. The chemicals can mimic hormones, or cause hormonal responses. Microplastics in ovarian tissue cause inflammation that seems to lower levels of estrogen and other hormones. Research found that treating rats exposed to microplastics protected the ovarian tissue and normalized levels of estrogen and other hormones. "Its antioxidant properties help preserve ovarian function and potentially maintain fertility, highlighting its therapeutic potential in managing ovarian damage," the authors wrote.
reverse homeopathy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean "die of underdose"?
Worse, I think it’s both at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if the human researchers were competent, they would go looking for evidence *in nature* instead of merely analyzing papers written by others. It should be easy to produce experimental evidence, flowers are everywhere and animals are not so rare either.
Re: (Score:2)
TLDR: Stupid Scientists! Publish AND Perish!
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why, at face value, such small amounts could seem ineffective or incongruous, but (1) it is all correct, and (2) that is the nature of pharmacology. And, it has its basis in simple basic biology and chemistry, such as number of cells, number of receptors per cell surface, basic algebra and chemical stoichiometry to translate drug doses to biological effects, etc.
A good place to understand this is with the first "drug" that received systematic scientific study to elucidate proper doses - digita
The future? (Score:2)
I can see a future were everyone takes a daily dose of pills to counteract the consequences of pollution.
An add-on to the documentary Idiocracy.
How bad for health are microplastics... (Score:2)
... compared to the crap our ancestors ingested and breathed in? Stuff like lead from cars, high levels of SO2, NO2 from factories, asbestos dust, suspect food additives since banned etc etc.
I'm not saying microplastics are innocuous, far from it, they're a disaster for the enviroment. But just for humans are they any worse than what went before?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are not forced to choose at least one of "environmental toxins produced 150 years ago" and "do not mitigate damage from microplastics". It's reasonable to point out that today's plastic-heavy life is vastly better than what our ancestors lived with, but we can still try to make the environment more healthy for us and future humans.
Re: (Score:3)
We are not forced to choose at least one of "environmental toxins produced 150 years ago" and "do not mitigate damage from microplastics". It's reasonable to point out that today's plastic-heavy life is vastly better than what our ancestors lived with, but we can still try to make the environment more healthy for us and future humans.
After getting a limb cut off you can mitigate the damage with bacitracin, I’m not a mathematician or a doctor but by my math that’s not within an arms length of ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
The astute among us may detect a relevant difference or two between exposure to microplastics and losing a limb, limiting whatever insight you expected to get from that analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Microplastics never existed" is not an achievable outcome, and "microplastics stop existing" is probably not a desirable outcome considering the other trade-offs involved. Reducing microplastics and motivating their effects are desirable, but making retarded analogies with limb loss is a waste of time in achieving those goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You talk of "ancestors", then cite examples that, by and large, are just from the 20th century.
Sure, there were some fairly awful examples in the 19th century (I hear London around 1870 was pretty awful), using mercury to process silver ore for centuries, or earlier (humans have been smelting lead for a very long tim
Re: (Score:2)
You talk of "ancestors", then cite examples that, by and large, are just from the 20th century.
Sure, there were some fairly awful examples in the 19th century (I hear London around 1870 was pretty awful), using mercury to process silver ore for centuries, or earlier (humans have been smelting lead for a very long time). But those were fairly localized, geographically or socially. A farmer in the 1700s was exposed to very little pollution in their daily lives. (Sanitation is a different matter.) The hunter-gatherers that existed for 95% of homo sapiens' time on this planet dealt with little worse than smoke or locally-elevated environmental pollutants (arsenic in the water, etc.)
Your post got me to wondering about when we started using insecticides and various poisons, so I did a little research. So I'm not trying to contradict you, but humans have been exposing themselves to adverse chemistry for quite a while. Sumerians were using sulfur compounds to control lice and mites 4500 years ago. Now that probably isn't too harmful. The Chinese were using mercury and arsenic compounds 3000 years ago, I suppose that would take care of the little buggers.
Pyrethrum from Chrysanthemum fl
Re: (Score:2)
"A farmer in the 1700s was exposed to very little pollution in their daily lives."
Coal and wood fires put out a boatload of pollution and it doesn't all go up the chimney.
Re: (Score:2)
Little more then smoke? Having a fire in your home is basically like sucking on a tailpipe. It's horrible for your health. It's one of the reasons you should stop burning natural gas with your stove. You are releasing carcinogens into your home that don't need to be there.
Still, most our ancestors ran a very real risk of dying from all sorts of things we just don't have to worry about in modern society. You could die from an infection that today we have medicine (for now) to deal with it.
We should definitel
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice to conduct studies but since we can't find any living thing on the plant absent of microplastics I'd say it's a problem.
More propognda from... (Score:4, Funny)
I'll take both, thank you. (Score:3)
I'll take both -- a global clampdown on microplastics AND fruits, and edible flowers in my soy chai to make me even healthier.
It should not be an EITHER-OR scenario.
Weasel word fest (Score:2)
"In women, impacts on fertility and sexual development could be mitigated by anthocyanins that seem to protect hormone receptors from plastic chemicals such as bisphenol, phthalates and cadmium. The chemicals can mimic hormones, or cause hormonal responses. Microplastics in ovarian tissue cause inflammation that seems to lower levels of estrogen and other hormones.
Well these chemicals might prevent something that seems to be happening in possibly a lot of people!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds great but... (Score:3)
Can you convince women to want child in modern Western society? We seem to be doing everything we can to convince young women that having children is bad, that having relationships are bad and that they should want to be climb the corporate ladder in lieu of everything else. The more educated they become, the stronger the affect.
Ironically, it just pushes more women to have geriatric pregnancies or to be forced into spending thousands on IVF, since it's harder for women past 35 or so to get pregnant versus 25.
I'm not saying whether this is desirable or not. Rather just pointing out that it's a thing and a growing concern for an aging population that's not replacing itself.
I'm sure microplastics are not helping but I am doubtful they are all that big of an impact on the birthrate compared to prevailing social norms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand this very much. As someone that doesn't have children, one of my reasons is the general state of things. I would hate being a child in today's world. I talk to all my coworkers that have children and how they are raised versus how I was and it's so different. All the kids are micromanaged and pretty much constantly connected to the Internet.
I can't imagine how badly the bullying must be. When I was a kid, once you left the school yard, the bullying largely stopped until the next day. Now they h
This is what's wrong with microplastics studies (Score:2)
People have lived with harmful substances, including ingesting them, for centuries. There are many things that counteract these harmful substances, such as fruits and flowers. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that microplastics pose some sort of special risk that humans haven't built up tolerance against for all of history. It's more that it's become the latest cool thing to raise dramatic alarms about.