Are Microplastics Bad For Your Health? More Rigorous Science is Needed (nature.com) 38
An anonymous reader shares a Nature story: In March last year, researchers found that among a group of nearly 300 participants, people who had higher concentrations of plastics in deposits of fat in their arteries (arterial plaques) were more likely to experience heart attacks or strokes, and more likely to die as a result, than those in whom plastics were not detected. Since it was published, the New England Journal of Medicine study has been mentioned more than 6,600 times on social media and more than 800 times in news articles and blogs.
The issue of whether plastics are entering human tissues and what impacts they might have on health is understandably of great interest to scientists, industry and society. Indeed, for the past few years there have been news stories almost every month about peer-reviewed articles that have reported findings of plastic particles in all sorts of human tissues and bodily fluids -- including the lungs, heart, penis, placenta and breast milk. And in multiple countries, policymakers are being urged to implement measures to limit people's exposure to nanoplastics and microplastics.
Many of the studies conducted so far, however, rely on small sample sizes (typically 20-50 samples) and lack appropriate controls. Modern laboratories are themselves hotspots of nanoplastic and microplastic pollution, and the approaches that are being used to detect plastics make it hard to rule out the possibility of contamination, or prove definitively that plastics are in a sample. Also, many findings are not biologically plausible based on what is known -- mainly from nanomedicine -- about the movement of tiny particles within the human body.
For an emerging area of research, such problems are unsurprising. But without more rigorous standards, transparency and collaboration -- among researchers, policymakers and industrial stakeholders -- a cycle of misinformation and ineffective regulation could undermine efforts to protect both human health and the environment.
The issue of whether plastics are entering human tissues and what impacts they might have on health is understandably of great interest to scientists, industry and society. Indeed, for the past few years there have been news stories almost every month about peer-reviewed articles that have reported findings of plastic particles in all sorts of human tissues and bodily fluids -- including the lungs, heart, penis, placenta and breast milk. And in multiple countries, policymakers are being urged to implement measures to limit people's exposure to nanoplastics and microplastics.
Many of the studies conducted so far, however, rely on small sample sizes (typically 20-50 samples) and lack appropriate controls. Modern laboratories are themselves hotspots of nanoplastic and microplastic pollution, and the approaches that are being used to detect plastics make it hard to rule out the possibility of contamination, or prove definitively that plastics are in a sample. Also, many findings are not biologically plausible based on what is known -- mainly from nanomedicine -- about the movement of tiny particles within the human body.
For an emerging area of research, such problems are unsurprising. But without more rigorous standards, transparency and collaboration -- among researchers, policymakers and industrial stakeholders -- a cycle of misinformation and ineffective regulation could undermine efforts to protect both human health and the environment.
rigorous standards, transparency and collaboration (Score:1)
HA! Not gonna happen in today's political climate!
Re: rigorous standards, transparency and collabora (Score:1)
It's funny cause if you say something nowhere near as bad about any of the countries people are immigrating here from it's considered punching down. Anyone who considers the US as a shithole has never traveled at all
Could Microplastics Give You Superpowers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This study paid for by the Plastics Manufacturers and Possible Superhero Origin Stories Association of America.
“You have been exposed to incredible amounts of industrial microplastics”. -Doctor
”So I’ve got superpowers?!!” -Timmy
”No Timmy, you have cancer.” -Doctor
"we can't do anything!" (Score:2)
Typical, do a bunch of worthless studies (Score:2)
Re:Typical, do a bunch of worthless studies (Score:5, Informative)
Herbal supplements don't work. It's been studied to death, but people like you ignore the studies because you want to believe. Studies are ongoing every year so your comment that no one has looked for evidence for decades is a straight up lie. Here is a study from 2022 [nih.gov] describing the health risks and issues for unregulated herbal supplements.
A study from 2023 [nih.gov] describing the more common ingredients, their toxicity concerns, and interactions with real medicines. An article from 2024 [news-medical.net] linking to a study from JAMA about potential liver risks due to herbal supplements.
Would you like to know more? Or will you find some excuse to ignore the plain truth evidence?
Re: Typical, do a bunch of worthless studies (Score:3)
"Do you know what they call traditional remedies that have been proven to work?"
"Medicine."
Re: (Score:2)
Herbal supplements don't work. It's been studied to death, but people like you ignore the studies because you want to believe. Studies are ongoing every year so your comment that no one has looked for evidence for decades is a straight up lie. Here is a study from 2022 [nih.gov] describing the health risks and issues for unregulated herbal supplements.
Let us not forget that good old prescription medicine isn't all that much to write home about either. It has undeniably killed more people that herbal supplements. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
SO's grandmother was killed by her arthritis meds. SO was damn near killed by her meds, we're still waiting to see just how much permanent damage it did.
Me? I will not take maintenance drugs - they are designed to not cure, but create a lasting revenue stream. If they cured the problem, the sales would dimi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing scientific studies costs money. When only a little money is allocated, only a small sample group can be used.
Sometimes the group is so small there is no point. Sometimes a "something is better than nothing" study with a small sample group will at least generate enough of a result that it will get attention and help make the case for more studies, with more funding, in the future.
And, ultimately, the science is never done. There is always more to study about anything. Always more to know about how
History repeats (Score:5, Insightful)
"Needs more study" is what they said about lead in gasoline. While lead was known to cause nerve damage, big oil argued the amount found in the environment may be natural. It took a while to fully prove environmental levels were both human caused and increasing.
This mass lead poisoning is one of the worst environmental flubs of the USA. Some estimates are it reduced the average IQ by roughly 3 points, like a Permanent Monday ;-)
"Error on the side of profits" is fucked up!
Re: (Score:2)
"Needs more study" is what they said about lead in gasoline. While lead was known to cause nerve damage, big oil argued the amount found in the environment may be natural. It took a while to fully prove environmental levels were both human caused and increasing.
This mass lead poisoning is one of the worst environmental flubs of the USA. Some estimates are it reduced the average IQ by roughly 3 points, like a Permanent Monday ;-)
"Error on the side of profits" is fucked up!
Unfortunately, that is what our country has chosen as a priority over all other concerns, but is *ESPECIALLY* true when it comes to human health issues. If someone can't find a way to make a profit off of it, it's not worth addressing. And the bigger profit potential right now is in continuing to ignore the issue of microplastics. Maybe, if they can find some form of pill that gathers microplastics out of the human body and can generate massive profits by distributing it, then we'd see them admitting to an
Re: (Score:3)
"Needs more study"
Yes, and more.
Thomas Midgley actually poured TEL all over his hands and inhaled the vapors and claimed he could do it every day without getting sick, lol.
The story of TEL is fucking disgusting, and it's very fucked up that people weren't jailed for their entire lives for it.
Re: (Score:1)
At least he had a Karma Ending:
"Midgley contracted polio and was left severely disabled. He devised an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys to lift himself out of bed. [He was later] was found dead at his home in Worthington, Ohio. He had been killed by his own device after he became entangled in it and died of strangulation." (Wikipedia)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting original study (Score:2)
The original study was interesting. Yes, the sample sizes could have been larger, but the results were stark and were clearly seen without the need for too much statistics. However, the study participants were largely overweight with health issues, e.g., 95% were on statins. So, it's not clear if the results would extend to the general population. It would also have been much more insightful if the bad events had been broken down into exact counts (heart attacks, strokes, and deaths) instead of one coun
Off to the races (Score:2)
Initial findings find microplastics are dangerous.
Open the playbook:
1. more research needed
2. not all microplastics are dangerous, we need separate research into each type.
3. All those health problems could have multiple causes.
4. Dangerous mainly in combination with other commonly present substance.
We've seen this playbook with neonicotinoids, cigarettes, lead in gasoline, we see it with PFAS, climate...
Seriously, at th
I'm too lazy to read the publication right, but... (Score:1)
hahahahhahahahhaa (Score:3)
No, plastic blocking blood flow in your brain is FUCKING GREAT.
Whoever wrote this should be sentenced to a chuck e cheese ball pit for the rest of eternity
We can Q too, neener neener (Score:2)
One of my favorite conspiracies is that plutocrats want to poison America with pollution so that more vote Republican.
Utterly ridiculous. (Score:3)
Given that humans didn't have microplastics in the environment of the past? Their hypothesis is that you have to prove they aren't doing harm (maybe they benefit). The null hypothesis is that no microplastics is the base case; and a demonstration of safety of introducing microplastics is required. The same procedure for making a drug for human use.
This is anti-science flim-flam bullshit. See also: cigarette companies saying no link to lung cancer -- and also, smoking is actually healthy.
Don't be taken in by the same lies as earlier generations.
Actually needed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It’s extremely difficult to know because there isn’t a person on the planet without detectable levels.
All ABS's Main Chemicals Cause Cancer (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Polycarbonate made from Bisphenol-A and Phosgene (Score:2)
This /. post brought to you (Score:2)
Yes, they're bad for you. No additional research is needed except to clarify *how* bad.
The cigarette companies did these same articles in the 50s and 60s. We never learn do we?