I don't think you should be downvoted, as it's a valid observation.

Nanoplastics concentrate toxic compounds within themselves, smuggling them past animals' defense system. This does not happen with rock. There has not been enough time for animals to evolve systems to remove nanoplastics from their bodies.

I don't doubt that microplastics are not good for the environment and organisms that consume them, but can you provide a citation for the toxin concentration claim so I can learn more about it?

The wording of the grandparent comment was sloppy.

You might try DOI 10.1039/C8NR09321K (https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/nr/c8nr0...).

In summary, for whatever reason it seems that nanoparticles of some plastics readily penetrate and accumulate in biological tissues. There are also chemicals that will adsorb onto these nanoparticles. This can make a chemical at a given concentration more toxic to an organism, or even potentially make something toxic that was previously not.

Top 3 results here should do fine.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nanoplastic%20toxin%20...

That was my point, to suggest that the size of the particles alone shouldn't pose a hazard, there must be more going on.

Yes but I assume that plankton are smart enough not to eat rock particles, since they have both existed for millions/billions of years and plankton have adapted to discern between edible/inedible, whereas plastic is a very recent invention and is easily mistaken as a food source.

Perhaps you need an analogy:

Consider if a company were to sell you a plastic hamburgers disguised as a real hamburgers (i.e. how advertising food products used to be before being outlawed). Now, pretend you could swallow and ingest a hamburger whole (without chewing i.e. how plankton eat). What do you think will happen to your body?

Here is a video in case you are unable to follow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUhzQAkanM

Knowing what to eat is actually a very advanced function. There are humans that don't even know not to eat paste. Dogs that eat feces. Teenagers that eat TidePods. Plankton is at a severe disadvantage when comparing neurons.

>Dogs that eat feces.

Yet another reason why it baffles me that anyone wants one of these things as a pet.

Cats are smart enough not to eat feces, theirs or anyone else's. They're also smart enough to do their best to bury their own feces so they don't stink up your place.

That's just the toxoplasmosis talking [0], the little furry monsters have already made you their servant.

In contrast to cats, these dog "things" can actually be very useful, and extremely loyal [1], working animals.

[0] https://www.sciencealert.com/we-finally-know-how-the-mind-al...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachik%C5%8D

It's my understanding that the dog isn't harmed by doing that, and it's just a way to recoup/find missing nutrients.

This point stands without the snark. I understand the frustration when people poopooh climate issues, but at the end of the day, nobody is served by a slapfest.

Would you please consider editing to remove the snarky jabs?

I'm not reading snark in the parent's response. Consider giving people the benefit of the doubt.

> Perhaps you need an analogy

> Here is a video in case you are unable to follow:

This is patronizing and rude.

Possibly, but in cases where someone is being willfully obtuse (which I'm not claiming is the case here, but I see it elsewhere a lot), how else are you supposed to respond? Constantly being polite when someone is being willfully contrary actually seems to result in the other person appearing to win the argument according to bystanders. We see this in politics all the time: the candidates who sling mud and make bad arguments and cite outright falsehoods win elections, while the ones who always take the high road lose.

It definitely wasn't my intention, but you're right that I could have worded it better. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I'll pay more attention in the future.

Apologies, I honestly didn't mean to be snarky :( I'll try to watch for that in the future.

Well that's OK then. Thank god.