I double checked the article and you are right, this is why the use of the apothocary symbols are not used in medicine any more it should be "5 and 20 μm polystyrene micro-particles elicited somewhat similar pathological and physiological changes in mice. These, particularly the 5 μm micro-particles, could be detected in histological sections of the gut, liver and kidney." The symbol means micro or an order of a million times smaller than a gram/meter so the particulate size appears misstated and is actually an order of 1000 times smaller than a millimeter.
> This could easily be genuine epidemic levels of awful, or it could be completely nothing. Does anyone know more?
It has been shown microplastic contamination is very significant in plastic-bottled single-use drinking water. Avoiding exposure as much as possible is 100% best medical advice, avoid drinking from single-use plastic bottles whenever possible. An infographic from WHO: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/16/study-...
As for health effects microplastics definitely bioaccumulate in the gut, liver and kidneys in mice. Mice are not human but as this is a basic physiology issue it is very highly likely that they also bioaccumulate in humans. It is not clear whether humans or mice can ever clear these particles, it is likely they can damage these organs over time, they do cause biomarker and endocrine changes short term. This can indicate damage, possible scaring and a propensity to weight gain respectively. Also other unknown fun stuff. It is probably dose-dependent so if you avoid single use plastic bottled water thats key. The food supply issue (seafood) is less significant from a human health standpoint.
Second source:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2017.0006...
Eleven globally sourced brands of bottled water, purchased in 19 locations in nine different countries, were tested for microplastic contamination using Nile Red tagging. Of the 259 total bottles processed, 93% showed some sign of microplastic contamination. After accounting for possible background (lab) contamination, an average of 10.4 microplastic particles >100 um in size per liter of bottled water processed were found. Fragments were the most common morphology (66%) followed by fibers. Half of these particles were confirmed to be polymeric in nature using FTIR spectroscopy with polypropylene being the most common polymer type (54%), which matches a common plastic used for the manufacture of bottle caps. A small fraction of particles (4%) showed the presence of industrial lubricants. While spectroscopic analysis of particles smaller than 100 um was not possible, the adsorption of the Nile Red dye indicates that these particles are most probably plastic. Including these smaller particles (6.5–100 um), an average of 325 microplastic particles per liter of bottled water was found. Microplastic contamination range of 0 to over 10,000 microplastic particles per liter with 95% of particles being between 6.5 and 100 um in size. Data suggests the contamination is at least partially coming from the packaging and/or the bottling process itself. Given the prevalence of the consumption of bottled water across the globe, the results of this study support the need for further studies on the impacts of micro- and nano- plastics on human health.
That would be rather easy to check - take a bunch of dead humans who likely consumed a lot of bottled water (i.e. pretty much any urban dweller) and check them for microplastics in certain organs. Has this kind of research already been done and if not, why not?
Also, "piece smaller than 5mm" can be a huge 4mm chunk of plastic or one molecule. Depending on that, the average of 325 particles per liter could be enormous or completely insignificant.
It's hard to assess, and I'd find it saner to assume ingesting regularly inorganic synthetic materials our body did't evolve with to be risky and take measure before we know for sure.
Even if it's just because of intertia: it took almost a century between knowing that asbestos was dangerous and ban. So let's not wait.
According to the paper, a) they're mostly microscopic pieces of lint from synthetic textiles and b) we don't know. Given the amount of research that has looked for health harms related to plastics exposure, I operate on the assumption that if it was a big deal, we would have found something by now.
If the claims of consumption are true, then people have been ingesting plastics for a long time and there have been no observed ill effects attributable to it, and I'd say it's more like "we have plenty of evidence that it's not really harmful" than "we don't know" --- but of course, the latter makes for more sensational reporting and fearmongering...
This somewhat reminds me of the paranoia surrounding radio waves and non-ionising radiation --- surely there would be some obviously noticeable negative effects by now, after well over a century of use, but the evidence strongly says that beyond known effects like heating, there's nothing else to worry about.
It's like those articles that claim (and likely are true) that people ingest X insects/spiders/other-disgusting-thing every year; it's sensational, but not really something to worry about (personally, I'd rather ingest the plastic...)
I've noticed there's a bit of an anti-plastic movement going on lately, with plenty of FUD articles like this being spread (not just on HN, but elsewhere), and I wonder if there's an ulterior motive...
For example men's spermcounts have been going down steadily and predictably for over 30 years, and are now HALF what they were 30 years ago. Scientists have done thousands of studies and haven't identified a root cause. (I bring this up because many plastics are made flexible with a xenoestrogen named BPA)
We can't say "Plastics must be fine," we have no control group to compare against. For all you know the increases in allergies, nearsightedness, autoimmune disorders, or reduced sperm count are related.
---
Remember when leaded gasoline reduced a whole generation's IQ by a few points and caused a crimewave? Sometimes the negative effects of an enviromental choice take decades to figure out.
It's past time to switch into a "cautious until proven safe" way of thinking when it comes to health and environment.
Phthalates are commonly used to make plastics more flexible. They are also estrogenic.
Parabens, PCBs, and pesticides are all other common entrants into the body with estrogenic effects.
( Reduced sperm count and sperm quality)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/toxic-chemic...
The entire series is a good read, too:
Then there likely isn't one, beyond maybe natural evolution itself.
Remember when leaded gasoline reduced a whole generation's IQ by a few points and caused a crimewave? Sometimes the negative effects of an enviromental choice take decades to figure out.
That was actually a very noticeable effect that plenty of studies showed evidence of, unlike this one.
It's past time to switch into a "cautious until proven safe" way of thinking when it comes to health and environment.
We'd still be living like cavemen if that were the case.
To believe that a novel substance is benign until proven otherwise is just a form of bias. There is no objective reason why a substance should be innocent until proven guilty. We just have to adopt that policy out of practicality!
My whole point is that we are dealing with crazy big and crazy small numbers. Without more context they are all meaningless.
This is certainly something to be concerned about, but without that context it's hard to know what this really means.
The article says a "microplastic particle" is any peice of plastic smaller than 5mm. That's bigger than some pills - I would definitely notice chewing on something that size.
So how big are these really and what are they doing to me?
For reference, the US and EU both regulate that 10 micrograms per liter of arsenic in drinking water is safe. Using my rusty high school chemistry (please correct me if I'm wrong), this is on the order of ~10^20 particles (atoms) of arsenic per year. That's way way more than 100k and arsenic is more inherently harmful to humans than plastic.
This could easily be genuine epidemic levels of awful, or it could be completely nothing. Does anyone know more?