ITT: people who didn’t read the article. The “bombshell” line is from a Dow spokesman, but there are many quoted experts and none of them appear to be affiliated with Dow.
It looks to me like there are lots of reasonable methodological criticisms being made of the extant research in this field. We should always be open to seeing the science progress. Nobody is saying that plastic pollution is good.
Contamination is a very interesting question. Lab equipment is often plastic - generally it's very effective, cheap, and disposable. For example pipette tips for transferring samples - plastic. Centrifuge tubes can be glass, but most often they're plastic. Plastic is such a useful and versatile product it's used everywhere.
If that's the concern regarding plastic contamination it's a very good question and should definitely be reviewed.
Of course it also opens up the question of, how much contamination is plastic lab equipment etc shedding into the sample, are they expected to shed like that, and does that shedding increase the likelihood of human exposure?
A concern of contamination from plastic into the samples seems to validate the original concern of plastic contamination of people.
According to the article, another potential source of contamination is human tissue residue in the samples vaporized for gas chromatography. Human tissue is removed before samples are tested, but if any remains then the fat content will vaporize into the same small molecules that are the signature indicators for polyethylene.
Yeah that was a cool one! They mentioned fat but what about the lipid bilayer itself, or any cholesterol in the bilayer or cell?
I don't understand how the one researcher can claim fresh blood draws are free of contamination risks. Somewhere in that blood draw there's going to be plastic.
Likewise I don't understand how the other research can say large specimens of plastic would be impossible. I don't think anyone in the original papers, or those reviewing them, really know any of the background of the tissue specimens patients (or corrected for it as a variable, or compared different specimens). Plastic is a miracle for many patients - stents, cardiac catheterization, plastic stitches, bone implants, etc. It would seem plausible with that usage something bigger might end up someplace. With current research and risk I'd take the risk of the plastic 10/10 times.
How many people does the Dow corporation need to kill before the public understands Dow doesn't give a fuck about them and lies about basically everything.
What a rubbish statement. Did you even read the article? It actually states concerns that the plastics industry might use the findings to discredit scientifically correct reports.
There are valid concerns regarding microplastics science communication, as highlighted in the Guardian article. However, it mentioned that there were only potential methodology concerns with roughly half of the papers published on microplastics and human health. So there's still plenty of evidence that shows that there are measurable quantities of microplastics in our bodies.
The question is: What does that mean for our health? How biologically active is it? Are the quantities we are ingesting truly large enough to have an impact on our wellbeing?
The outright dismissal on something like this can be attributed to common sense imo. We live in a sea of microplastics, so it's logical that we have some in our bodies through regular exposure. The science isn't "settled" on what exactly that means for us.
You're getting downvoted, but you're right. Reading the article I see what appear to be valid and normal criticisms that occur with science. This is science operating as designed.
If someone can demonstrate that the people criticizing are somehow suspect, sure, we can have that discussion. But if they are suspect SOLELY for making methodological criticisms of these papers, that silly.
Yeah you are right here. Ignore the downvotes this sub is easily the biggest echo chamber I stubble across on reddit.
Scientifically we don't know a whole lot about microplastics effect on the body but everyone here has already decided that they are bad and is waiting for the science to confirm thier belief.
That's fine, and also policy is a balancing act between different harms. Plastics are not universally bad or universally good. We use them wastefully and that is clearly bad, but also it's not reasonable to say "no one may used plastics (or other technologies) unless we have universal consent from every person who might be exposed to them afterwards". That would make every aspect of modern living impossible.
We have to make decisions as a society based on the preponderance of evidence as to the harms and benefits of things we do.
Would you accept a random corporation pouring a random substance down your throat on the street as long as they claimed it wouldn't harm you? Because we allow these companies to externalize their waste onto everyone without consent or even purchasing their products.
The answer to your question is yes, lots of people do that while also cheering it on and stopping us from regulating it for health and safety concerns.
If your comment isn't doom & gloom 'we're all fucked' on this sub, then you are getting sent to the bottom. You could say that there is plenty of water in a rainforest and you'll be downvoted. It's entirely ideology.
Ironically once a nature paper got published, dark oxygen if you remember that, and I actually have the scientific background to smell the BS coming off that one. Lots of headlines get reposted here and on two different posts I made a comment explaining why I think the results are BS and most likely measurement error.
On one of the posts it was the highest voted comment on another it was the lowest voted comment, like -300 or something last I checked. People really use the number on the comment to do most of thier thinking here.
Not super surprised that all the high level comments don't seem to have engaged with the actual article posted past the headline. Just a bunch of unbiased allegations of propaganda the moment that a scientific result challenges a worldview.
The Guardian reports: High-profile studies reporting the presence of microplastics throughout the human body have been thrown into doubt by scientists who say the discoveries are probably the result of contamination and false positives. One chemist called the concerns “a bombshell”.
The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.
Of course, the original scientists had some controls to test against as is common in most science, I would guess. Idk. However, that we currently live in a sea of microplastics is only common sense. How biologically active it is, is the only real question.
I want to know the bioaccumulation element - like are people in a few hundred years way more fucked than today. Better yet, dig up corpses from the 60s, 70s, and 80s...if they all exhibit the same amount of plastics in their remains versus a drastically increasing amount.
It is things that enter the body and largely do not leave, like heavy metals which stay in fatty tissues. That is why eating apex predators like a big old fatty bluefin tuna can give you mercury poisoning, because it eats the fish which eat the even smaller fish and all of that mercury rides up the food chain. If plastics behave this way then every mammal on the planet is in a whole heap of trouble..thats not to say that having plastic passively in your blood isn't a bad thing its just this idea of whether we're all gaining more plastic the longer we live.
No not really. A cow can eat a poisonous substance and make them sick but then it can 100% leave their body and be untraceable by the time it becomes hamburger. Bioaccumulation is different where that cow's toxins eventually become your toxins and whatever eats you then inherits it.
Which part? That we will be +5/+10, or that no one will survive it? In terms of the average temp increase, James Hansen is pretty confident about the climate sensitivity, and I’m more confident about his predictions than IPCC or that clown Michael Mann.
We’ve already doubled CO2 vs. the 1850 baseline so, +5 is definitely happening, and not only are our emissions not slowing down, we are seeing a massive ramp in natural emitters (Amazon basin becoming an emitter, the oceans absorbing less and less, methane leaking from sea bed, etc.) so another doubling of CO2 isn’t exactly unthinkable.
Absolutely. It's merely an energy equation. Even if a fraction of our population are living in giant biodomes, we will figure it out absent some major celestial event happening that 100% wipes out our solar system.
> How biologically active it is, is the only real question.
That's the opposite conclusion of this new study?
The conclusion is: Are the earlier studies wrong, due to contamination from the instruments used in the study? Or perhaps, are they wrong, in that other aspects of human tissue can give signals that look remarkably like plastic, despite not being so.
It's important to know if it's biologically active, but it's pretty darn important to know if we have it in our systems in the first place too. Because it does not matter how it affects us if it's not inside us in the first place.
I remember reading that scientists studying microplastics weren’t able to find any true control subjects, people with zero microplastics in their blood, even in remote rural areas that live a completely natural lifestyle.
It’s possible that some of those people were actually true control subjects and we didn’t realize. I hope this helps make future studies more accurate
There are always doubts which is how and why science progresses but seriously, "The doubts amount to a “bombshell”, according to Roger Kuhlman, a chemist formerly at the Dow Chemical Company"
It reads like normal science. This is literally how science works. I'm not taking a side here; I lack the expertise to judge the criticisms, but what you're seeing - some papers get published, other people push back against the methodologies and analysis - is a perfectly normal part of the scientific process. It is working as designed. If the original authors are correct, they will address the criticisms either by showing them to be unfounded or by making methodological changes to eliminate them. This is a normal process that happens every day in every area of science.
What's not usually normal is for things to get picked up and disseminated in the mainstream press, for which the incentive structures are very different.
You're right that this is the normal scientific process. Science is all about, "Here's my stance on the subject, with all the reasons why I was led to that conclusion laid out for you so you can understand it and replicate if desired. Please, tear my idea to shreds so we can see how valid it is."
Here's a quote from the article related to this:
"We have acknowledged the numerous opportunities for improvement and refinement and are trying to spend our finite resources in generating better assays and data, rather than continually engaging in a dialogue.”
Scientists agree that there is more to learn out there before we can "settle" the "debate" on microplastic pollution and its impact on human health. This Guardian article is merely part of the "debate." Our ability to detect microplastics is at the cutting edge of our technology and knowledge, so it makes complete sense that we should focus on better fidelity to get better data before passionately arguing one way or another.
Because it is. We have no more safeguards in America.
We have fully entered the "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." portion of the program.
It's not good news. It is neutral news. Hell, it's bad news. Means microplastics remain an unknown due to methodological limitations. Doesn't mean there's less microplastics. Means we just know less than we thought we did. Could be better. Sure. Could not be. And we still aren't even touching on the effects, just on presence.
Lead was everywhere until health effects were made public dramatically. Then things changed. If we have to change tires, we have to change tires. Not unavoidable. Costly. And would probably help reduce cars which is always good.
We’re gonna have to get used to it in the coming years anyway. Like it or not, cars are getting dramatically less affordable for people already and the infrastructure costs are insane. At some point the reality of resource scarcity is going to hit, and it’s not too far off from today. There will still certainly be cars and tires, but the magnitude we see today is unsustainable. It literally cannot continue, we don’t have the resources to keep it going forever.
ITT: people who didn’t read the article. The “bombshell” line is from a Dow spokesman, but there are many quoted experts and none of them appear to be affiliated with Dow.
It looks to me like there are lots of reasonable methodological criticisms being made of the extant research in this field. We should always be open to seeing the science progress. Nobody is saying that plastic pollution is good.
Its ironic that they are asking scientists to be careful but they allow plastic to be dumped without asking the companies to check for safety
Is that in the article? I missed where they mentioned we should allow companies to dump plastic.
Contamination is a very interesting question. Lab equipment is often plastic - generally it's very effective, cheap, and disposable. For example pipette tips for transferring samples - plastic. Centrifuge tubes can be glass, but most often they're plastic. Plastic is such a useful and versatile product it's used everywhere.
If that's the concern regarding plastic contamination it's a very good question and should definitely be reviewed.
Of course it also opens up the question of, how much contamination is plastic lab equipment etc shedding into the sample, are they expected to shed like that, and does that shedding increase the likelihood of human exposure?
A concern of contamination from plastic into the samples seems to validate the original concern of plastic contamination of people.
According to the article, another potential source of contamination is human tissue residue in the samples vaporized for gas chromatography. Human tissue is removed before samples are tested, but if any remains then the fat content will vaporize into the same small molecules that are the signature indicators for polyethylene.
So a lot of it is people contamination of samples
Yeah that was a cool one! They mentioned fat but what about the lipid bilayer itself, or any cholesterol in the bilayer or cell?
I don't understand how the one researcher can claim fresh blood draws are free of contamination risks. Somewhere in that blood draw there's going to be plastic.
Likewise I don't understand how the other research can say large specimens of plastic would be impossible. I don't think anyone in the original papers, or those reviewing them, really know any of the background of the tissue specimens patients (or corrected for it as a variable, or compared different specimens). Plastic is a miracle for many patients - stents, cardiac catheterization, plastic stitches, bone implants, etc. It would seem plausible with that usage something bigger might end up someplace. With current research and risk I'd take the risk of the plastic 10/10 times.
Good to study though.
How many people does the Dow corporation need to kill before the public understands Dow doesn't give a fuck about them and lies about basically everything.
Alternative headline: “Self Flagellating Report Funded by Plastics Companies Finds Their Products Are 100% Safe and Should Be Used More.”
You mean fellating, self-fellating
Why not both?
Because they're kinda opposites
Don't kink shame
You can flagellate while fellating/being fellated
You might want to read the article.
Source on the funding?
No funding is involved. It's a a debate about analytical methods.
Yeah, it's just researchers calling out other researchers
So you haven't read the article at all then have you.
What a rubbish statement. Did you even read the article? It actually states concerns that the plastics industry might use the findings to discredit scientifically correct reports.
Knee-jerk reaction that has nothing to do with the substance of the article is upvoted to the top and awarded. Reddit in a nutshell.
I mean, aren't you just ignoring science? Science is allowed to change its mind on something when more evidence comes to light.
Your outright dismissal sounds more like ideology.
There are valid concerns regarding microplastics science communication, as highlighted in the Guardian article. However, it mentioned that there were only potential methodology concerns with roughly half of the papers published on microplastics and human health. So there's still plenty of evidence that shows that there are measurable quantities of microplastics in our bodies.
The question is: What does that mean for our health? How biologically active is it? Are the quantities we are ingesting truly large enough to have an impact on our wellbeing?
The outright dismissal on something like this can be attributed to common sense imo. We live in a sea of microplastics, so it's logical that we have some in our bodies through regular exposure. The science isn't "settled" on what exactly that means for us.
You're getting downvoted, but you're right. Reading the article I see what appear to be valid and normal criticisms that occur with science. This is science operating as designed.
If someone can demonstrate that the people criticizing are somehow suspect, sure, we can have that discussion. But if they are suspect SOLELY for making methodological criticisms of these papers, that silly.
I agree, the parent comment here doesn’t seem to match with the article at all
Yeah you are right here. Ignore the downvotes this sub is easily the biggest echo chamber I stubble across on reddit.
Scientifically we don't know a whole lot about microplastics effect on the body but everyone here has already decided that they are bad and is waiting for the science to confirm thier belief.
I don't care if they are harmful or give me superpowers. I don't want them in me, I want to have some bodily autonomy.
That's fine, and also policy is a balancing act between different harms. Plastics are not universally bad or universally good. We use them wastefully and that is clearly bad, but also it's not reasonable to say "no one may used plastics (or other technologies) unless we have universal consent from every person who might be exposed to them afterwards". That would make every aspect of modern living impossible.
We have to make decisions as a society based on the preponderance of evidence as to the harms and benefits of things we do.
No one is injecting you with plastics.
Perhaps use better judgement when selecting products to use/eat.
Don't disagree. What are you doing about it?
Thats cool, you can do that to the best of your ability.
Would you accept a random corporation pouring a random substance down your throat on the street as long as they claimed it wouldn't harm you? Because we allow these companies to externalize their waste onto everyone without consent or even purchasing their products.
The answer to your question is yes, lots of people do that while also cheering it on and stopping us from regulating it for health and safety concerns.
Whilst i sit here pounding my second diet coke of the morning...
If your comment isn't doom & gloom 'we're all fucked' on this sub, then you are getting sent to the bottom. You could say that there is plenty of water in a rainforest and you'll be downvoted. It's entirely ideology.
Ironically once a nature paper got published, dark oxygen if you remember that, and I actually have the scientific background to smell the BS coming off that one. Lots of headlines get reposted here and on two different posts I made a comment explaining why I think the results are BS and most likely measurement error.
On one of the posts it was the highest voted comment on another it was the lowest voted comment, like -300 or something last I checked. People really use the number on the comment to do most of thier thinking here.
Not super surprised that all the high level comments don't seem to have engaged with the actual article posted past the headline. Just a bunch of unbiased allegations of propaganda the moment that a scientific result challenges a worldview.
That's not only here, the piling is real and well documented everywhere.
True, I guess this is just the most combative sub I frequent so it is the most noticeable here.
"Eat more plastics it's fine" said the Dupont spokesperson.
The Guardian reports: High-profile studies reporting the presence of microplastics throughout the human body have been thrown into doubt by scientists who say the discoveries are probably the result of contamination and false positives. One chemist called the concerns “a bombshell”.
The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.
Of course, the original scientists had some controls to test against as is common in most science, I would guess. Idk. However, that we currently live in a sea of microplastics is only common sense. How biologically active it is, is the only real question.
I want to know the bioaccumulation element - like are people in a few hundred years way more fucked than today. Better yet, dig up corpses from the 60s, 70s, and 80s...if they all exhibit the same amount of plastics in their remains versus a drastically increasing amount.
People a hundred years from now will have so much nano-plastics that they will be water proof.
Good point. Bioaccumulation is a process that occurs in all species, correct? Humans are not so special....
It is things that enter the body and largely do not leave, like heavy metals which stay in fatty tissues. That is why eating apex predators like a big old fatty bluefin tuna can give you mercury poisoning, because it eats the fish which eat the even smaller fish and all of that mercury rides up the food chain. If plastics behave this way then every mammal on the planet is in a whole heap of trouble..thats not to say that having plastic passively in your blood isn't a bad thing its just this idea of whether we're all gaining more plastic the longer we live.
So the question boils down to whether plastics eaten by this cow are passed on the humans in meat...lol. https://www.reddit.com/r/Environmentalism/s/71XJG9PYiF
No not really. A cow can eat a poisonous substance and make them sick but then it can 100% leave their body and be untraceable by the time it becomes hamburger. Bioaccumulation is different where that cow's toxins eventually become your toxins and whatever eats you then inherits it.
That’s cute. No one will be able to make it beyond +5C let alone the +10C target we are likely to eventually hit.
You have no way of possibly knowing that.
Which part? That we will be +5/+10, or that no one will survive it? In terms of the average temp increase, James Hansen is pretty confident about the climate sensitivity, and I’m more confident about his predictions than IPCC or that clown Michael Mann.
We’ve already doubled CO2 vs. the 1850 baseline so, +5 is definitely happening, and not only are our emissions not slowing down, we are seeing a massive ramp in natural emitters (Amazon basin becoming an emitter, the oceans absorbing less and less, methane leaking from sea bed, etc.) so another doubling of CO2 isn’t exactly unthinkable.
Knowing what? >+5C or surviving? However, the answer is the same.
So you think the planet will remain habitable for a few hundred years yet?
Absolutely. It's merely an energy equation. Even if a fraction of our population are living in giant biodomes, we will figure it out absent some major celestial event happening that 100% wipes out our solar system.
> How biologically active it is, is the only real question.
That's the opposite conclusion of this new study?
The conclusion is: Are the earlier studies wrong, due to contamination from the instruments used in the study? Or perhaps, are they wrong, in that other aspects of human tissue can give signals that look remarkably like plastic, despite not being so.
It's important to know if it's biologically active, but it's pretty darn important to know if we have it in our systems in the first place too. Because it does not matter how it affects us if it's not inside us in the first place.
I remember reading that scientists studying microplastics weren’t able to find any true control subjects, people with zero microplastics in their blood, even in remote rural areas that live a completely natural lifestyle.
It’s possible that some of those people were actually true control subjects and we didn’t realize. I hope this helps make future studies more accurate
There are always doubts which is how and why science progresses but seriously, "The doubts amount to a “bombshell”, according to Roger Kuhlman, a chemist formerly at the Dow Chemical Company"
[deleted]
It reads like normal science. This is literally how science works. I'm not taking a side here; I lack the expertise to judge the criticisms, but what you're seeing - some papers get published, other people push back against the methodologies and analysis - is a perfectly normal part of the scientific process. It is working as designed. If the original authors are correct, they will address the criticisms either by showing them to be unfounded or by making methodological changes to eliminate them. This is a normal process that happens every day in every area of science.
What's not usually normal is for things to get picked up and disseminated in the mainstream press, for which the incentive structures are very different.
You're right that this is the normal scientific process. Science is all about, "Here's my stance on the subject, with all the reasons why I was led to that conclusion laid out for you so you can understand it and replicate if desired. Please, tear my idea to shreds so we can see how valid it is."
Here's a quote from the article related to this: "We have acknowledged the numerous opportunities for improvement and refinement and are trying to spend our finite resources in generating better assays and data, rather than continually engaging in a dialogue.”
Scientists agree that there is more to learn out there before we can "settle" the "debate" on microplastic pollution and its impact on human health. This Guardian article is merely part of the "debate." Our ability to detect microplastics is at the cutting edge of our technology and knowledge, so it makes complete sense that we should focus on better fidelity to get better data before passionately arguing one way or another.
No it just reads like actual science journalism
Because it is. We have no more safeguards in America.
We have fully entered the "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." portion of the program.
Actually good news after having read the article
It's not good news. It is neutral news. Hell, it's bad news. Means microplastics remain an unknown due to methodological limitations. Doesn't mean there's less microplastics. Means we just know less than we thought we did. Could be better. Sure. Could not be. And we still aren't even touching on the effects, just on presence.
I mean its not like we have choice. Tires are a big pollutant. breathing air is an issue we cannot solve.
Lead was everywhere until health effects were made public dramatically. Then things changed. If we have to change tires, we have to change tires. Not unavoidable. Costly. And would probably help reduce cars which is always good.
in an ideal world yes. in a realistic world we aren't changing tires.
Sure, same as we weren't changing CFCs, we aren't changing to renewables, and we weren't changing leaded gasoline.
We’re gonna have to get used to it in the coming years anyway. Like it or not, cars are getting dramatically less affordable for people already and the infrastructure costs are insane. At some point the reality of resource scarcity is going to hit, and it’s not too far off from today. There will still certainly be cars and tires, but the magnitude we see today is unsustainable. It literally cannot continue, we don’t have the resources to keep it going forever.
We could be looking into ways to reduce the micro particles they give off, at least. Change doesn’t happen until it does.
Finally science confirms I can eat as much plastic as I want and suffer no consequences.
Press X to Doubt