In other research, scientists found that approx. 100 microplastic particles fall on a dinner plate during the course of a meal. If that's a long meal (1h) and a very large dinner plate (0.25 m^2), it gives us a lowball estimated rate of 10 000 per square meter per day, every day inside the house where you live.
This oddly makes me feel less anxious about this issue. If everyone is ingesting microplastics all the time for a while now, it proves that at least in the short term there aren't any really bad effects. Otherwise we would've noticed it by now.
Most of the latest research on autism causes points to endocrine disruption in mothers, and it seems that micro-plastics might affect fetal hormones. It seems relevant to me.
I do worry about atmospheric plastic particles, but...
I suspect that reported air quality metrics like PM10/PM2.5 measure this already. I'm doubtful that 10k plastic particles are landing inside your house simply because external air turnover isn't that fast (only a few per day). Either it's coming from inside your house or the density outside is anomalously high.
The total volume would be <10m3 and peak PM10 is typically less than 5ug/m³ (often less than 1 where I live). A 10um diameter particle is a few nanograms so 10,000 would mean all of the particles in the air are plastic. We know that dust, smoke, and other sources are significant as well.
> I'm doubtful that 10k plastic particles are landing inside your house simply because external air turnover isn't that fast (only a few per day).
In your house they are likely much higher as they're coming from your shoes, your synthetic fiber clothes, your carpet, that 25 year old plastic dog your gran gave you.
The carpet fiber dust at my job is insane, I wipe down my plane model every day, and 24 hours later you can see little red/blue/green/tan carpet fibers already accumulating from the foot traffic in the office, if I let it go a week it (and skin/hair etc) will cake on my finger if I run it down.
Wool carpets on hardwood floors. I see plenty of dust outside (construction?) but very little in the house. If I don't wipe the table for a week, I can't tell other than animal foot prints. I leave windows and doors open hours every day. At work the office seems about class 100k, but I guess the aircon system if filtering well enough.
I don't doubt it's possible to create such an environment, but it's not "natural" or environmental other than in the sense of what you choose (as much as circumstances let you) to live in.
The photos don't show a scale. What magnification microscope should I get to look at the rain droplets falling where I live so that I can see how much plastic there is?
I don't know how well the types of plastic would compare to asbestos, as that is a very specific risk to the lungs, but I do know that ingesting BPA has a tremendous impact on hormone balance and that has cascading short to long term chronic health problems.
It troubles me that there are man-made particles in the air and everywhere, but I was shamed on HN 4 months ago for worrying about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19673894. Not sure how to feel about it now.
It's hard for me to write this well, so before I begin I hope you don't take offense. I think it's easy to feel shame if someone disagrees with you and especially if they take the time to back up their argument with some evidence as the responder to your statement did. However, I think it's kind of an unfortunate reaction. That person gave you a gift -- they spent time out of their day to explain to you why they disagreed. It's not meant to beat you back, or to make you seem stupid (at least from my perspective). Your original comment didn't have any supporting evidence: it was just a statement. While it may very well be true, it's really hard for a reader to judge. I don't know you. I don't know how well you understand the field. If you make a statement, I'm always going to be a bit wary -- because there are a lot more people who are mistaken on the internet when they think they know something, than people who actually know something.
As much as possible, I'd like to encourage you to take the time and effort to back up your statements and to share your knowledge in a way that people like me can appreciate. I know it takes time and you may be thinking, "If I need to back up everything I say, then I won't have time to say anything!". However, I think it's fine to pick and choose your moments (BTW, as you might gather from this message, this is something I also struggle with!) If everyone who read HN posted their opinion without spending the time to show how they arrived at that opinion, we would be buried in meaningless arguments. That's why it is so important for people like you, who seem to know something about the subject matter, to spend that time to make a really quality reply. Everyone will benefit, I feel.
Perhaps you will disagree, but at the very least I hope you come away with the feeling that it is not necessary to experience shame if someone disagrees with you -- indeed, even if you happen to be wrong. Especially if you are wrong, you are the one that benefits the most because you can learn something new. It really is all good.
I’m sure they can also be found in the air we breathe already. I wonder how much damage they cause. Plastic as such is quite a inert material. I would guess smoking a single cigarette a day is way worse
Certain plastics are used for implants - there must be a good reason for it? Bioreactivity, rejection, degradation? Those and other reasons might be a concern to be thought about in regards to inhaled plastic fibers.
Not to mention if there were issues with the fibrous nature itself (like "fibrous minerals" cause certain diseases)...
He/she probably meant a particle filter mask, but it's always good to point out that this is something comoletely different from a surgical mask. Sadly a lot of people that really should depend on the particle filtration don't understand this, and wear surgical masks instead.
There is a lot of bad science here. Possible contamination from using plastic bags to collect samples. Results not matching the expected distribution between rural and urban samples.
I read in this one report where the life expectancy from 1890-1960 increased from 40 years (of age) to 65. The highest increase ever in human history. During this time the US was going through an industrial revolution I believe? I'm not sure. With tons of factories and smoke stacks polluting the air. Yet quality of life was fine? I guess if we pair that with plastic falling from the sky there is nothing to worry about? Also the article mentioned the plastic particles were super small. Not sure if that would really hurt anyone. Likely marginal? What do everyone else think?
More seriously, to your point about historical growth + pollution -- (1) this stuff is cumulative and (2) the world is polluting more now than it ever has.
The increase in lifespan is more due to childhood mortality falling sharply in those years.
I've always found average lifespan to be problematic. Most of the deaths weren't from 65 being the age where old age started to kill. It was on account of how many more infants and children started reaching 5 on account of vaccines.
The ironic thing is, that single-use plastics play a huge role in maintaining sterile environments in hospitals and we'd be much worse off without them.
The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic… asshole. -- George Carlin
The reason it can recover is the biodiversity, according to an ecology book I read once. As we reduce our biodiversity, the recovery is slightly less certain in an extreme case. Our attempts at biodomes show (at least as of 15 years ago when I read about it) that we don’t actually understand what the minimum mix of species needed for sustainability is
That's kinda the joke. The whole point of humanity is to create plastic, be baked to death in our own waste, and leave behind a wasteland populated by single celled organisms, some insects, and plastic. Carlin's jokes are way too close to the truth and freaking DARK.
I read about plastic raining from the sky years ago. …From people who posted in a conspiracy theory forum because no one would officially acknowledge the problem and they were desperate to bring attention to it. They had photos of people developing serious health problems from it. One case I remember: Someone developed a skin condition with what looked like tiny plastic threads growing on the arms. These people lived in the mountains.
55 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] thread>Scientists recorded a daily rate of 365 microplastic particles per square meter falling from the sky in the Pyrenees Mountains in southern France.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/micro...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026974911...
I suspect that reported air quality metrics like PM10/PM2.5 measure this already. I'm doubtful that 10k plastic particles are landing inside your house simply because external air turnover isn't that fast (only a few per day). Either it's coming from inside your house or the density outside is anomalously high.
The total volume would be <10m3 and peak PM10 is typically less than 5ug/m³ (often less than 1 where I live). A 10um diameter particle is a few nanograms so 10,000 would mean all of the particles in the air are plastic. We know that dust, smoke, and other sources are significant as well.
In your house they are likely much higher as they're coming from your shoes, your synthetic fiber clothes, your carpet, that 25 year old plastic dog your gran gave you.
The carpet fiber dust at my job is insane, I wipe down my plane model every day, and 24 hours later you can see little red/blue/green/tan carpet fibers already accumulating from the foot traffic in the office, if I let it go a week it (and skin/hair etc) will cake on my finger if I run it down.
I don't doubt it's possible to create such an environment, but it's not "natural" or environmental other than in the sense of what you choose (as much as circumstances let you) to live in.
As much as possible, I'd like to encourage you to take the time and effort to back up your statements and to share your knowledge in a way that people like me can appreciate. I know it takes time and you may be thinking, "If I need to back up everything I say, then I won't have time to say anything!". However, I think it's fine to pick and choose your moments (BTW, as you might gather from this message, this is something I also struggle with!) If everyone who read HN posted their opinion without spending the time to show how they arrived at that opinion, we would be buried in meaningless arguments. That's why it is so important for people like you, who seem to know something about the subject matter, to spend that time to make a really quality reply. Everyone will benefit, I feel.
Perhaps you will disagree, but at the very least I hope you come away with the feeling that it is not necessary to experience shame if someone disagrees with you -- indeed, even if you happen to be wrong. Especially if you are wrong, you are the one that benefits the most because you can learn something new. It really is all good.
Certain plastics are used for implants - there must be a good reason for it? Bioreactivity, rejection, degradation? Those and other reasons might be a concern to be thought about in regards to inhaled plastic fibers.
Not to mention if there were issues with the fibrous nature itself (like "fibrous minerals" cause certain diseases)...
>The relative contribution of tyre wear and tear to the total global amount of plastics ending up in our oceans is estimated to be 5–10%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664766/
Surgical masks are made to redirect the exhaled breath of nurses and doctors away from hospital patients.
More seriously, to your point about historical growth + pollution -- (1) this stuff is cumulative and (2) the world is polluting more now than it ever has.
Here's an article on how small pieces of plastic is unhealthy: https://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-features/2016...
I've always found average lifespan to be problematic. Most of the deaths weren't from 65 being the age where old age started to kill. It was on account of how many more infants and children started reaching 5 on account of vaccines.
Found a statistic that states 46% of all deaths in 1910 were due to infectious diseases and now that number has dropped by an order of magnitude: https://demography.cpc.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ID...
The ironic thing is, that single-use plastics play a huge role in maintaining sterile environments in hospitals and we'd be much worse off without them.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/251836-we-re-so-self-import...