Personally I think that in the coming decades we'll find out that something that made our life "easier" also brought us higher cancer rates, autism, diabetes etc etc. Life is a trade-off, but as time goes we'll have to choose the lesser evil. Oh, and I am not rushing to buy early studies...time will tell.
I grew up on an acreage, drinking well water in the 80s - I doubt it was contaminated by micro-plastics. We had animals of all sorts. I still have brutal allergies - the irony being that the things I was exposed to the most (we kept horses) is the thing I'm most allergic to.
Pregnant woman feeds in such a way that develops propensity to diabetes in the baby.
Certain exposures to food, bacteria, fungi, protozoa make us hypersensitive to these or other microbes over time.
Your situation with the horses is curious. It may or may not be caused by genetics, I imagine you have already thought about it a lot.
I think the increase in allergies is due to children not being exposed to allergens. It used to be the advice to not feed your child foods that are commonly allergenic but now the advice is reversed.
You think it was always there but autistic kids then were labeled "crazy" or weird? I strongly believe that our hormones and system can be affected by outside things such as pollution (any kind of it)
Why is nobody talking about the fact that kids mis a lot of real-life playing outside in the dirt, and sitting behind a screen... on average 6 hours a day.
Perhaps because it's the easy way, just blame some chemical instead of taking action. If you move to a friendly neighbourhood and have some rules about screentime kids play outside, I know from experience with my own kids.
I'm no expert, but I suspect a strong correlation in autism development and 'hours spend in front of a screen instead of playing outside with peers'.
> I'm no expert, but I suspect a strong correlation in autism development and 'hours spend in front of a screen instead of playing outside with peers'.
Autism is usually diagnosed at 24 to 36 months - you're saying that the toddlers are playing too many video games and not spending enough time building treeforts?
I could be wrong but my interpretation was more along the lines of autism has suffered enough from its connection with vaccine conspiracies; the last thing we should do is start associating it with environmental issues without strong evidence.
Autism rates are stable, and only appear to be increasing due to better diagnosis. Cancer rates are increasing due to people living longer and cancer being more common the older you are. Diabetes is up due to obesity being up.
> Cancer rates are increasing due to people living longer and cancer being more common the older you are.
Then we should just compare cancer rates for people age 20-to-40 who live nowadays to cancer rates for people with the same age from, I don't know, 100 years ago? Or, better yet, compare this to people who don't live in an industrial society like ours.
> Autism rates are stable, and only appear to be increasing due to better diagnosis.
Citation?
"Several large studies have suggested that autism rates have risen steadily in the last 20 years, but this new report suggests that rates may be leveling off. The ADDM Network’s estimated rates also plateaued between 2010 and 2012 (after increasing roughly 123% between 2002 and 2010), but then jumped 30% from 2012 to 2014."
The paper goes on to mention both measurement and environmental factors as potential causes.
I’ll refer you to the discussion on Wikipedia [1], which is fairly exhaustive. The long and the short of it is that we don’t know for certain either way, and all estimates have large uncertainties attached. However, the (tentative) prevalent opinion amongst experts can be fairly summarised as “The reported increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness”. However, it also needs to be said that “largely” here refers to the effect size: most of the increase is probably not due to actually increased incidence. But some of it probably is.
> So basically you concede the original point then.
I’m not “conceding” anything because I’m not arguing against it (I didn’t write the grandparent comment). My comment is intended to provide all the relevant information, not argue against the comment I replied to.
It's hard to believe that. The cancer rates in wildlife have been increasing for a reason, and it can only be explained by pollution in general (not micro-plastics in particular).
The problem is not the microplastics themselves, but the fact that plastic is a very effective sponge for absorbing all sorts of persistent pollutants.
It's even used to collect pollutant samples, due to its huge absorption properties. It can't be good that's for sure, and in many cases, it's being overused.
I'm all for forbidding the use of plastic in many common use cases. My local supermarket sells packs of 4 peaches in a plastic container, wrapped in a plastic sheet.
I always have to take the trash out after grocery shopping, due to all the discarded packages, come on it's ridiculous.
They study belugas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beluga_whale that have a long life so cancer is a threat. They found that they got more cancer that other cetacean. I don't understand the comparison in table 3, because IIUC spotted dolphins have even more cancer, but not the same kind of cancer. They don't compare to the rate of the same animal in other places or before the smelter plants were created.
It looks convincing, but it seams to be a case where there is a contaminated area and an animal that has a long life. I'm not convinced that this is a general trend for all wildlife.
Belugas are a well known handbook case for contamination accumulating in life beings. Not because they live long (Pines live much longer than Belugas, but do not store the same amount of metals and pesticides). Is because, they are coastal and have a fat layer of blubber. Contaminants are often lipophilic and accumulate in the fat layer. The body of belugas act as a garbage trap.
Yes, some packaging seems ridiculous but so is food waste. People typically won’t consume good that doesn’t look appealing, such as bruised peaches in your example. My wife and I started using Imperfect Produce, and we’ve been fairly pleased with it as it seems to address both problems.
Fruit that doesn't look appealing can be (and is) made into juice which people are perfectly happy to drink (and other products like that). Isn't that a better solution?
depends what stage of distribution you catch "unappealing" fruit. if a peach gets bruised on the last mile of shipment to Walmart, it's probably not economic to juice it in the store or ship it back it.
also the supply of unattractive fruit probably exceeds demand for most kinds of fruit juice. most people I know only buy orange, apple, grape, or cranberry juice.
Imperfect Produce: "if you can believe that folks throw out worse-looking produce rather than sell it at stores _you_ would never frequent, make other products from it, feed livestock with it, etc, boy howdy have we got a feel-good story for you!"
I think we're all getting comfortable with the idea that humans are now regularly ingesting and breathing microplastic particulate matter, AND that we're not dying from the chemical accumulation of these particles.
But that doesn't negate what marine biologists are pointing out with more urgency: that at the smallest end of the food chain, these particulates are being mistaken as food, with consequences yet unknown.
"...we're not dying from the chemical accumulation of these particles" Can you provide more evidence for this statement? National Geographic writes only: "We haven’t yet seen the consequences" and there is a huge step from "we haven’t yet seen consequences" to "we're not dying... of these particles"...
In other news plastics often mimic estrogen and sperm count down all over the world drastically. Plastics need to be simply banned or highly regulated, and we should also worry about nano particles invading our environment uncontrollably. We have alternatives and the massive corporations that peddle most of the food and drink around the world is more than capable of affording to switch to better alternatives even if it costs them some of their profit.
nah, they would pass on the cost to the consumer. The consumer would go for the cheaper product which would be the manufacturer that uses plastic. So it would need to be enforced by regulation.
Different societies already find ways to minimize the importance of other humans, it makes sense that it is worse for things that are not considered human.
Yesterday I was playing around with some PTFE nanopowder and mixed it with achohol and applied it on my mountain bike chain.
I am wondering if I throw this powder in river, are water cleaning units able to remove nano particles from the water? Not that I am going to do this, just curious.
Unfortunately you are right. But what can be done? There are dry PTFE lubricants available in market and they work so well compared to traditional Grease in dusty environment that I don't see people giving up these.
to play devil's advocate, yes. people expose themselves voluntarily to significantly more direct and harmful pollution every year by moving into urban areas. The economic trade-off of eliminating all the goods that these plastics are part of would probably find little acceptance
I think it depends on the source and the quantity "consumed", dihydrogen monoxide is also harmless in moderate quantities, but extremely dangerous if it's not sourced properly or "overused" or if a person has an exposure longer than 5 min while submerged.
57 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadI'm with you in regards to allergies, though.
https://www.livescience.com/57383-peanut-allergy-prevention-...
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32067158
Perhaps because it's the easy way, just blame some chemical instead of taking action. If you move to a friendly neighbourhood and have some rules about screentime kids play outside, I know from experience with my own kids.
I'm no expert, but I suspect a strong correlation in autism development and 'hours spend in front of a screen instead of playing outside with peers'.
Everyone out of the inner city!
> I'm no expert, but I suspect a strong correlation in autism development and 'hours spend in front of a screen instead of playing outside with peers'.
Autism is usually diagnosed at 24 to 36 months - you're saying that the toddlers are playing too many video games and not spending enough time building treeforts?
Then we should just compare cancer rates for people age 20-to-40 who live nowadays to cancer rates for people with the same age from, I don't know, 100 years ago? Or, better yet, compare this to people who don't live in an industrial society like ours.
Citation?
"Several large studies have suggested that autism rates have risen steadily in the last 20 years, but this new report suggests that rates may be leveling off. The ADDM Network’s estimated rates also plateaued between 2010 and 2012 (after increasing roughly 123% between 2002 and 2010), but then jumped 30% from 2012 to 2014."
The paper goes on to mention both measurement and environmental factors as potential causes.
I’ll refer you to the discussion on Wikipedia [1], which is fairly exhaustive. The long and the short of it is that we don’t know for certain either way, and all estimates have large uncertainties attached. However, the (tentative) prevalent opinion amongst experts can be fairly summarised as “The reported increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness”. However, it also needs to be said that “largely” here refers to the effect size: most of the increase is probably not due to actually increased incidence. But some of it probably is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism#Changes...
So basically you concede the original point then. That environmental factors may be increasing autism rates.
I’m not “conceding” anything because I’m not arguing against it (I didn’t write the grandparent comment). My comment is intended to provide all the relevant information, not argue against the comment I replied to.
The problem is not the microplastics themselves, but the fact that plastic is a very effective sponge for absorbing all sorts of persistent pollutants.
It's even used to collect pollutant samples, due to its huge absorption properties. It can't be good that's for sure, and in many cases, it's being overused.
I'm all for forbidding the use of plastic in many common use cases. My local supermarket sells packs of 4 peaches in a plastic container, wrapped in a plastic sheet.
I always have to take the trash out after grocery shopping, due to all the discarded packages, come on it's ridiculous.
Do you have a source for that? It looks difficult to measure, and also most wild species are shortlive so the incidence of cancer is smaller.
They study belugas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beluga_whale that have a long life so cancer is a threat. They found that they got more cancer that other cetacean. I don't understand the comparison in table 3, because IIUC spotted dolphins have even more cancer, but not the same kind of cancer. They don't compare to the rate of the same animal in other places or before the smelter plants were created.
It looks convincing, but it seams to be a case where there is a contaminated area and an animal that has a long life. I'm not convinced that this is a general trend for all wildlife.
also the supply of unattractive fruit probably exceeds demand for most kinds of fruit juice. most people I know only buy orange, apple, grape, or cranberry juice.
But that doesn't negate what marine biologists are pointing out with more urgency: that at the smallest end of the food chain, these particulates are being mistaken as food, with consequences yet unknown.
More: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/05/micropla...
https://images.app.goo.gl/UP5gfr4DBnKq7GvD7
Minimal health risk...
http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/subtheme.php?token=...
EDIT: (because i don't want to offer a second chance): are you guys that are down-voting me (a few already) not aware of Schopenhauer?
There is clear evidence of impact in the environment from microplastics.
Yesterday I was playing around with some PTFE nanopowder and mixed it with achohol and applied it on my mountain bike chain.
I am wondering if I throw this powder in river, are water cleaning units able to remove nano particles from the water? Not that I am going to do this, just curious.
Here are some numbers: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2017/ra/c7ra0569...
"Not that I am going to do this," Sure, but eventually you'll wash your chain, and reapply the powder. So the particles end up in the river anyway.
If you're interested, read up on how PTFE is produced. Specifically the case in WV and Ohio with DuPont's precursor PTFE plant.
That said, motor oil with a brush, wipe it off, ignore dirt between oilings was shown to be the best for motorcycle chains, not sure about sprockets.