[yadingus]

I think you severely underestimate not only how long effects can take to show, but how long and complicated it can be to fund good long term scientific studies.

There's this belief that if something has an effect, it'll just show up magically on the news after the minimum amount of time, without taking into account all the hurdles people have to go through to research. Even if you didn't have powerful companies with interests against the research being published, it would be complicated.

[jcutrell]

I think the point is that we don’t see the major spikes that the ubiquitousness of plastics combined with the alarm levels raised by headlines like this would theoretically produce.

If plastics are indeed poisoning us, the hazard ratio seems to be small enough that it would require significant research to quantify.

Compare to, say, the lung cancer skyrocket that happened in the 70s-90s from the 30-year smoking habits developed in the 40s-60s.

With plastics, either the lag time for effects is really long, the effects themselves are so spread out that any meaningful bump for a single one is hard to identify, or we are reducing other causes of the same issues in lock step.

[kelipso]

There could be observable effects that haven't been widely attributed to microplastics yet. Eg. the decrease in male testosterone over the last few decades.

[hinkley]

Microdosing can also result in slow development of symptoms. Is everyone fat because of sedentary lifestyles? Endocrine disruption? Maybe plastic ingestion makes people lazy. We don’t know because almost no one has asked. And now you can’t even create a control group to study it.

[akvadrako]

If it takes that long we'll all be dead before the effects show up.