[epistasis]

Perhaps, but we really don't know the harm.

And if the exposure is as universal as it sounds, then we can place some upper bounds on the amount of harm. With asbestos, the exposure was somewhat limited, but had greater consewuences. With plastics, we are all getting it.

[ethanbond]

What upper bounds? One of the higher-confidence hypotheses of the effects of plastic contamination is reproductive disruption. Since these plastics bioaccumulate and pass from mother to child, there’s reason to worry about intergenerational accrual of reproductive damage.

So as far as I can tell, the “upper bound” of harm is reproductive collapse of our species?

[thereddaikon]

>What upper bounds? Well we know it isn't acutely toxic because people aren't just dropping dead inexplicably. And we know it isn't drastically raising cancer rates because, again those haven't inexplicably shot up.

[ethanbond]

> people aren't just dropping dead inexplicably

Another pretty decent hypothesis of plastic contamination's effects is obesity (it's been seen both in vitro and in non-human animals). People absolutely are dropping dead en masse of obesity and related complications, and while obesity is proximally explainable (calories), the explanation of why people are consuming so many more calories is contested, at best.

So I don't think we know enough to say confidently that people aren't just dropping dead inexplicably.

[thereddaikon]

IIRC there is some evidence of hormonal changes related to some volatiles associated with certain types of plastics. That might have something to do with it. But Obesity can also easily be explained by more mundane things like terrible diet and lifestyle and there's a huge body of evidence to show that if you change those, you lose weight.

>So I don't think we know enough to say confidently that people aren't just dropping dead inexplicably.

Well proving a negative is impossible. Further research into the potential health effects is needed. But at this stage I think worrying over every report that we found plastic in more and more places isn't cause for alarm until we actually know its dangerous.

[ethanbond]

Here's what we have:

1) In-vitro and animal model data showing metabolic and reproductive harm from plastic contamination

2) Plastics continuing to be found contaminating more and more things that humans interact with or ingest

3) Strong evidence that this contamination bioaccumulates within individuals

4) Strong evidence that this contamination accumulates across generations

5) Strong evidence that this contamination is approximately impossible to remove from water and soil

6) Strong evidence of very similar metabolic and reproductive harms that have been found in-vitro and in animal models showing up across extremely broad swaths of the human species.

I would buy into the, "no alarm until we know it's dangerous" approach if there were a way to undo the harm after the fact, or if there were a way to quickly "know it's dangerous," or if this contamination wasn't covering pretty much the entire globe, but none of those things is true.

We have no method to ascertain population-scale danger prior to that danger being pretty much irreversibly realized.

I've identified what would change my position from alarmed to not-alarmed. What, concretely, would change your position from not-alarmed to alarmed? There is no way to do a randomized controlled trial of plastic poisoning. So what would constitute "knowing" it's bad for us?