[makotech221]

Very amusing that after decades of warnings about microplastics, there haven't been any studies to move beyond the point of 'maybe they cause issues'. We can all only assume that they do, of course, because any normal society not entirely captured by capital would allocate money to research this topic thoroughly. The fact that we haven't means that they know it causes issues but it would be costly to do cleanup.

[seuraughty]

People are researching it, there is funding for it [1]. It’s a challenging thing to research.

Is it microplastics or nanoplastics or both?

How many types of plastic are there, half a dozen? What type of plastic do you want to test, what about multiple plastics in different proportions?

It can be difficult to identify mechanisms behind adverse reactions to more obvious stressors, let alone something like this which appears more chronic, long-term, and insidious.

1. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-ES-23-0...

[Filligree]

> How many types of plastic are there, half a dozen?

Several dozen major ones, starting at cellulose.

And before you think I'm missing the point: Well, no, cellulose didn't biodegrade for what IIRC several hundred million years. That's why there's no such coal.

It still barely biodegrades.

[Enginerrrd]

Not to mention, good luck finding adequate controls in humans.

[uoaei]

You would have to do comparative and longitudinal studies. Or at least some kind of factor analysis.

[someotherperson]

Or there is no big enough sample size to compare against. How do you even establish a baseline without a control group?

[ssnistfajen]

Because there is no apparent acute symptom of microplastic contamination inside our bodies that have been identified yet. If microplastics have even a fraction of the harm of actual carcinogens like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (which can lodge in DNA strands), we'd be witnessing mass illness events already.

[mattigames]

That's too optimistic to be point of being naive, substances in general only cause damage above certain threshold, so there is high possibility that we are not seeing widespread harm because it hasn't reached that threshold on most people.

[Nasrudith]

Plastic is chemically inert which should raise the threshold quite significantly. The question that needs to be answered is "What does/would acute plastic poisoning even look like?" I am by no means an expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if mechanically it could lead to increased clotting for the same reason sediment clogs pipes.

Even if it requires 'macroplastics' concentrations to cause problems, inert still doesn't mean harmless. One example which comes to mind is that senescent cells are 'inert' compared to cancer cells and they appear to be responsible for /have a role in aging's damage to tissues.

[ssnistfajen]

And? Where is the threshold? Science is not based on vibes. Starting a movement without evidence is called mass hysteria.

[mattigames]

Science has pretty much determined the ill effects of global warming and we haven't stopped that despite the overwhelming evidence, why makes you think there would be a significant movement over this issue -that like you correctly point out its highly speculative-?

[consteval]

> we'd be witnessing mass illness events already

We ARE, it's just that nobody cares (or can figure out why)

50% of men will get cancer. Autoimmune diseases become more prolific over time. Fertility has been spiraling for decades. Mental health issues are on the rise.

[userbinator]

haven't been any studies to move beyond the point of 'maybe they cause issues'.

People don't get any engagement and media sensationalism for finding no evidence. Now that society is biased towards that instead of truth, "maybe" is the best they can do.

[tirant]

Actually any society captured by capital would allocate exactly the amount of money that people have the interest to allocate to the topic of microplastics either via donations from regular citizens, Philanthropists or as part of the budget of research institutions and Universities. And it is probably the most capitalistic societies the ones that can raise the funds to finance this type of research. In this case, by the University of Nee Mexico in the US.

[htamas]

There are studies on microplastic toxicity already. These are linked directly in the OP article:

Even at low concentrations (1–30 µg/ml), photoaged microspheres at 1 and 5 µm in diameter exerted more pronounced biological responses in the A549 cells than was caused by pristine microspheres. High-content imaging analysis revealed S and G2 cell cycle accumulation and morphological changes, which were also more pronounced in A549 cells treated with photoaged microspheres, and further influenced by the size, dose, and time of exposures. Polystyrene microspheres reduced monolayer barrier integrity and slowed regrowth in a wound healing assay in a manner dependent on dose, photoaging, and size of the microsphere. UV-photoaging generally enhanced the toxicity of polystyrene microspheres in A549 cells

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10176241/

Maternal exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics has been shown to result in fetal growth restriction in mice. [...] Maternal exposure to both microplastics and nanoplastics resulted in evidence of placental dysfunction that was highly dependent on the particle size. The umbilical artery blood flow increased by 48% in the microplastic-exposed group and decreased by 25% in the nanoplastic-exposed group compared to controls (p < 0.05). The microplastic- and nanoplastic-exposed fetuses showed a significant decrease in the middle cerebral artery pulsatility index of 10% and 13%, respectively, compared to controls (p < 0.05), indicating vasodilation of the cerebral circulation, a fetal adaptation that is part of the brain sparing response to preserve oxygen delivery. Hemodynamic markers of placental dysfunction and fetal hypoxia were more pronounced in the group exposed to polystyrene nanoplastics, suggesting nanoplastic exposure during human pregnancy has the potential to disrupt fetal brain development, which in turn may cause suboptimal neurodevelopmental outcomes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37724921/

PS-MPs can decrease transepithelial electrical resistance by depleting zonula occludens proteins. Indeed, decreased α1-antitrypsin levels in BEAS-2B cells suggest that exposure to PS-MPs increases the risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and high concentrations of PS-MPs can induce these adverse responses. While low PS-MP levels can only disrupt the protective pulmonary barrier, they may also increase the risk for lung disease. Collectively, our findings indicate that PS-MP inhalation may influence human respiratory health.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31727530/

(TL;DR; they are affecting our bodies for the worse, even as feti)