[mandmandam]

Yep. Specifically, why are 100% cotton socks so ridiculously hard to find now?

It used to be that they were a little more expensive - now you need to go online to find them.

'Fun' fact - the average brain has about 7 grams of microplastic [0] in it now, up 50% from 2016. At that rate...

SEVEN FUCKING GRAMS. Guys this is beyond stupid.

Even if plastic were totally inert, as I've heard people insist with certainty (where are they getting these ideas!), 7 grams of plastic in your brain is terrifying.

0 - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-...

[Terr_]

I wonder if anyone's done a study for similar-but-natural compounds... Does lignin accumulate? Could we find a whole bunch of it in the brains of carpenters?

[roncesvalles]

>Specifically, why are 100% cotton socks so ridiculously hard to find now?

My theory is that it's because of Amazon reviews. For most socks on Amazon, there will be at least one reviewer posting pictures of how their socks got holes after a few days of wearing. These reviewers are ridiculous and seem to have sandpaper for flooring, sweat corrosive acid, or deliberately wear down these socks just to post the review. I've bought many different socks from Amazon and none of them get holes even after years of wearing them.

Anyway, I think that seems to have spooked socks manufacturers.

[layer8]

> Even if plastic were totally inert […], 7 grams of plastic in your brain is terrifying.

Why do you find that terrifying, if it’s inert?

To the downvoters: This is a genuine question.

[timr]

Also, don't worry, there's not actually 7 grams. The study that suggested that was ridiculously bad.

When you extrapolate 100,000-fold from uncalibrated micro-scale experiments, you get insane results, but the typical internet reader doesn't get past the abstract of the paper and instantly activates panic mode, instead of questioning the insanity.

[mandmandam]

"Don't panic, it might only be 3 and a half grams of plastic in your brain."

The correct amount of brain plastic is 0 grams. Zero. This is a problem and it's very clearly getting worse.

Why would I have to explain that to someone with a PHD in biology? So weird.

[timr]

Let's assume you're right, and there's 3.5 grams of plastic in your brain (there isn't, but let's run with it).

You've been secretly living with this horrible condition for long enough for it to happen -- remember, this is happening a nanogram at a time, for years and years! This is not a fast process!

Are you dead? No? Hm.

Perhaps you ought to rethink your priors. I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong -- maybe the right answer really is that "0 is the right number". But maybe the answer is that it doesn't matter that much, and you're exaggerating the impact. More to the point, when you simply leap to the most exaggerated conclusion from a bad paper with sketchy methodology, you're not doing science, or being data-driven -- you're just panicking.

[carimura]

Panic, no. Take seriously, yes! There are at least a dozen common health problems that we still can't explain.

[mandmandam]

> Let's assume you're right

Why assume? There's multiple studies showing microplastics in human brains. Are they all "sketchy" too?

What organ in the body hasn't been shown to be contaminated? Significant and increasing levels have been found in lungs, livers, kidneys, spleens, intestines, hearts, placentas, blood, fat tissue, lymph nodes... All sketchy studies in your view? No? Then why the exception for brains?

Microplastics have been found from the top of Everest to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. They're in 60-80% of all wild species examined. Sketchy? Exaggerated? Bring the data if you have it. It would want to be very strong stuff..

To loudly cast doubt on a study like this, and claim you know the weight of microplastic in people's brains is under 3.5g, you'd want to bring some substance... You haven't brought any; none at all.

> Are you dead? No? Hm.

Do I really need to explain that health is a spectrum - that 'alive' is not equivalent to healthy? That "not immediately sick" isn't the same as thriving? Binary thinking isn't very helpful on issues like this, and it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith when you say things like this as if you've made a substantive point.

> Perhaps you ought to rethink your priors.

Which priors are those - that I don't want foreign substances accumulating in my brain, much less most brains on the planet?

Why would I? This is a plausibly catastrophic scenario, and you've brought absolutely no evidence that it isn't. None. At all.

> maybe the answer is that it doesn't matter that much, and you're exaggerating the impact.

I don't want to roll the dice on this one, and I think that's the only sensible approach. We have all sorts of alternatives; they're just not quite as 'cheap'.

People have posted elsewhere in the thread about a growing body of scientific links between nasty health outcomes and higher levels of microplastic in people's fleshy bits. You ignored that though... Why? ... Do you have a vested interest? Are you scared that this could actually be an issue, and you don't want to face it? What are your priors - that if you haven't keeled over yet then you're healthy?

> maybe the right answer really is that "0 is the right number"

It is. There's no conceivable advantage from having more than that.

> maybe the answer is that it doesn't matter that much, and you're exaggerating the impact

It's baffling to me that anyone would assume that it's fine and dandy that we're finding increasing amounts of plastic in human brains, or even deny it. To me, that's a ludicrous leap of faith; requiring an utterly unhinged level of naivety or optimism.

> maybe ... you're just panicking.

... You remind me of that old cartoon about climate change - "What if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

[intelVISA]

Hopefully it's not a result of the cerebral plastics..?

[lo_zamoyski]

Because chemical effects are not the only undesirable effects something can have. E.g., mechanical, electrical.

In any case, in one study [0], "researchers looked at 12 brain samples from people who had died with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. These brains contained up to 10 times more plastic by weight than healthy samples." Another [1] found "nanoplastics accelerate the aggregation of β-amyloid peptides" and that they exacerbate "the neurotoxicity induced by low-concentration peptides".

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/...

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...

[abeppu]

Even if they're _chemically_ inert, physical accumulation of particles of foreign matter in your brain might be causing problems. When it gets inside of cells, is it in the way of any processes? When it's between cells, does it trigger scarring? Do the particles clog capillaries? And because the study referenced was only able to find these particles via autopsies, if microplastics in your brain were causing health issues for you, you probably would never find out or be able to mitigate.

[brnt]

The simple answer is that it isn't supposed be there. The more interesting one is: how much would you say is too much? Would a kilo of microplastics towards the end of your life do it?

[layer8]

When it has adverse effects (and no benefits), then of course it’s too much. But GP seemed to be saying they find it terrifying even assuming no adverse effects, which I found curious.

A huge number of people have implements in their bodies (in their teeth, most often), and much more than seven grams of “foreign stuff” in their stomach and intestines all the time, so that by itself doesn’t seem anything to be terrified of.

[klipt]

> In Italy, researchers followed 312 patients who had fatty deposits, or plaques, removed from their carotid artery. Almost six in 10 had microplastics, and these people fared worse than those who did not: Over the next 34 months, they were 2.1 times as likely to experience a heart attack or stroke, or die.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/...

[brnt]

Implements that you put there are different from those you don't put there.

That doesn't seem very complicated, does it?

[mandmandam]

> But GP seemed to be saying they find it terrifying even assuming no adverse effects, which I found curious.

It being in my brain is an adverse effect. Inert material in the brain is a problem itself.

Do you want inert rocks in your car engine? Taking up space, interfering with natural processes, etc?

The brain is incredibly complex; far, far, far beyond our current understanding. You don't want anything in there that isn't supposed to be, and plastic isn't fucking supposed to be there.

And, did you miss the part where this is up 50% from only 8 years ago?

... Tbh I'm aghast that anyone needs this explained to them.

[marmadukester39]

it’s more the unknown effects. It’s not clear this stuff is actually inert.

[throwway120385]

Would you be so blase if it were 7 grams of diesel exhaust or coal particulates instead?

[beowulfey]

Even things that are chemically inert can cause problems in our bodies. Silica is similarly chemically inert, but silicosis is a devastating disease.