[pulvinar]

This appears to be a poorly done study-- they're showing the mechanical effect of possible blockage, but they haven't shown that microplastics here are any different than particles of other inert substances found in our environment: clays, silt, organic debris, etc. Those have always been in our drinking water and the immune system deals with what gets into us.

[crazydoggers]

Studying a single subject does not make it “poorly done”. That’s not how science works. A well done research experiment isn’t going to test everything known to man. They’re focused on microplastics and they’ve shown what microplastics can do in the human body. And even if other substances cause the same issue, it doesn’t negate that microplastics cause the issue.

If others have a hypothesis that “microsilt” (is that even a thing?) causes thrombosis in brain tissues, than another experiment can test that hypothesis.

[therealcamino]

That's one of my pet peeves on hn, the comments on microplastics studies, or I guess any in-progress science in general. If it's a study on the level of microplastic contamination the environment, or levels and sources of exposure, or to what extent it enters the body, people complain that we don't know yet if they cause harm. When is a study on potential harm, people complain that other substances might also cause harm. They complain generally that the studies don't have total answers, without understanding that this is how science gets us to the big picture.

[crazydoggers]

> They complain generally that the studies don't have total answers, without understanding that this is how science gets us to the big picture.

I think this is one of the big disconnects caused by a lack of good scientific education. A scientist’s default state is “I don’t know.” The rest of our institutions, if you say “I don’t know”, they want to kick you out of office, fire you, or call you incompetent.

Truth is discovered step wise, little by little, with lots of groping around in the dark. But our society seems allergic to the concept of not having all the answers served up to us on a dinner plate.

Carl Sagan often was asked, “Do you believe there’s extraterrestrial life” He’d answer, he didn’t know and explain what the data was. The questioner would usually press him asking, “but what’s your gut feeling?”. Here’s his reply:

  But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble.

[drawkward]

The fact that they have always been around suggest that there is no change to us as a result of their introduction. Plastics, however, have not always been around...

[1970-01-01]

Mechanically, how could this make any difference whatsoever?

[drawkward]

do you want to increase your risk of having a stroke (which is what the study suggests is happening with microplastics), or keep that risk level where it is?

put another way: would you go out and smoke cigarettes and expect no additional harm, because you are already exposed to environmental pollutants?

[1970-01-01]

My question was about mechanics of microplastics being different than other materials such as wood or other inorganics.

[drawkward]

how is that relevant to the discussion of the introduction of plastics? wood is not a new material; we are not discussing a rationale for questioning the manufacture of wood.

[1970-01-01]

Rewind up to the original comment.

[pulvinar]

The question is are microplastics doing anything different in this case.

The study shows that microplastics may block. It doesn't show that micro-natural-substances may not also block.

I'd like to see more actual science, and less fear mongering.

[butchkass]

I’d argue that’s just shifting the burden of proof. I’d like corporations to prove that something isn’t dangerous before they put it in the food I eat.

Besides, if other microparticles are dangerous, I’d rather not have even more of those, especially ones that haven’t been through thousands of years of human evolution.

[drawkward]

I understand your claim; so we have lived forever with a baseline stroke risk (maybe zero) that is attributable to these microparticles. The addition of plastics, because they may block, will not certainly lower our baseline risk, and may (as this evidence suggests) increase it.