[cmuguythrow]

I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet?

Quick search shows that we knew about lead hazards as early as the 1920s/1930s, but it took until the 1970s to get regulation about lead paint and gas - hoping we don't repeat that in this case

[raincole]

> Is the science not clear enough yet

No.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8

(https://web.archive.org/web/20250211144614/https://www.natur... if you need)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39900298/

[ibbih]

Are the mouse studies not worrying enough for you to change your behaviour?

[nick238]

"Your" behavior??? The second you try to put this on individuals, you lose the plot and it turns into another "personal carbon footprint" scam like what BP pulled in 2004[1]. The only way out of this is public policy and international cooperation.

I don't know what the most common sources of microplastic particles are, but the messaging needs to be such that people know we aren't getting rid of all plastics, just the stupid ones that are most responsible for potentially harming us. I think straws were banned because there was a video of a plastic straw stuck in sea turtle's nose, not because they're one of the top sources.

[1]: https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...

[sixtyj]

In micro and nano scale things can behave differently so it is quite hard to decide what to ban.

Plastic straws and caps attached to bottles - reason was that there are too many of them and people don’t behave properly and don't throw things in the trash and throw them on the ground where they are eaten by animals. At some British beach they counted >100 caps per 100 m (or something similar, it was a surprising number).

[suncemoje]

In contrast to “personal carbon footprint”, micro plastics do affect _your_ long-term health. Still, there’s a limit to how much you can avoid it.

[jstummbillig]

If historically worries that arose in mouse studies replicated with high reliability in humans, we would not wait for the results of human trials to apply what we learned for mice to humans on anything of importance.

It's not that we want to do humans trials. We do it because, apparently, it has been observed that it's unreasonable not to do it before applying something we observed in mice to humans.

[onion2k]

Are the mouse studies not worrying enough for you to change your behaviour?

Change to what?

[wombatpm]

Animal models have flaws. They have doubled the lifespan of the naked mole rat, which has done bupkis for humans.

[rocqua]

How well does the link need to be proven before we act?

The fact that we haven't found the causal link yet is not proof that there isn't one. And a whole lot of correlation suggests that there is. Why should we not take this as yet another reason to regulate throwaway plastic?

[BobaFloutist]

>How well does the link need to be proven before we act?

I'd settle for "at all, even a little."

[goelbab]

It’s hard for science to prove because there’s no control group - everyone is exposed.

There’s also no clear definition of microplastics that I’ve seen. Different plastics have different toxicitiy

[tshaddox]

For what it’s worth, you don’t need a randomized controlled trial if you can offer an explanation for how microplastics affect human health.

Hence the classic joke “As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data.”

[ibbih]

It's a bit too much of an umbrella term for regulation to fix in one swoop, but if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint.

[adriand]

> if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint

The contamination is so widespread and is in things you can't avoid (like the air) but I have made some lifestyle changes that I hope decrease my exposure at least a little bit. I:

- don't drink water out of plastic bottles

- don't use any plastic dishes at home

- switched from using tupperware for food storage to mason jars

- use bedding made from natural materials (mostly cotton)

- prefer clothing made from cotton as opposed to polyester (exception: some exercise clothing)

- don't eat meat (this was not because of concern about plastic, but I think it's helpful here too)

My family mocks me for this, but I also hold my breath when I clean the lint filter in the dryer, because that cloud of dust that shoots up is, I believe anyway, a whole pile of breathable microplastics.

[bossyTeacher]

What about the containers your food comes in? These days its very hard for fruits and vegs not to be in contact with plastic

[ibbih]

Preliminary studies show that you are actually drastically impacting your plastic intake. Try brushing your teeth with nonplastics too!

[breakingcups]

Could you explain why?

[IAmBroom]

Plastiphobia, mostly.

[tolerance]

And not buying plastic is

not always an option and to some this entire concern could be considered a luxury.

Who are you trying to communicate this issue to and what solutions are there that they’d find reasonable until governments address it? If it’s simply “don’t buy plastic” then I understand that I’m out of bounds. Perhaps along with many others.

Nice looking page.

[SeanAppleby]

Animal studies seem like the best tool for untangling this, and they indicate that high plastic doses cause a variety of health effects, some of which seem to align with broad health trends we see in our population over time, like in fertility.

It's not like there's zero data to inform the risk calculation.

[coldtea]

Science works with cases with no control groups all the time

[dekhn]

Yes but in those situations, you typically can at best find associations between variables and outcomes. We really want evidence of causality, although it sort of depends on how you interpret the precautionary principle.

[rpdillon]

Yes, but teasing apart causality and confounding variables is very difficult.

[pohl]

Plastics are largely a petroleum product, right? That particular resource extraction industry pretty much has a lock on public policy.

[113]

Governments aren't doing much about climate change and the science is very clear on that.

[p1necone]

The science is very clear on microplastics existing and being in our bodies.

The science linking that to specific outcomes/harm is almost non existent from what I understand.

Edit: to those downvoting - I'm not downplaying anything here, I agree they're concerning and we should be worried - just stating the fact that as far as I know the research on outcomes is very inconclusive at this point.

[rose-knuckle17]

If the current US government started doing anything about it right now, i would immediately regard it as 100% horseshit. America won't be in any position to lead ... anything scientific, medical or even thoughtful for a generation or two, at least.

I know there are still people hanging on in their fields trying to do the right things, but the bullshit engine in DC is so strong now that nothing is believable. If you are working in scientific research in America today, your only career goal needs to be emigration.

[nullorempty]

>I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet?

Government is always on your side!