Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_jca8wet wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

riazrahman t1_jcacrmg wrote

They found micro plastic would disrupt neural crest cells of developing embryos, but are most developing embryos in the world exposed to those levels of microplastics yet is my question

128

RRoyale57 t1_jcag1of wrote

Replying to ChessCheeseAlpha (#2,234,781)

DuPont invented polyester and it’s in everything!!!! It’s literally polyethylene that’s made to feel like cotton but it’s plastic! That nice super plush blanket you have is most likely made of 100% polyester. Now go cuddle up with it for 8 hours. Then wake up and put on clothing that contains it too. It’s everywhere!

86

Darryl_Lict t1_jcbdnjr wrote

Welp, the world and humans are even more fucked than I thought. I'm glad I gestated back in the paleolithic era where not everything was plastic.

37

Chiperoni t1_jcblmh0 wrote

Not saying microplastics are good, they most certainly are not, but the title is alarmist. They used levels way more than a person would be exposed to and introduced them directly into chicken embryos. I'd think you'd get malformations with tons of seemingly innocuous things at high concentrations.

37

KahuTheKiwi t1_jcc9b4l wrote

Replying to RRoyale57 (#2,234,978)

Along with the pollution and micro fibre threats it also affects fire safety. For instance I have read that in the 1950s average time to flashover (when enough heat is generated from a fire to spontaneously ignite other objects) was 25 minutes. And it is now 15. This is due to the amount of oil in a modern house - carpets, furniture, clothing, etc being made of oil products; polyester, plastic, etc, as opposed to the slower to ignite products like wool, wood, etc.

Ironically cars and resulting congestion means that for the city I heard this discussed about (Auckland, New Zealand), in the 1950 a fire engine could reach any house in 15 mi utes but it is now up to 30 minutes at times of the day.

9

KahuTheKiwi t1_jcc9s46 wrote

Replying to Chiperoni (#2,237,247)

The early science of threats like this, cigarettes, pesticides, climate change, etc always have to first prove the effect. Later studies can then determine levels and risks.

However given what we know of cigarettes and climate change we can assume the companies making the product are years ahead of well publicised science.

24

DooDooSlinger t1_jccifkt wrote

Replying to LordIndica (#2,236,290)

The answer is no. The question is not about detectable levels but about levels comparable to these leading to the effects in the article. The article itself mentions that the levels are not even remotely close to those found in any organism.

26

DooDooSlinger t1_jccj2r7 wrote

Replying to KahuTheKiwi (#2,238,515)

That's absolutely not how science works. Give an animal an overdose of any medication or substance and it will die. You can even overdose on water. None of this gives any indication of the potential negative effects of a substance. What matters is to understand the effects of doses actually absorbed by organisms. Nobody would care about a study evaluating the safety of giving 100g of sugar per kg of body weight to children because that doesn't ever happen.

2

Lyotan t1_jccv1mr wrote

Replying to riazrahman (#2,234,819)

You asked the right question. So I spent 2 hours reading this paper and the recent study on microplastics in human blood. (linked near the end of the paper)

Fair warning i am not a qualified scientist.

1st, the metrics aren't truly comparable because we aren't good at measuring microplastics yet? This paper used known lab prepared samples. Meanwhile, the blood study was very limited by the minimum level of detecting any quantity of plastic and inability to count the number or size of particles.

2nd, the blood study restricted itself to filtering out only microplastics >700nm, the chicken study used a few 1,000nm and 500nm particles for certain parts of the experiment but the most work was done with 25nm specifically because it was the most lethal to chicks in their previous study.

3rd, and possibly most important, the point of this paper was to find where the nanoplastics preferred to go in embryo development and if they had any specific potential effects. ESPECIALLY in regards to new microplastics based medication and treatment options being explored right now.

TLDR: After looking at the human blood study concentrations and how much passes through the placenta, we aren't nearly at the level used in the chicken experiment. But microplastic levels are only going to increase, even if we all stop using plastic today. Importantly, microplastic medication/treatments in development need to take extra cautions in further study.

26

mohelgamal t1_jcdiysf wrote

Replying to riazrahman (#2,234,819)

They don’t get exposed to that dose, so the damage would be limited as of now, but overtime, since these PFAs accumulate at a much higher rate than they degrade, the level we are exposed too will rise steadily

4

Dry_Contact4436 t1_jcdmtnp wrote

well our current and future generations are not gonna function properly

2

Lyotan t1_jcen28t wrote

Replying to MovingClocks (#2,241,539)

Oh I have no idea, unfortunately. The fact that they even have embryonic medications and treatments these days is amazing.

If you read what I typed earlier as "medication for treating microplastic complications", it was intended as "medication based on using microplastics as a key ingredient"

It is in extremely early theoretical testing, it seems? https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abm5551 The OP paper seems to be suggesting caution on this line of study.

We already have many non plastic nanoparticle medications, and the number is accelerating with technology.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/List-of-globally-marketed-nanomedicines-approved-by-the-FDA-and-the-EMA_tbl1_357704523

1

PsychologicalLuck343 t1_jcfwq2y wrote

Stop wearing plastic clothes, people. Throw them away. Buy natural fabrics and quit supporting fast fashion. It's the least we can do. Polyester, acrylic and nylon are just gross, anyway.

Can't afford a wool or cotton sweater? Save up or buy thrift. Stop following fashion seasons. It's a completely artificial way to value others and yourself. I got a 100% cashmere cable sweater for $15.

0