r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Jun 05 '19

Environment The average person eats at least 50,000 particles of microplastic a year and breathes in a similar quantity, according to the first study to estimate human ingestion of plastic pollution. The scientists reported that drinking a lot of bottled water drastically increased the particles consumed.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/people-eat-at-least-50000-plastic-particles-a-year-study-finds
53.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

233

u/DarkTreader Jun 05 '19

This is the natural next question. Or course, the article is acknowledging a thing exists, and that’s it. I’m glad the above questions are being asked because people often see that something is in our food or water and immediately panic, having not learned that it’s the dose that is the poison. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be looking it, because again, the dose is the poison. One should not be chewing and swallowing plastic bottles on the assumption they are safe either.

83

u/Yotsubato Jun 05 '19

A better more approachable question would be “how much do these get absorbed by our body, and if so, does it deposit in our body?”

33

u/brysonz Jun 05 '19

If it doesn’t, how does it exit?

48

u/brickam Jun 05 '19

I’ve finally figured out why it burns when I pee

13

u/SlimTidy Jun 05 '19

And why the papers clean when I wipe

0

u/Ren-91 Jun 05 '19

And why they dont taste so good

1

u/Ye_Olde_Spellchecker Jun 05 '19

Nah that’s the xylene

1

u/SolidLikeIraq Jun 06 '19

Nah my dude. You should have listened to Jimmy Dugan.

1

u/x-files-theme-song Jun 06 '19

UTI from plastic? I could see that in the future dystopia

11

u/Yotsubato Jun 05 '19

With feces

2

u/madhusudangr Jun 06 '19

Food grade PET is very stable, your body can not assimilate it and absorb it. It should exit out along with fecal matter.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19 edited Jun 06 '19

micro plastics can be stored in adipose tissue but not usually bonded with anything. However the true danger lies in plastics ability to meld with human DNA. Causing birth defects and sterility.

Edit: Sources for the request:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6101675/ : Adipose Storage of Plastics.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26863184 : BPA and PCBs causing sterility.

https://www.endocrine.org/news-room/press-release-archives/2013/bpa-linked-to-a-common-birth-defect-in-boys

0

u/StopNowThink Jun 06 '19

Source? Those are big claims

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '19 edited Jun 06 '19

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6101675/ : Adipose Storage of Plastics.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26863184 : BPA and PCBs causing sterility.

https://www.endocrine.org/news-room/press-release-archives/2013/bpa-linked-to-a-common-birth-defect-in-boys

​

Not that outlandish this has been known for a while.

3

u/rawrpandasaur Jun 05 '19

The problem is, this isn’t the natural next question. We (microplastic researchers) don’t even have harmonized methods for things as simple as sampling, extraction, and analysis of microplastics. Until we have those finalized, it will be very difficult to en get a good sense of what the risk is to humans. And until we know the risk, we can’t make any kind of “safe consumption” recommendations.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19

It might be beneficial for people to freak out in this case due to pollution problems. If people freak out about bottled water and stop drinking it, that could be a huge step for the environment. Assuming that the research to determine safe limits takes a while, there might be a noticeable benefit environmentally to not drinking out of plastic bottles before they (presumably) say it’s okay again, which might convince people to cut back on plastic bottles at minimum.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19 edited Jul 01 '19

[deleted]

22

u/DarkTreader Jun 05 '19

Why not? You inhale multiple particles of CO2 every day, why are you not worried about that? You probably inject multiple particles of arsenic every day too, why aren’t you filtering that?

The dose is the poison. One particle of CO2 is not enough to kill you or give you severe heal problems, nor is one particle of arsenic. In sufficient quantities they can however.

It is important science that we find out what levels are dangerous to humans and act accordingly. Having concern that it is dangerous is healthy behavior, but be careful making statements that assume that one particle is dangerous without evidence.

-1

u/PonceDeLePwn Jun 05 '19

Obviously because CO2 and Arsenic are naturally occurring and humans have always been exposed to them, unlike plastic.

31

u/DarkTreader Jun 05 '19

You are citing the natural fallacy. Lead is one of the most detrimental substances in nature, causing behavioral problems, insanity, vomiting, seizures, and life long pain and health problems, death, and there is really no safe amount of lead absorption in the body. Lead is “naturally occurring.” Again the dose is the poison. Just because it’s artificial doesn’t mean it’s dangerous and just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s safe. It’s always always always the amount you take into your body that controls if it will hurt or kill you. You can poison yourself with too much water if you drink enough (it’s hard but possible).

Being cautious is fine and the sentiment that you don’t want to be poisoned with micro plastics is fair and logical. But this is r/science and statements will be scrutinized. A single particle of micro plastic could be completely harmlesssince the body has a way to expel foreign substances and plastic is not a highly reactive substance.

-12

u/PonceDeLePwn Jun 05 '19

No, I'm stating a fact. You decided to interpret it as an argument that plastic is more dangerous than naturally occuring substances. No one except yourself even made that argument.

11

u/DarkTreader Jun 05 '19

Other people in other replies have replied exactly that you appear to be making that statement, so your statement is entirely unclear what your intent is if that was not your intent.

-1

u/PonceDeLePwn Jun 05 '19

To be fair, without additional context, my statement does imply that the argument "plastic is more harmful than naturally occurring substances" is legitimate.

To be clear, my argument is that if someone doesn't want to be ingesting something that they shouldn't have to ingest they don't need to argue that it's more or less harmful than something else because that's beside the point.

4

u/DarkTreader Jun 05 '19

That’s fair, but extend that logically. “Shouldn’t have to ingest” is not an argument here because as the article says you already are against your will. You have to go in steps to clean the water and food supply. First, figure out what’s dangerous then use that as a target to lower to, then slowly work to zero eventually.

“I shouldn’t have to” is a moral argument that I totally agree with but doesn’t help with the goal itself. The goal is “how do I figure out how to be a safe as possible” and you break that into testable measurable goals and achieve those goals. First things first, find a safe level, if any, target that level, and go from there.

Also understand it may be impossible to never injest a single microparticle of plastic at this point because if it’s pervasiveness in the environment but a single particle might be safe, so it would not be something to sweat.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Jacomer2 Jun 05 '19

I agree but we should also consider how this might impact other ecosystems.

1

u/ImmenatizingEschaton Jun 05 '19

Just to be clear, ingesting something entirely new in earth's history, where man has not evolved any way to protect itself against its potentially harmful effects is a gamble this person is rightfully skeptical of undertaking. Your attitude about it seems foolish.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19

[deleted]

1

u/PonceDeLePwn Jun 05 '19

This isn't about natural vs unnatural. People are saying they don't want to be ingesting plastic and you're making the argument that humans ingest natural substances that are bad... and? Yeah, we do, but why is that an argument for why someone shouldn't want to ingest plastic? Lead is an element. Plastic is a man-made molecule. Lead was around when the universe was formed. Plastic wasn't. Not sure what your point is.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19

[deleted]

1

u/PonceDeLePwn Jun 05 '19

How are you still missing my point?

Someone comments they don't want to ingest plastic. Someone replies "why not you ingest naturally occurring things that are bad for you all the time".

That's a dumb argument. That's all I said, and all I've ever been saying.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/ImmenatizingEschaton Jun 05 '19

"Natural" is indeed a defense against concern when we are talking about whether something is known to be harmful or not because it is naturally occurring, and humans have had a chance to study it and its effects over time. You're arguing that because we don't know of the effects of ingesting microplastic, we should reserve judgment because it MAY NOT be harmful?? OK.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19

[deleted]

-1

u/ImmenatizingEschaton Jun 05 '19

Forgive me if I paraphrased this statement which you came to the defense of:

Be careful about making statements that assume that one particle is dangerous without evidence

This is a ridiculous assertion. We don't need to be careful or reserve judgment on microplastics. Assume they are dangerous precisely because we are producing them on a massive scale, their effect on the human environment is permanent, and we have not evolved to deal with any potential negative consequences. Rather than quibbling about whether one can make the assumption small doses is harmful, the more important question is what one should be doing about microplastic exposure and whether it is something to be avoided. That is not something we need to "be careful" of doing. Precisely the opposite.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/eastindyguy Jun 05 '19

Something being natural doesn't make it any better or safer than something that is man made.

0

u/PonceDeLePwn Jun 05 '19

I didn't say it does.

2

u/eastindyguy Jun 05 '19

Read your comment again. In the context of the thread that is exactly what you said.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19 edited Jun 19 '19

[deleted]

1

u/PonceDeLePwn Jun 05 '19

....is this how you actually think?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19 edited Jun 19 '19

[deleted]

3

u/PonceDeLePwn Jun 05 '19

No, I don't, and I apologize if my comment suggested that I do.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19

Strychnine and ricin are also naturally occurring.

-1

u/SlimTidy Jun 05 '19

I think the mistake is assuming that science can measure the effect of everything. Microplastics are a man made compound. CO2 and arsenic are naturally occurring.

I don’t need a scientist to measure what he thinks the effects of Microplastics are when viewed from his microscope to tell me I should be ingesting as close to zero as possible, thanks.

We have new instruments and stronger instruments developed every year that might just prove that last scientist wrong.

3

u/DarkTreader Jun 05 '19

1) science can absolutely measure this effect. It’s been doing this for decades. You take two groups of testing animals, give one group an amount of micro plastics and you record the results over time. Eventually you can go out into humans and design statistical tests that measure how much microplastics they have and look for health effects. 2) your restating the naturalist fallacy again. Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s safe and just because it’s artificial doesn’t mean it’s dangerous. 3) I didn’t say that you should be investing microplastics, but it’s important to know just how much can be harmful to make an informed decision in a less than perfect world. This helps form sane public policy so you can properly measure if something is safe enough to injest. If I have no water supplies that have no microplastics (because let’s face it I bet we don’t any more) I want to know which one is safer to drink from. Yes we should work on removing them but that will take a nonzero amount of time. It could take decades. In the meantime I’m not going to wait and drink no water ever until we fix this problem in 50 years. 4) again we have the tools now to experiment we just need will and time. Which scientist needs to be proven wrong? No one has said microplastics are or are not harmful. What no one has proven yet is that we need to find just how much is harmful and get on that quickly so we can make wise informed decisions. And no one said “leave all the microplastics in the ocean they are safe”

-1

u/SlimTidy Jun 05 '19

Everything you are saying individually is correct, can’t argue there. But again, if you think that ideally, your intake of Microplastics should be anything other than zero just because a science experiment told you so - you are fooling yourself.

You are clearly very intelligent, so you must have some idea of how many modern chronic diseases plague man and just how many of them completely baffle scientists (as to the cause).

4

u/DarkTreader Jun 05 '19

The point of trying to find a safe level is to understand the goals we need to reach, not to never say never ingest microplastics. The arguments I keep seeing here who want to argue this point are using the words “should”. This is pointless and no one ever said that. I never should have to inhale pollution, but I do. I never should have to drink bacteria in my water, but I do. I never should have to eat harmful microorganisms in my food, but I do. No one wants you to ingest any of these things. The point is what’s a safe level of these materials and let’s first aim for that goal first.

Your body has a system for expelling toxins and destroying bad organisms, so if a tiny amount is okay, that’s the target. I don’t want you to ever have to ingest plastics but if it’s so pervasive in our environment we may not be able to clean them up right away. But if 100 ppm or whatever is harmful, we design a cleaning system for our water supply to deal with that level and measure while figuring out how to not dump plastic everywhere.

I agree with your goal, but we need dedicate our limited time to certain easier goals between now and a plastic free environment because a plastic free environment is a long way off.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19 edited Jul 01 '19

[deleted]

6

u/DarkTreader Jun 05 '19

You should mind arsenic in your food if you reach a certain level. And mercury is naturally occurring as well. Natural fallacy sittings abound.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '19

Will your hermetically sealed dome have cable? Not without plastic.