#209

I wonder if anyone has been asking the question of how much of a factor microplastics might be in the unhealthfulness of “ultraprocessed” foods, since these are almost universally packaged (and often cooked) in plastics? Granted the food is usually less healthy in its own right, but IMO it’s still important to try and tease this out so that we don’t have the possible illusion that “ultraprocessed yet healthy” food is still ok for our health, given that it too is almost always packaged in plastic.

1 Like
#210

Rhonda Patrick has some ideas on how to minimize micro plastics exposure, in a short video on X / Twitter :

Screen Shot 2024-08-22 at 10.21.39 AM
Screen Shot 2024-08-22 at 10.21.39 AM980×1088 73 KB

Watch the Video Here:

https://x.com/fmfclips/status/1826643701570916849

3 Likes
#211

Canned food?? Maybe it’s lined with plastics, but how much compared with food WRAPPED in PE plastic?

#212

It’s a bit annoying that people are suggesting we limit plastic exposure before we know how harmful it is.
Meanwhile 95% of the population has enough atherogenic lipoproteins. It’s good because it’s “natural”, right?

Okay, and what’s the background rate in plastic factories?

#213

There are always going to be variations in people’s willingness to take on risks given uncertain outcomes… whether its taking rapamycin because it may increase your lifespan, or whether you decide to reduce micro plastics getting into your body because they may cause problems… and shorten your lifespan.

While obviously its “early days” in terms of the research on the impact of microplastics in the human body, there is some reasonable evidence that reducing your microplastics intake is probably not a bad thing, though we don’t know for certain if these risk estimates are accurate yet:

3 Likes
#214

"The researchers found that 24 of the brain samples, which were collected in early 2024, measured on average about 0.5% plastic by weight.

“It’s pretty alarming,” Campen said. “There’s much more plastic in our brains than I ever would have imagined or been comfortable with.”

Brain samples that are half of one percent plastic by weight. Feel free to not be alarmed and wait for more research.

4 Likes
#215

So you believe brains are 0.5% plastic?

1 Like
#217

If microplastics are harmful, and if humans are being exposed to more microplastics, then we’ll start seeing a clear trend of shortened lifespan & healthspan because of it.

Is my logic solid here? If it is, then when should we start seeing clear evidence of the negative effects?

How many years of no evidence would it take for all of you to concede that there’s no danger from microplastics – five years? 10 years? 25? 50?

(I’m not trolling here; I’m legitimately curious. I know very little about microplastics.)

#218

Lastly, clearance rates from the brain are unknown for polymer particulates. The lack of correlation with the decedent age suggests that an equilibrium occurs and may depend on genetic, dietary, and lifestyle factors that ultimately contribute to the wide between-subject variability in MNP concentrations. In zebrafish exposed to constant concentrations, nanoplastics uptake increased to a stable plateau and cleared after exposure16; however, the maximal concentrations were increased proportionately with higher exposure concentrations. While the time course for kinetics is assuredly longer in humans, we postulate that the exponentially increasing environmental concentrations of MNPs1,17 will analogously increase internal maximal concentrations, which is corroborated by our finding that total plastics mass concentration in brains increased over 50% in the past 8 years.

#219

We should’ve seen this for people in plastic factories, or people who microwave their food in plastic containers. I doubt this is much of a problem until someone can show increase death rates or disease in those scenarios.

No, but for the 0.5% of the brain is plastic claim, I doubt it.

2 Likes
#220

Nobody claimed that. These were small 3-5cm samples from the frontal cortex only, that contained, on average, one half percent plastic. They didn’t measure plastic in the whole brain, so levels in other areas may have had more or less than an average of 0.5%. I guess we’ll see what the final paper says, if it’s published, but I’d still be alarmed if the number were 0.1%.

#221

Good, I missed that wasn’t explicitly claimed. Lots of unknowns still like why plastic factories aren’t extremely terrible, unless there is such data. Does that mean that you have to eat the plastic?

Lots of problems with the article / pre-print:

https://x.com/salonium/status/1826554635970330764

1 Like
#222

PFC is one of the most important parts of brain, I’d be EXTREMELY alarmed if plastic levels highest in this region

Also, the effects are almost certainly non-linear (harmless below a certain threshold, then suddenly becoming harmful, sometimes MUCH more so once it crosses a threshold)

It’s the trendlines that are truly truly concerning.

2 Likes
#223
#224

tbh microplastics are also a reason to not become an athlete or run marathons because the increased total flux of everything will just get more microplastics trapped in tissues (if you eat MORE food and breathe more air due to need to exercise, more plastic will get trapped in b/c all food contains MP by now)

(I mean exercising to the extreme limit - the benefit after X hours goes way down, and additional microplastic flux is… an added issue…)

#225

No - we have no idea of the harm levels from micro plastics generally, and specifically with regard to increased exercise, and we have many long term benefits of exercise…

I think you’re just trying to rationalize not exercising :wink:

4 Likes
#226

Of all the threats to us, It would be ironic if mankind went extinct due to our penchant for plastic water bottles and food wrappers (to simplify it a bit):

Scientists have shown that microplastics — fragments up to 5 millimeters long (less than 0.2 inches) — can cross the blood-brain barrier, and the toxins pollute even far corners of Earth, as well as the most vital parts of our bodies. A new study revealed that nanoplastics can escape through blood vessel walls and accumulate at high levels in developing hearts, livers, and kidneys, as Phys.org reported.

A team led by Leiden University biologist Meiru Wang injected chicken embryos with europium- or fluorescence-tagged polystyrene nanoplastics, which were either 150 nanometers (0.00015 mm) or 1 micrometer (0.001 mm) to mimic the size range of nanoplastics in the environment. In addition to the aforementioned findings, it discovered that some of the particles were excreted through the kidneys.

The authors also said that a previous study that showed nanoplastics caused cardiac defects in chicken embryos by damaging the neural crest may have come to at least an incomplete conclusion and that damage to the heart’s cushion tissues could play a role.

1 Like
#228
1 Like
#229

Need to stop feeding them so much plastic.

2 Likes
#230

Probably about 20 years ago I became very nervous about the potential leakage of plastics and plasticisers into food and drink. I threw out any utensils with Teflon coatings and only cook in stainless steel or glass now.
Recently I read about the plastic leaching into water from plastic bottles. I rarely drank that but I did drink sugar-free cola, so now I buy it exclusively in glass bottles.
Plastic chopping boards and utensils such as soup ladles have also been exchanged for wooden boards and metal utensils.
I won’t use a Whipper Snipper in the garden anymore as the plastic line breaks into tiny pieces and these go into the soil.
Plastic! It’s everywhere and I HATE it!

4 Likes