#105

Could someone post a copy of the entire paper?

Post it as a separate thread.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

“Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events”

List of authors.

  • Raffaele Marfella, M.D., Ph.D.,
  • Francesco Prattichizzo, Ph.D.,
  • Celestino Sardu, M.D., Ph.D.,
  • Gianluca Fulgenzi, Ph.D.,
  • et al.

March 7, 2024
N Engl J Med 2024; 390:900-910

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2309822

#106

Has there been any study comparing the health of for example factory plastic workers with other types of workers?

Plastics have been used for quite long, shouldn’t we have seen the negative health consequences of it already?

1 Like
#107

Did they look at what % of foreign particles were MNPs, and what % were air pollution, and what % were cotton/wood/natural polymers?

1 Like
#108

@AlexKChen what is your probability that microplastics issue is overrated because of climate change activists? I think this is probably severely polluting the discussion.

I think we would have seen massive deaths in certain geographic areas, like near a plastic factory or workers in them, if this was a large problem. There has been people who have been extremely exposed to microplastics, for sure.

My probability that is a large problem is nearing zero percent unless someone can show negative health consequences for those with large exposures, i.e in plastic factories.

#109

Given that the concentrations are increasing exponentially (possibly hyperexponentially), the risk continues to increase.

Not just in the oceans, but also in the soils

1 Like
#110

The study was about the oceans, that it is increasing exponentially you have to ask yourself why? The simple reason is because countries are developing at an exponential rate and producing more plastic. Most of the plastic pollution in oceans come from developing countries without garbage management systems.

The average doubling time seems to be 23 years.

If you avoided all plastics, there are hundreds of thousands who ate lunch every day from a microwaved plastic container. The difference between those people and background levels doubling a couple times for you, is multiple orders of magnitude difference, yet we have not seen lots of health consequences for all the techies eating lunch from microwaved plastic containers? It just does not stand up to closer scrutiny.

#111

Maybe it’s not new plastic that breaks into tiny pieces and enters your body but old plastic that has been in the sun or burned. People in the plastic factory might be safe.

#112

Either way all the wagies that have eaten lunch from their microwaved plastic containers have been exposed to incredible amounts of microplastics. We should’ve seen something by now?

#113

Worth studying is fiberglass

it’s “made of glass” which supposedly is benign but it has caused health issues in workers
But there are many ways to stich together glass, just as there are many ways to stich together plastics (eg Tritan plastics…)

Cotton/woodworkers/leather workers also get exposed to lots of dust and can get sick from it [tho it is often not just the original material, but the additives they add to the wood/leather/cotton]. Still don’t know who in occupational/environmental health I can ask about plastics (maybe ask reddit)

i wonder if “compostable plastics” could be worse to humans b/c they could break down into nanoplastics more easily, without the proper microbial ecosystems that are available outside…

#114

You have to demonstrate it is an extreme health hazard. That someone starts coughing and they are still alive in 10 days and all symptoms are gone isn’t enough:

Unlike asbestos, fiberglass and rock wool insulation have been determined to be not permanently harmful because the macrophages in the lungs are able to break them down and carry them away within about 10 days.

If someone is exposed to microplastics or micro anything, there should be a clear massive increase in mortality in the far tail end of the distribution of exposure with or without genetic susceptibility. If you can’t find that, background levels increasing for you an order of magnitude or two should have a very small effect. Or probably not even if you aren’t that careful about reducing microplastics. There are plenty of examples of people dying from chemicals, not micro particles except apoB. Things have very different effects in the body based on their shape and it is not clear how much is absorbed by the body and circulating, and what role the immune system plays.

#115

New video by Brad Stanfield on microplastics, great one. It’s worthwhile to implement some changes and linen clothes are great and durable.

4 Likes
#116

I just remembered I saw a video awhile back about plastics being fed to pigs:https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellthatsucks/comments/stz2j1/plastic_in_pork/

Basically at least one plant were grinding up old food in their packaging and everything and using it as feed. IIRC it wasn’t an uncommon practice.

Here are the states where garbage feeding is allowed as of 2019, I don’t know what it means exactly:

image
image713×539 47.7 KB

1 Like
#117

Prohibited in Iowa! We feed ours GMO corn.

#118

But I have seen guys too lazy to cut the plastic wrap off hay before grinding. I expect it goes through mostly intact, ending up back in the field as fertilizer.

1 Like
#119

So this caught my eye. Being that microplastics seem so incredibly ubiquitous and almost hopeless to avoid, how did these people have zero detectable levels in their plaque? Certainly goes to show that they are doing something right and that it’s an achievable goal.

3 Likes
#120

So much for CO2 being bad, Huge LOL. CO2 is naturally occurring and abundant in atmosphere without which life on earth as we know it would end (fifth grade science class, doubt they allow it now in science curriculums), and the whole world is up in arms trying to eliminate it (another HUGE LOL) yet the real bad stuff that is killing people in droves every day, you barely/rarely hear about.

1 Like
#121

No alarm yet because the study recently published above is an observational study not controlling for confounders (like possible processed food intake), but it is a personal choice.

1 Like
#122

No you can decant it apparently:

Or carbon block filtration?

2 Likes
#123

This I find hard to believe as water boils at 100 Celsius, and plastic has a higher melting point (i.e. 160-200 degree Celsius). Unless they present compelling evidence in this video (which i did not watch because the title threw me off) I’m inclined to put it in the basket of brainwashed scientists making outlandish claims. I remember growing up in late 70’s where the scientists were alarmed at the prospect of mass starvation by year 2000 (as result of precise scientific calculation where there was simply not enough land to plant for the growing world population, huge lol). Total opposite happened, there was so much food that everybody got fat. If I said that we have enough food and resources to support a world population of 50billion, I think is less outlandish than some claims from very smart scientists lol. So in my opinion boiling water does not reduce plastics in drinking water. However, it does kill bacteria (if present) and might reduce chlorine and fluoride and maybe other unpleasant agents. Just my pragmatic thinking, no proof or science to back it up.

#124

They do in the video.