Claim: Plastics, including Microplastics, Are Inert, Indigestible, Non-Toxic, and Safe

[beku-mant]

One problem I have always had with some of the common approaches within skeptical crowds, has been the application of skepticism and Occam's razor to dismiss potential public health issues. I've noticed this in conjunction with excess trust in authority, lack of appreciation of uncertainty and nuance, and a general and overly simplistic view towards "alarmists" and contrarian scientists. The PFAS scandal, in where a 30+ year joint industry and government coverup finally broke down, is a good example. I remember years ago, before the official acknowledgement and regulation of PFAS, being "mobbed" (similarly to how I've been mobbed here about UFOs) by groups of "pro-science" skeptics, when I brought up studies showing potential harmful effects and raised caution about their use.

I think these are good examples of areas of knowledge seeking and utilization, where the principles of skepticism, as generally practiced in the mainstream skeptical communities, can fail us to great detriment. The fact metabunk hasn't touched the topic yet might be a testament to that problem.

Requiring an extraordinary level of evidence that something is harmful to your health before concerning yourself and doing something and defaulting to the simplest explanation that it isn't, doesn't always work out. Pointing to various examples of obvious health quackery and conflating it with more serious questions/topics, also doesn't workout so well. I would argue the UFO topic is another example. We shouldn't be satisfied with an Occam's razor explanation, trust our authorities are truthful and/or handling it responsibly without transparency, and stop there, when the stakes could be so high. But that's a digression.

It would seem now that learning about, acknowledging, and doing something serious about the dangers of microplastics may be the next revolution.

Plastics advocacy groups are claiming plastics and microplastics are relatively harmless, and blame anti-science manipulation for the "myths" that they pose public health threats. I would argue they are leveraging this (IMO) flaw in the skeptical community that I've tried to describe, in trying to shed doubt on the dangers.

Micro-plastic particles are far too big to penetrate the gut wall and then circulate through our network of capillaries. And how much matters, as I often say. Discarded fishnets may be harmful to aquatic creatures, but so is catching fish and eating them.

Yet, many people still want to believe that micro-plastics are inside us to support their need to resist science, which deprives them of the comfort of miracles.

https://www.plasticstoday.com/mater...estible-non-toxic-and-widely-myth-understood-

New studies seem to be pouring in now that show microplastics are accumulating all over the place in our bodies, including: lungs, placentas, testes, sperm, penises, livers, kidneys, joints, bone marrow, the brain, the placenta.

Bioaccumulation of Microplastics in Decedent Human Brains Assessed by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11100893/

Matthew Campen, PhD, Regents' Professor in the UNM Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, remarked:

If we're seeing effects on placentas, then all mammalian life on this planet could be impacted. That's not good.

Microplastics in Every Human Placenta, New UNM Health Sciences Research Discovers
https://hsc.unm.edu/news/2024/02/hsc-newsroom-post-microplastics.html

Some research is even finding that microplastics may even play a role in causing or worsening the effects of Alzheimer's and dementia.

Impact of nanoplastics on Alzheimer 's disease: Enhanced amyloid-β peptide aggregation and augmented neurotoxicity
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389424000979

And the scale of plastic pollution is staggering.

The proliferation of plastic products in the last several decades has been extraordinary. Quite simply, humans are addicted to this nearly indestructible material. We are producing over 380 million tons of plastic every year, and some reports indicate that up to 50% of that is for single-use purposes – utilized for just a few moments, but on the planet for at least several hundred years. It's estimated that more than 10 million tons of plastic is dumped into our oceans every year.

https://plasticoceans.org/the-facts/

It's in our clothes and bedding, and the lint in our dryers, in the dust in our homes, in our food, in our water, and in our air.

Microplastics: A Real Global Threat for Environment and Food Safety: A State of the Art Review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9920460/

 

[deirdre]

One problem I have always had with some of the common approaches within skeptical crowds, has been the application of skepticism and Occam's razor to dismiss potential public health issues. I've noticed this in conjunction with excess trust in authority, lack of appreciation of uncertainty and nuance, and a general and overly simplistic view towards "alarmists" and contrarian scientists. The PFAS scandal, in where a 30+ year joint industry and government coverup finally broke down, is a good example. I remember years ago, before the official acknowledgement and regulation of PFAS, being "mobbed" (similarly to how I've been mobbed here about UFOs) by groups of "pro-science" skeptics, when I brought up studies showing potential harmful effects and raised caution about their use.

I think these are good examples of areas of knowledge seeking and utilization, where the principles of skepticism, as generally practiced in the mainstream skeptical communities, can fail us to great detriment. The fact metabunk hasn't touched the topic yet might be a testament to that problem.

Requiring an extraordinary level of evidence that something is harmful to your health before concerning yourself and doing something and defaulting to the simplest explanation that it isn't, doesn't always work out. Pointing to various examples of obvious health quackery and conflating it with more serious questions/topics, also doesn't workout so well. I would argue the UFO topic is another example. We shouldn't be satisfied with an Occam's razor explanation and stop there, when the stakes could be so high. But that's a digression.

It would seem now that learning about and acknowledging the dangers of microplastics may be the next revolution.

Is this opinion chapter/essay really necessary?

 

[beku-mant]

Is this opinion chapter/essay really necessary?

Just trying to seize an opportunity to encourage growth and understanding beyond the narrow scope of medical and environmental sciences relating to plastics.

 

[Mendel]

Many plastics have been recognized as unsafe for years.

Article:

That unexpected ingredient is something called a plasticizer: a chemical used to make plastic more flexible and durable. Today, plasticizers—the most common of which are called phthalates—show up inside almost all of us, right along with other chemicals found in plastic, including bisphenols such as BPA. These have been linked to a long list of health concerns, even at very low levels.

Source: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/the-plastic-chemicals-hiding-in-your-food-a7358224781/

You cite a claim that they're safe, but the guy writing for PlasticsToday doesn't really bring any evidence to the table to support that claim.

 

[JMartJr]

Just trying to seize an opportunity to encourage growth and understanding beyond the narrow scope of medical and environmental sciences relating to plastics.

Medical and environmental science would seem to be the total science necessary to talk about safety of plastics, though. maybe add chemistry. Astronomy and geology and such would seem irrelevant, for example. ^_^

Plastics advocacy groups are claiming plastics and microplastics are relatively harmless

Relative to what? Compared to a lot of things, they are indeed relatively harmless, but so what?

Beyond that, I got swamped by your post. Maybe try to be a bit more succinct going forward (and yes, I recognize the irony of THAT coming from ME! ^_^)

 

[deirdre]

Just trying to seize an opportunity to encourage growth and understanding beyond the narrow scope of medical and environmental sciences relating to plastics.

then you should skip boring your audience and jump right into facts. also if you debunked something you should label it debunked, not "claim".

 

[Mendel]

Claim:

Article:

[Plastics] keep us healthy, as they don't support bacteria (as wet paper does) and, thus, prevent sickness and help in the cures.

Source: https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/plastics-are-inert-indigestible-non-toxic-and-widely-myth-understood-

The data in "Persistence of Pathogens on Inanimate Surfaces: A Narrative Review" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7916105/ ) shows that plastic surfaces "support" bacteria and viruses quite well, and often for longer than organic surfaces such as wood, paper, or cloth.

Examples:

 

[Ann K]

@beku-mant
You quote a phrase,

Yet, many people still want to believe that micro-plastics are inside us to support their need to resist science, which deprives them of the comfort of miracles.

I have no idea what that means, especially the part in bold text. Can you elucidate?

Campen gives his opinion, but the paper which he discusses, and in which he is one of thirteen listed authors, is a discussion of a new method by which to ascertain the quantity of plastic. Far down at the bottom of this detailed description of methodology is a caveat in the discussion section:

The factors that drive such extreme concentration ranges are not known, nor is it apparent if such concentrations contribute negatively to growth and development of the placenta or fetus, or to other maternal health consequences.

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/199/1/81/7609801

 

[beku-mant]

@beku-mant
You quote a phrase,

Yet, many people still want to believe that micro-plastics are inside us to support their need to resist science, which deprives them of the comfort of miracles.

I have no idea what that means, especially the part in bold text. Can you elucidate?

Campen gives his opinion, but the paper which he discusses, and in which he is one of thirteen listed authors, is a discussion of a new method by which to ascertain the quantity of plastic. Far down at the bottom of this detailed description of methodology is a caveat in the discussion section:

The factors that drive such extreme concentration ranges are not known, nor is it apparent if such concentrations contribute negatively to growth and development of the placenta or fetus, or to other maternal health consequences.

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/199/1/81/7609801

I was emphasizing the strategy that the plastics lobby is using to shed doubt on the are, or likely-to-be, harmful effects. They are casting people who warn of the dangers as anti-science, faith-based believers of an unproven claim. I was pointing out the dangers of that perspective, which exploits/manipulates people by promoting the misuse of skeptical thinking, to make their claim (not harmful, and not a risk) sound more rational and scientific than it actually is.

Often the potential health effects of contaminants can remain in a low-information-zone, or be framed as such, in order to justify lack of regulation, or to counter concerns from the public, to protect monetary or economic interests. Risks to profit are put ahead of risks to public health. But as we have learned, this can have devastating consequences that are hard or impossible to undo, such as the contamination of ourselves and our biosphere with PFSAs (forever chemicals) and microplastics.

 

[Mendel]

@beku-mant
You quote a phrase,

Yet, many people still want to believe that micro-plastics are inside us to support their need to resist science, which deprives them of the comfort of miracles.

I have no idea what that means, especially the part in bold text. Can you elucidate?

• Many people believe that micro-plastics are inside the human body permanently
• This belief resists science.
• Science deprives people of the comfort of miracles.
• Therefore, people have a need to resist science.

Campen gives his opinion, but the paper which he discusses, and in which he is one of thirteen listed authors, is a discussion of a new method by which to ascertain the quantity of plastic.

This heartily disproves the PasticToday's claim that microplastics can't enter the human body ("far too big"). It disproves the claim that the belief that they do and did enter the body is not based on science, but rather on belief in miracles.

Far down at the bottom of this detailed description of methodology is a caveat in the discussion section:

The factors that drive such extreme concentration ranges are not known, nor is it apparent if such concentrations contribute negatively to growth and development of the placenta or fetus, or to other maternal health consequences.

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/199/1/81/7609801

If this is not known, a claim that there are no ill effects from these microplastic concentrations seems reckless.

 

[Mendel]

Medical and environmental science would seem to be the total science necessary to talk about safety of plastics, though. maybe add chemistry.

Chemistry is a treasure trove. Plastics are the main reason modern fires are so toxic, and how intact buildings can become unlivable after a fire because the smoke and soot has poisoned them.

Materials science/engineering: have a terrorist bring a 3D printed gun past the entrance scanner to make a gathering unsafe.

Photodegradation of plastics is fun, too.