I wonder if all the articles talking about the prevalence of microplastics, are in actuality demonstrating the safety of microplastics.
If it is in 93% of bottled water, and bottled water is used by millions of people (according to https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/should-we-brea... around 110 Million people in the US avoid drinking tap water), then there has been widespread exposure to microplastics.
It does not seem like there has been huge health consequences due to microplastics, so microplastics are probably pretty safe for humans.
There was a WHO study published just last month[0] which did not find any dangers associated with microplastics in drinking water. One of the conclusions mirrors your reasoning:
"Although it is not possible to draw any firm conclusion on toxicity related to the physical hazard of plastic particles, particularly the nano size particles through drinking-water exposure, no reliable information suggests it is a concern. Humans have ingested microplastics and other particles in the environment for decades with no related indication of adverse health effects."
Sounds like PFAS (a byproduct from teflon production). Researchers struggle to find any humans who don't have it in their bloodstream, even in remote areas. It causes birth defects.
Fun Fact: the "compostable" paper bowls offered by many fast casual restaurants like Chipotle contain this chemical, and will leech into the soil if you try to compost them.
"The Devil We Know" is a pretty unnerving documentary on this subject.
"From 1973 to 2011, there was a decline of more than 50 percent in sperm counts among men living in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand."
"The researchers said that they cannot determine from their data what might have caused the decline, but it could be related to environmental or lifestyle factors."
The world is full of chemicals right now. One day, humanity will look back at the last 100 years (and probably the next 50) and wonder what we were thinking.
That is still an overly broad category to be worried about in general... just because something is synthetic doesn't mean it is more or less dangerous than a non-synthetic thing.
Non-naturally occurring chemicals, or at least chemicals that we weren't traditionally exposed to in great abundance. Like laundry detergent and conventional shampoo. Those are probably terrible for the environment. When we ban one, companies just create another one.
Toxicity is one measure. What about endocrine disruption? What ability long-term effects like cancer? And that's just for humans. We don't know how some of these compounds that end up in our waterways are affecting marine line.
There’s a lot of logical leaps your making hear. It might not be immediately deadly, but it could have lots of long term subtle effects. For example, it may contribute to cancer rates or obesity. Some people suspect it contributes to low sperm counts among men. All of these would be consistent with the current widespread consumption patterns.
The longer term, and subtler the effect is, the safer a substance is. My educated guess is that microplastics are going to cause a lot fewer human deaths and ingury than any of the following natural stuff:
Bees, coffee (see acrylamide), peanuts, mosquitoes, arsenic, mushrooms, and bodies of water.
Humans aren't the only thing that will be directly affected though. Microplastics are effectively forever and are already in aquifers and falling from the sky like rain/snow.
That means all life is going to become more and more exposed to microplastics as more and more breaks down. Sure, maybe it'll be not be so bad for a random human but what happens when this stuff starts getting into single cell and small organisms where it is in far greater concentrations?
What happens when phytoplankton, or zooplankton start getting a lot in them and it negatively impacts them? Do you get a collapse of an ecosystem?
What happens when pollinators like bees start getting large concentrations in them?
What happens as it accumulates in soil to the hundreds-to-thousands of species that are found in the first couple of inches of an average square meter of soil?
And here's the real problem... the plastic is already out there, it will break down into smaller and smaller pieces and if we entirely outlawed plastic today and no more was ever made in human history, the number of microplastic pieces would continue to grow for quite a long time before leveling off and then would appear to start vanishing as the pieces just got small enough to avoid detection via affordable methods.
Yeah but that has its own issues. Instead of worrying about your steel car rusting, now you'll have to worry about washing it regularly to keep whatever they make from landing on your car/siding/computer monitor/clothes/carpet/curtains/blinds/window molding/etc from being weakened.
That is a good point, and I agree and would add cars, hammers, sodas, and bread mold. But acrylamide studies are all based on rat models to date. Human studies have not shown the same impact. We have been cooking food a long time and it would not surprise me if we have stumbled on and kept a mutation that makes it safe.
Well consider the median American, or the bottom 20th percentile in health American. They are likely to be overweight and maybe have diabetes. I’m not saying those are caused by microplastics, but it could be. There’s no cohort of people we can compare that isn’t exposed to microplastics.
Maybe, but all sorts of things could have long term effects. Even without plastic, the environment is full of toxic or non-digestible things, like dust, or pollen. Many organisms don't want to be eaten and shed particles that evolve to be non-digestible.
If you worry too much about what MAY be dangerous, you couldn't leave the bed anymore. Remaining in bed is definitely dangerous. Not drinking water is also definitely dangerous.
Microplastics can accumulate in human organs, especially the kidneys and the liver. It could take some time for microplastic accumulation in internal organs to cause serious health issues. I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable being a guinea pig for huge corporations and then wake up one day with the bill due.
Not like similar debacles haven't happened in the past: Tobacco, asbestos, lead, VOCs, the list goes on and on.
We're all a part of gigantic experiment the consequences of which we won't find out for some time.
Lots of people smoke cigarettes, and only incur negative health consequences 20+ years down the line. That doesn't mean that cigarettes are probably pretty safe for humans.
Sure, but in addition, the really serious consequences start only 30 years later. Say we have only subtle or no immediate reaction to plastics, but in 30 years an additional third of us gets cancer.
Indigenous peoples who are less connected to the global economy tend to have 4x+ the gut microbial diversity. Would be interesting to study the link between microplastics and the microbiome.
If it is in 93% of bottled water, and bottled water is used by millions of people (according to https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/should-we-brea... around 110 Million people in the US avoid drinking tap water), then there has been widespread exposure to microplastics.
It does not seem like there has been huge health consequences due to microplastics, so microplastics are probably pretty safe for humans.