For what it’s worth, you don’t need a randomized controlled trial if you can offer an explanation for how microplastics affect human health.
Hence the classic joke “As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data.”
It's a bit too much of an umbrella term for regulation to fix in one swoop, but if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint.
> if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint
The contamination is so widespread and is in things you can't avoid (like the air) but I have made some lifestyle changes that I hope decrease my exposure at least a little bit. I:
- don't drink water out of plastic bottles
- don't use any plastic dishes at home
- switched from using tupperware for food storage to mason jars
- use bedding made from natural materials (mostly cotton)
- prefer clothing made from cotton as opposed to polyester (exception: some exercise clothing)
- don't eat meat (this was not because of concern about plastic, but I think it's helpful here too)
My family mocks me for this, but I also hold my breath when I clean the lint filter in the dryer, because that cloud of dust that shoots up is, I believe anyway, a whole pile of breathable microplastics.
not always an option and to some this entire concern could be considered a luxury.
Who are you trying to communicate this issue to and what solutions are there that they’d find reasonable until governments address it? If it’s simply “don’t buy plastic” then I understand that I’m out of bounds. Perhaps along with many others.
Animal studies seem like the best tool for untangling this, and they indicate that high plastic doses cause a variety of health effects, some of which seem to align with broad health trends we see in our population over time, like in fertility.
It's not like there's zero data to inform the risk calculation.
Yes but in those situations, you typically can at best find associations between variables and outcomes. We really want evidence of causality, although it sort of depends on how you interpret the precautionary principle.
Many of these microplastic studies [1-9] rely on small sample sizes (e.g., n=10 for brain tissue) and detection methods that could pick up contamination from lab equipment itself. It reminds me of when everyone was afraid of BPA
And what defines a “microplastic”? There’s so many different types of plastics that all have different effects on the body
What’s really the health trade-off compared to having to monitor every tiny little thing
>And what defines a “microplastic”? There’s so many different types of plastics that all have different effects on the body
It's not that hard to constrain it to synthetic organic polymers (aka plastics) that are small enough (smaller than 5.0 mm).
Even if there are some exceptions also considered plastics, this already covers 99% of the ones to worry about.
And the effects we worry about are from the presense of millions of hard synthetic micromaterials like that in the bloodstream, organs, and even the brain.
That's enough of a concern for the whole class, before we start to care about them "all having different effects on the body" (which is barely a given).
There are no "millions" of 5mm plastic pieces in your bloodstream. That's about a rice grain. If there would be even a single one between 5mm and 1mm it would cause an almost immediate obstruction.
What part of "smaller than" was difficult to parse?
Microplastics can be defined as < 5mm (e.g. EPA uses that definition), doesn't mean the larger ones are in the bloodstream, or even less so, the brain.
But such "sizable" ones in the environment can and are be broken down, digested, shed smaller micro- and nanoplastics by the loads, and so on.
Do you happen to know whether the worry is about the inertness of microplastics, and hence the physical damage of the particles. Or is it in the plastics being chemically interactive with tissue?
Both cases are considered harmful, the surer and heavier more general case being for the former.
The inertness alone means boost in inflamattion, damaged cells, etc. Just consider that asbestos is biologically/chemically inert too - the issues come from inflammation, scarring, dna damage, etc.
But (and varying per microplastic case on lots of factors: composition, dyes used, etc), the chemical interaction can also play a role.
> What’s really the health trade-off compared to having to monitor every tiny little thing
I'd say that there's sure a health benefit for continuing studies on microplastics. Even if they're difficult to conduct, it's probably a good idea to learn more aboht microplastics and health because, barring some new way to remove microplastics, it seems likely that the ambient concentration of them will only increase in the future.
You can definitely ignore them if you think that ignoring them and putting work elsewhere is a net benefit to everyone. Not every action merits a response.
I agree, I'm not against cheating but high risk high reward. If you're dumb enough to include the lecturer in the very group chat you cheat in then you deserve to fail. The class was stupid to even think they could cheat as a whole class, its like robbing a liquor store with 80 accomplices. What you do is you find a small group of individuals you trust and you cheat together secretly and given how small that group is likely to be you're all forced to learn something.
For the amount of money most universities cost, it would be stupid and irresponsible not to cheat and risk failing a class. Struggling and failing legitimately has no upsides and only downsides, big financial downsides, along with possibly a delayed or no graduation if it cuts their funding.
I would agree with your position if college was either extremely cheap or free. But as a money making endeavor it serves more as a roadblock to prosperity or in numerous other cases a potential pit of debt.
Ah but there's still a huge inefficiency here! Why bother with the offer? Just let them include their four years of tuition to $65 application fee and make the rest of the application optional. You wouldn't want them to waste all that time writing bullshit essays about their passion for their major if they're not going to study it anyways :)
Supporting a "benign neglect" model of cheating is how you get a very expensive degree mill. The perception of others that your institution is a degree mill both degrades the value of those who already graduated with a degree from there and it devalues the research put out by the staff ("oh, look at this paper that came out of that sham university down the road").
There’s also no clear definition of microplastics that I’ve seen. Different plastics have different toxicitiy