It says the plastic pollution in the clogged arteries are toxic, is that true? It was my understanding that they don't actually know what effect the plastics have on the body, and people just assume the effects are bad (not unreasonably).
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
59 points (100.0% liked)
collapse of the old society
977 readers
53 users here now
to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, specifically compounds that leach out of the plastic. This has been known for several years. Here's a recent article that goes over some of the things that leach out and the problems they create https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723062939 Follow the citations for more details.
Thank you for the article, it looks like there is a lot in the way of getting a clear picture of how much plastic additives and their leaching impact health, but I do think plastic additives have been clearly shown to be toxic and bad for the health. I always feel it is ironic when "BPA-free" is used as marketing, as it isn't disclosed what other additives they might be adding to that particular plastic, even if it doesn't use BPA (or whether the plastic even would have had BPA in the first place).
Some plastics can leach chemicals which can have toxic effects on the body.
But overall this question is silly. "Toxic" can be defined as "capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous". So even if it's not necessarily chemically or poisonously bad for the body, clogged arteries can cause injury and death via heart attacks and or strokes regardless of what is clogging them. So unless someone is trying to argue that microplastics found in the clog didn't help contribute to the clog to any degree it's clearly having a bad effect on the body.
So this is like trying to debate if a stainless steel knife found in someone's heart could have had a "toxic" effect on their body.
So unless someone is trying to argue that microplastics found in the clog didn’t help contribute to the clog to any degree it’s clearly having a bad effect on the body.
Yes, I would assume that the presence of the microplastics in the plaque is not contributing significantly to the accumulation of the plaque or the development of the heart disease, since it is the plaque accumulation that causes the heart disease and the presence of microplastics is more like the presence of other bioaccumulators in higher-trophic organisms (like vitamin B12, mercury, or strontium-90).
I do agree this is like talking about the toxicity of the stainless steel of the knife found in someone's heart - clearly the problem here isn't the material of the knife and whether it is toxic, but the fact that someone was stabbed. Likewise, the problem is the accumulation of the plaque and the heart disease that follows - the focus on the microplastics is irrelevant except that it is concerning if we later find out microplastics are causing disease.
The only reason I'm focusing on whether the microplastics are indeed toxic or not is because that is a big claim, and if found to be true would be really big news. It sounds like that hasn't been demonstrated yet, though I want to look at the link zero_spelled_with_an_ecks sent, it looks like the article talks about leaching from microplastics that may have more clear health impacts.
I don't mean to be nit-picking, in university classes professors have discussed microplastics like in the context of agriculture and food-supply and my professors basically said the science is not out yet about what the effects of microplastics are, even if everyone felt they were probably bad there wasn't evidence yet as to how they were bad. I couldn't tell if the headline was implying there was a breakthrough in the science, and looking now it just seems like there hasn't been one and it's just more of the general sentiment that plastics are probably bad.
Yes, I would assume that the presence of the microplastics in the plaque is not contributing significantly to the accumulation of the plaque or the development of the heart disease, since it is the plaque accumulation that causes the heart disease and the presence of microplastics is more like the presence of other bioaccumulators in higher-trophic organisms (like vitamin B12, mercury, or strontium-90).
The study that is linked to in the article did find that "patients with carotid artery plaque in which MNPs (Microplastics and Nanoplastics) were detected had a higher risk of a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up than those in whom MNPs were not detected."
That should be enough to make a valid claim that microplastics can be "toxic" given that their presence has been correlated to higher risk of injury or death. Then there's also knowledge of how they can leach and pose certain risks to people and ecosystems and so on.
The only reason I’m focusing on whether the microplastics are indeed toxic or not is because that is a big claim, and if found to be true would be really big news.
I think the problem here is that it's already mostly known that they're probably bad so that's not very news-worthy, but yes there's no 100% conclusive evidence that they're the direct cause of harm yet. It's like the state cigarette smoking was in before there was 100% conclusive evidence that it causes lung cancer. Sure, there was already plenty of evidence that it was clearly unhealthy, it clearly contained various unhealthy things that would obviously have unhealthy effects on the body, and it was correlated with higher risk of death... but it didn't make the big headlines until it did get that 100% conclusive evidence. And just like cigarette smoking mircoplastics have trillion dollar corporations that will use their bags of money to delay, confuse, and obstruct efforts to reduce microplatics because they want to continue profiting off their products so IMO any statements like "we won't know until there's 100% proof!" should be taken with many grains of salt. There's already more than enough evidence to know that the sooner things are done to decrease the spread of microplastics the better.
Oh wow, yeah - the sample size is small but if I were playing devil's advocate (which apparently I'm doing here, lol), while the correlation seems clear the cause could still be some other common root cause - maybe the same reason they have a diet heavy in plastics is separately why they had worse health outcomes, so it would be nice to reproduce this correlation and try to control for those kinds of differences. Just as an example of what I mean: perhaps the reason they have more plastic is because they ate more fast food, and fast-food happens to have more plastics in the food, but the causal mechanism for the worse health outcomes could come from the fast-food heavy diet, rather than just the presence of plastics in the plaque which happens to coincide with the worse diet. This is not meant to be proof it isn't the plastics, I am just trying to show how hard it can be to move from demonstrated correlation to causal connections.
Still, if they can find a causal mechanism that explains how the microplastics are playing a role, that will be huge. It certainly seems like good enough evidence to be wary of microplastics.
Your comparison to cigarettes is apt, especially the way that the industry manipulated the public. I also agree that there is sufficient evidence to decrease microplastics, I just look forward to that causal mechanisms being discovered that demonstrate the ways they harm us.
That's what this study from last March says (see link in the description):
A total of 304 patients were enrolled in the study, and 257 completed a mean (±SD) follow-up of 33.7±6.9 months. Polyethylene was detected in carotid artery plaque of 150 patients (58.4%), with a mean level of 21.7±24.5 μg per milligram of plaque; 31 patients (12.1%) also had measurable amounts of polyvinyl chloride (...)
This just shows the plastic is found in the arterial plaque, ~~not that the plastic has a toxic effect on the body~~.
EDIT: The article in question did find a correlation with the presence of microplastics in the plaque and worse health outcomes compared to those without microplastics detected in their plaque:
In this study, patients with carotid artery plaque in which MNPs were detected had a higher risk of a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up than those in whom MNPs were not detected.
I totally could be wrong, but I thought when they discover microplastics cause some kind of health condition that would be huge news.
Searching around, I found this article talking about the known toxic effects of additives like BPA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920297/
But I don't think that demonstrates the toxicity of microplastics accumulating in the body.
This article had more promising citations to follow-up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics_effects_on_human_health
Looks like I misread your question.
It says the plastic pollution in the clogged arteries are toxic, is that true?
My understanding is that the title defines plastic as toxic in general. In the article there is another link from EPA which
...has deemed some PFAS compounds that have been more readily studied as toxic to humans.
For the first time ever, the EPA passed laws this year limiting certain PFAS in drinking water, and Colorado passed laws that will eventually ban the sales of certain products with PFAS, like dental floss and feminine hygiene products.
Right, but PFAS isn't even plastic, it's a chemical used as a coating to make things like take-out containers waterproof. PFAS is its own environmental catastrophe, but it doesn't relate to whether microplastics are toxic.
Plastic itself isn't toxic, in fact plastic is biochemically inert (not a source, but further reading on Wikipedia). Various additives to plastic have been shown to be toxic, but those are less relevant to discussions of accumulating microplastics in the body.
Some contexts would be more likely to have negative health impact from microplastics, like when there are larger particles of plastic in the air that factory workers get in their lungs, maybe those particles could cause mechanical damage to the lungs that lead to cancers or other conditions.
That is speculative, and it shows we need more studies to find ways that microplastics impact health, but the title is a little misleading characterizing plastics as toxic in the context of microplastics in arterial plaque, since that is not demonstrated to pose a health risk (even if we all agree it is concerning and may pose some kind of health risk we aren't yet aware of).
Was the answer yoga? 🤣