Humans Inhale as Much as 68,000 Microplastic Particles Daily, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 75
Every breath people take in their homes or car probably contains significant amounts of microplastics small enough to burrow deep into lungs, new peer-reviewed research finds, bringing into focus a little understood route of exposure and health threat. The Guardian: The study, published in the journal Plos One, estimates humans can inhale as much as 68,000 tiny plastic particles daily. Previous studies have identified larger pieces of airborne microplastics, but those are not as much of a health threat because they do not hang in the air as long, or move as deep into the pulmonary system.
The smaller bits measure between 1 and 10 micrometers, or about one-seventh the thickness of a human hair, and present more of a health threat because they can more easily be distributed throughout the body. The findings "suggest that the health impacts of microplastic inhalation may be more substantial than we realize," the authors wrote.
The smaller bits measure between 1 and 10 micrometers, or about one-seventh the thickness of a human hair, and present more of a health threat because they can more easily be distributed throughout the body. The findings "suggest that the health impacts of microplastic inhalation may be more substantial than we realize," the authors wrote.
The Romans (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Lead is a single poison and the body can just about cope up to a point. After all, those of us alive in the 20th century breathed a ton of the stuff in from car fumes.
The problem with plastic is that it isn't a single chemical, its a whole farmyard of them so it hits the body on a whole host of fronts with different toxic effects.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I've read some theorize the fall of the roman empire might have been connected to pollution...
I'd not be surprised in in the future we find Trump voters had the most brain damage from modern pollution.
Re:The Romans (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read some theorize the fall of the roman empire might have been connected to pollution...
I'd not be surprised in in the future we find Trump voters had the most brain damage from modern pollution.
Don't rural folks, who live in far cleaner and greener areas, typically overwhelming vote conservative?
And it's the pollution-heavy urban areas that typically overwhelmingly vote liberal?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't rural folks, who live in far cleaner and greener areas, typically overwhelming vote conservative?
Do they, though? Some of the worst air quality in California is in the central valley, a vast agricultural region.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they, though? Some of the worst air quality in California is in the central valley, a vast agricultural region.
That's hardly a representative sample. The prevailing winds will come in from the coast. Half of the air pollution will be from cities on the California coast. The other half will be what comes from China and is blown over the sea. Perhaps I exaggerate on how much is from China, but not by much.
Re: (Score:3)
That's hardly a representative sample. The prevailing winds will come in from the coast. Half of the air pollution will be from cities on the California coast.
My understanding, and I live in the Bay Area, is most of the central valley air pollution is from farm equipment exhaust, agricultural petrochemicals, and particulate matter from burning field chaff. Air in the coastal cities is actually pretty clean.
I may gripe about gas prices here but our special formulations seem to have cleaned the air up.
The other half will be what comes from China and is blown over the sea. Perhaps I exaggerate on how much is from China, but not by much.
I respectfully suggest you're way off. Any air pollution generated in China would need to cross 6,000 miles of open ocean. By the time it arrives here, it's thoroughl
Re:The Romans (Score:4, Informative)
Don't rural folks, who live in far cleaner and greener areas, typically overwhelming vote conservative?
And it's the pollution-heavy urban areas that typically overwhelmingly vote liberal?
Pesticides can be quite nasty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Romans (Score:5, Informative)
This is the reason "most likely" why certain trends are up. Cancers? Likely plastic breaking down and releasing hormone-mimicing chemicals. Decreases in fertility? Same. People going gay or transgender? same. Autism? Same. At last the bogeyman to blame everything not genetic we haven't discovered a cure for.
In the grand scheme of things, the entire point of plastic was that it didn't interfere with anything, it just passed through the system harmlessly. That's what Teflon does. However the chemical used to make it stick onto metal C-8 is one of those PFAS chemicals that is one of these forever-chemicals that are causing health problems in people.
Another thing? Oh did you know that the largest source of microplastics in food comes from the actual processing pipeline? That's why chicken nuggets have the highest concentration of microplastics. Another large source? Polyester, every time you wash your clothes, you are shedding microplastics all over your environment.
Unfortunately the only way we're getting microplastics or C8 out of the environment is to find a way to reclaim them from the environment, which means that's one more thing we need to be mindful of when sending stuff to the landfill.
Re: (Score:1)
After all, those of us alive in the 20th century breathed a ton of the stuff in from car fumes.
It also explains an awful lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Lead is a single poison and the body can just about cope up to a point. After all, those of us alive in the 20th century breathed a ton of the stuff in from car fumes.
The only people who think or say that are those who breathed a ton of the stuff in as children. Scientists have long demonstrated and agreed there's no safe quantity of lead in the body. Even the smallest quantities have a negative effect, but of course the larger the quantities the larger the effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have long demonstrated and agreed there's no safe quantity of lead in the body.
It sounds like you don't know what the technical meaning of "no safe quantity" is. If you did, you'd be aware that your audience does not, and would avoid it. What do you even think "safe" means?
Here is an example: there is no "safe amount of time" you can walk outdoors without possibly being struck by a meteorite. Even a walk to the mailbox, it is possible to be hit by an asteroid. Understand? The risk is proportional to time outdoors
But in toxicology, a "safe quantity" means a known amount, below
Re: (Score:2)
No I do know what it means, and that is the very definition. There is no safe quantity of lead you can consume. Every bit of it has an affect on your body and every bit of it bioaccumulates.
Here is an example: there is no "safe amount of time" you can walk outdoors without possibly being struck by a meteorite. Even a walk to the mailbox, it is possible to be hit by an asteroid. Understand? The risk is proportional to time outdoors
False equivalence. You're comparing the risk of a single severe event which if it doesn't occur has zero impact on you, to something which has a continuous linear impact on you.
But in toxicology, a "safe quantity" means a known amount, below which there is zero risk. The amount of the toxin must reach a threshold before any harm is possible.
Yes. You're getting it buddy. Lead no longer has a low threshold for harm. There is no safe quantity to put in your body. Maybe spend less time o
Re: (Score:2)
There is "no safe quantity" of air to breathe.
Every breath contains cancer-causing oxygen, radioactive particles, and maybe asbestos fibres. There is no threshold - at least no known one.
In plain English, "safe" means low risk. And your theoretically non-zero but immeasurably low risk still counts as safe. You are using technical terms to scare and deceive. Why? How does it make you feel?
Re: The Romans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just think how many silica particles you're breathing in! So far, almost everyone who has ever breathed in silica has died!
Breathing causes death. !00% of all dead people were habitual breathers.
[From my college logic class. :-) ]
Sure (Score:2)
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
So why am I supposed to know how I'm going to drop dead soon because of those 68K microparticles? And that disease are theycausing, and can this be traced back to the first use of plastics, And if we are to ban all plastics, what will take their place? Paper is killing forests, metals are really energy intensive to make, need deep pits and ecological and water supply damage, as well as glass being a problem energy and safety wise.. What will save humanity from the imminent deaths that plastic causes?.
Otherwise, maybe a bit of FUD?
The overarching question however is, does fecal matter?
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
The exact same type of squeeling arguments were made by the car and petrochemical industries when countries started to ban leaded fuel back in the 80s and 90s. They were BS then and they're BS now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difficulty is that plastic is relatively harmless, (relatively, compared to things like lead), it hasn't so far impacted IQ scores or DNA (that we can tell!), and there was a dramatic and noticable impact on brain development in kids with something like lead. https://today.duke.edu/2022/03/lead-exposure-last-century-shrunk-iq-scores-half-americans [duke.edu]
Pla
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
The exact same type of squeeling arguments were made by the car and petrochemical industries when countries started to ban leaded fuel back in the 80s and 90s. They were BS then and they're BS now.
I don't care if there was pushback - they were pushing back from a known thing, and asking for something other than "REEEE, plastics are bad!" without knowing what makes them bad are so different that even your hot hand fallacy that since banning lead isn't relevant at all.
You are actually using the hot hand theory about this? Did you know why leaded fuel was banned? A researcher, one Herbrt Needleman was looking into the problems of lead poisoning in children. They would tend to get it from eating paint chips that contained lead. Which unfortunately are sweet tasting.
It has been known for many, many years that lead is a poison, and that it causes a number of problems in humans, like mental decline, IQ loss, and poor impulse control, which leads to violent tendencies. It is also a teratogen. Known in medieval times and earlier. I have a book from the 1870's that outlines all the issues of lead poisoning. So hardly something new.
So my esteemed arguer, what on earth does this have to do with leaded gasoline? Well, in furtherance of his research, had violent criminals in prison tested. The results came back - high levels of lead. Some really high. Then in furtherance of his research, Needleman looked into where they lived as a child. Turns out that most all of the violent offenders lived right next to busy highways. After presentation of this very compelling evidence, lead was banned in gasoline. Yeah there was pushback.
https://www.biologicaldiversit... [biologicaldiversity.org] And it wasn't that difficult to make a definitive statement that lead causes terrible problems. So your argument is specious, and we banned it because we knew the problems it caused.
And here you are just showing you are on the the opposite side of the same coin, not knowing what exactly plastics cause. And attacking anyone who dares to ask - what is the disease or infirmary? Plastics have been around a long time - it would seem to be just as effective as the lead ban to show what they do.
You are showing the same outlook as the vaccines cause autism people, when it has been proven they are not - just the actions of a now unemployed and disgraced British researcher who had a get rich plan with lawyers. Unfortunately, anti vaxxers just switched the cause from merthiolate to other vaccine ingredients, meanwhile missing the discovery that autism rates seem linked to the distance pregnant women lived from fields that were sprayed with glyphosate chemicals. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov] and https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] https://www.autism360.com/roun... [autism360.com] https://www.biologicaldiversit... [biologicaldiversity.org]
What you consider "sqeeling" is just dealing with facts, not whatever you think is real even if it is made up bullshit. I don't care if some geared was pissed off that his valves didn't last as long. Lead was dropped quickly after shown the proof. Today un teh US, the only leaded fuel is for aeronautical use.
Have you had yourself checked for lead exposure?
Re: Well (Score:2, Funny)
Did you actually read that load of incoherent babble first before you cut and pasted it from chatgpt?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read that load of incoherent babble first before you cut and pasted it from chatgpt?
Must have been ChatGPT that modded it to +5. You aren't on the winning side of this argument when I provide the cites and the papers that refute your Reddit level refutation. Gotta do better than that my friend.
How about more insults? That always wins the argument!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
but I would point out that we CAN recycle paper and plastic, but apparently, we don't have the will to do so, it' probably costs more than whatever we do now. Or, perhaps, it's just the people who are profiting from plastic, for the sake of the argument, do things to make recycling unattractive, thereby keeping their control over the supply, and therefore continue to pr
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with your points. Sounds like I breathed in several million micro plastics so far this month, and I'm somehow not dead yet. but I would point out that we CAN recycle paper and plastic, but apparently, we don't have the will to do so, it' probably costs more than whatever we do now. Or, perhaps, it's just the people who are profiting from plastic, for the sake of the argument, do things to make recycling unattractive, thereby keeping their control over the supply, and therefore continue to profit.
It must depend on where. In my little town in Appalachia, we have plastic, glass and metal recycling pickup, people who separate the items, and our local nature conservancy takes recycling that the pickup system doesn't.
Incumbents have those advantages, and they aren't going to let go of them until we pry them from their dead hands, as the saying goes. That's pretty much human nature, imo.
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats why I'm saying that we don't have the will to recycle. We have the means, but apparently not the will.
Re: (Score:3)
anecdotally, where I live in a city in Ontario, we have plastic recycling, us little people put out our blue boxes with yogurt containers and such... then we hear that after sorting, 75% of the plastic stream is just bundled and surreptitiously sent to Indonesia, where they just stockpile it ... for money of course. There was an article on the CBC here, a few years ago documenting that process... at that time the Indonesians were unhappy at how that deal worked and iirc, they were rejecting these shipments of plastic garbage, and the fact that we were essentially being fooled into thinking we are recycling plastics, when the majority was just being sent to storage/landfill
Thats why I'm saying that we don't have the will to recycle. We have the means, but apparently not the will.
In Pakistan, they do have plastic recycling, I suppose a lot from us It is documented on YouTube if you are interested. Search Plastic recycling Pakistan.
Re: (Score:1)
what exactly is the way they are killing us
That's a good question that needs answers before I take up my limited "bandwidth" of things to worry about. There's only so much we can process, so we need to set priorities. Then is the matter of people that live a life of worrying about such little things because so much has been removed from our lives to worry about. I think of people with so much money, so many personal aids to deal with their schedules, bills, and so on that they get wrapped up about getting the "wrong kind" of bottled water or thei
Re: (Score:2)
what exactly is the way they are killing us
That's a good question that needs answers before I take up my limited "bandwidth" of things to worry about. There's only so much we can process, so we need to set priorities. Then is the matter of people that live a life of worrying about such little things because so much has been removed from our lives to worry about. I think of people with so much money, so many personal aids to deal with their schedules, bills, and so on that they get wrapped up about getting the "wrong kind" of bottled water or their restaurant order being the "wrong" temperature or color.
Yup, I'm all about getting rid of things that are provably bad, like leaded fuel, asbestos, and benzene. But there is a sizable number of people who seem to believe they simply have to have somethingto ban - as if they are trying to go back to the 1500's, or even earlier, because all people then lived long healthy lives free of toxins and the bad thing du jour. Or maybe not.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't RTFA. Where did anyone mention a ban? Anything that can be breathed into your lungs that deeply needs study.
Let's throw more money at it for sure. Maybe they'll find something to your satisfaction, maybe not, but where did this ban straw man come from?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't RTFA. Where did anyone mention a ban?
The article doesn't. A lot of people do it appears. https://grist.org/equity/un-pl... [grist.org] Since it is now considered a violation worldwide of human rights.
Here's the problem. It is the standard goto that any and all problems are directly the USA's fault. Like we're just gathering up all the plastics in teh world, and dumping them in the ocean. When it is in fact, not us. Apparently Europe and the US make for 10 percent of plastic pollution.
The villains (and this makes for a problem because the UN doesn'
Re: (Score:1)
The overarching question however is, does fecal matter?
That was a poopy pun, shithead.
But at least I triggered you, so I'm happy!
Re: (Score:3)
Since we are told that plastics of any form are killing us - what exactly is the way they are killing us.
If you had the background to understand the explanation, you would already know the answer. Dumbing down the explanation to the point where most of us could understand it introduces sufficient imprecision for nit-pickers to declare the explanation a lie.
This is the basis of the anti-science problem we face as a society. We all believe that we understand more than we do, so we reject the work of those whose work we do not understand. "A little knowledge is dangerous."
Re: (Score:2)
Since we are told that plastics of any form are killing us - what exactly is the way they are killing us.
If you had the background to understand the explanation, you would already know the answer. Dumbing down the explanation to the point where most of us could understand it introduces sufficient imprecision for nit-pickers to declare the explanation a lie.
This is the basis of the anti-science problem we face as a society. We all believe that we understand more than we do, so we reject the work of those whose work we do not understand. "A little knowledge is dangerous."
It is very very very simple - I will understand the big words, despite what you think of me. I have academic access to most research. I ask for one thing only.
Show me the research and the causes that require us to ban plastics. Simple, action following supporting evidence.
For someone who claims greater intellectual prowess than me, you seem to be incapable of understanding what I already wrote.
Or do you just believe anything anyone tells you? Accepting claims without supporting evidence is by its ver
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is very very very simple - I will understand the big words, despite what you think of me. I have academic access to most research. I ask for one thing only.
Show me the research and the causes that require us to ban plastics. Simple, action following supporting evidence.
For someone who claims greater intellectual prowess than me, you seem to be incapable of understanding what I already wrote.
See, there you go thinking this is a personal attack. It is not. It is not about *YOU* (and I did not "claim greater intellectual prowess than you". I said people do not believe what they don't understand -and most of us do not have the background to understand the explanations, ergo we do not believe the science.)
If you have the background to understand the answer to your question: "what exactly is the way [plastics] are killing us?" go read up on it. It is out there. You can likely get the basics of
Re: (Score:2)
See, there you go thinking this is a personal attack. It is not. It is not about *YOU*
Says the guy who wrote this:
If you had the background to understand the explanation, you would already know the answer.
Who is the you that you were referring to homie? Make no mistake, in my world, making that statement is a deep personal, and deliberate insult.
Then again, I guess you wouldn't understand that.
I only typed that as illustrative, not that I actually think you are lacking in the ability to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we are told that plastics of any form are killing us - what exactly is the way they are killing us. This whole we must eliminate plastics kind of reminds me of the freakout that when you flush the toilet, you are inhaling fecal matter.
Yeah, I'd like some context too. 68k particles sounds like a lot. But for comparison, how many dust particles do I inhale every day? How many actual dust mites? How many non-plastic particles of various sizes do we inhale?
A human lung has something like 10-100 billion cells. That means we inhale one particle per lung cell every 15 years. Are the consequences of this measurable? Or are the health consequences of sitting at a desk all day ranting to strangers far worse?
Re: (Score:2)
Since we are told that plastics of any form are killing us - what exactly is the way they are killing us. This whole we must eliminate plastics kind of reminds me of the freakout that when you flush the toilet, you are inhaling fecal matter.
Yeah, I'd like some context too. 68k particles sounds like a lot. But for comparison, how many dust particles do I inhale every day? How many actual dust mites? How many non-plastic particles of various sizes do we inhale?
Your post got me to thinking. We do inhale a lot of particulates every day. Smoke, general dust. a lot of diesel fumes if living in urban environment, barbecue even grinding coffee if we do that. Our cilia are tasked with removing some of that. I read a FUD piece about how we inhale fecal matter when we flush the toilet. Then there is smog.
My guess is that the presumed 68K plastic particles are a tiny fraction of the particulates we inhale every day.
And really, that isn't saying to just ignore the plas
Re: (Score:2)
Your post got me to thinking. We do inhale a lot of particulates every day. Smoke, general dust. a lot of diesel fumes if living in urban environment, barbecue even grinding coffee if we do that. Our cilia are tasked with removing some of that.
That said, the worry about microplastics is the particles can be quite a bit smaller than smoke or dust. Small enough that our lung linings can't block them.
I have no idea how much of a worry that is because, y'know, context and numeracy. If each lung cell absorbs one particle every 10 years, is that really a worry? Maybe it is, maybe not. And if it can be shown to cause problems, how bad are those problems compared to other things (like food borne diseases transmitted by re-used glass containers or infecti
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness to the authors, they don't actually say that microplastics are killing us. What they said was, "The health impacts of microplastic inhalation may be more substantial than we realize." Which is a way to say nothing.
This is true re the authors. Others appear to believe that plastics are the end of humanity. Yea, I know, I'm exaggerating for effect.
I don't know if inhalation would be the damaging route. We surely do inhale more particulate matter of other particulates every day.
More study is indicated.
In addition, there might be particular versions of plastic that make for problems. PVC that has been plasticized with Bisphenol A has been shown to be quite bad. So BPA was banned.
Plastics as a genre include plas
Re: (Score:2)
Not just us (Score:2)
This crap is all over the enviroment too when it floats out the window into the breeze. If you want to see it shine a bright torch in a dark room with synthetic fabrics/carpets and look at all the synthetic fibres floating about.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no no no no (Score:2, Funny)
Please, I've heard enough droning-on from rsilvergun about tire particulates.
Well (Score:2)
Well, that's something I didn't need to know.
The real reason for AI? (Score:2)
Maybe all these whacked-out trans-humanist brogligarchs have known this for a while, figure it's going to kill humanity as we know it, and decided that the future of the human race lies in silicon and steel with maybe a few token 'meat' parts.
Challenge Accepted (Score:3)
"humans can inhale as much as 68,000 tiny plastic particles daily"
*BUrP* Hold my beer.
"as much as" (Score:2)
and humans eat as many as 100 spiders per day!
it's easy to get impressive numbers when you prefix it with "as much as". That's just the upper limit. Often not even anywhere near the average
Clickbait.
Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative is no plastics and I don't think that is an option. Friction is on everything and it all breaks down, you find another cheap durable material and it's going to do the same thing as plastics, it's going to be everywhere. We could probably build more things out of wood or plants, which breaks down well but not as durable.
Someone needs to do a cost benefit analysis and determine the good plastics does vs the bad. I'm sure plastics save lives also and improves costs then to get me to switch I want to see a pros/cons list, not just the cons list that makes headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is saying to stop using any types of plastics?
Cellulose! (Score:2)
Cellulose, which is what holds trees up, eventually breaks down via bacteria, which evolved that ability because cellulose became common around 300m years ago. Termites have such bacteria in their guts to assist with metabolism.
The details have yet to be worked out, but it's a possible plastic substitute. It has properties very similar to plastic when processed certain ways. The downside is the microbes would eventually eat your spank-bank laptop.
Re: (Score:1)
Addendum: Cellulose may not be able to replace all uses of plastic just yet, but it's a start. As there is more R&D on it (and other alternatives), more options will appear, similar to the battery learning curve.
Re: (Score:3)
The alternative is no plastics
Errr no? The alternative isn't no plastic. There's a lot we can do for reduction before we discuss about outright abstinence. Hint: we still use lead in certain products despite it being recognised as unsafe. No one ever postulated a world where the opposite of eating a fishing sinker was to completely abolish a material in every form.
Why do you apply stupid logic to plastic when we have made a world of health improvements in all production and material choices over the past century without going cold turke
Re: (Score:2)
Disposable water bottles need to go, but I swear all this microplastics business is a conspiracy by those who are opposed to trash everywhere to solve the plastic trash problem by scaring people away from using them. Who knows...
The real problem is people are stupid and they lump all plastics into one group, and then say all plastics have to go. But if you took all plastics away civilized life would not be possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is people are stupid and they lump all plastics into one group, and then say all plastics have to go.
The only people I've seen say that is Greenpeace and you.
Thank god that I smoke. (Score:2)
I'm protected by the tobacco filter.
Does this cause us any real problems. (Score:1)
I know its awful and all and every were in our bodies which is fucked. But like cell phones and microwave radiation and power lines, Is this really causing any issues.
I know it cant be good for us, and I know a lot of the science but if it was causing issue would we have found them by now?
68000? (Score:2)
So are they getting plastic blast processing out of it?
Exhale? (Score:2)
How many do we exhale? We're probably more interested in inhaled - exhaled, rather than just inhaled.
Filters (Score:2)
I am sure I have plenty of plastics in my home environment, including from my wall-to-wall carpet.
For decades, I have been using a whole-house AprilAire HVAC-inline MERV-13-rated filter, with the HVAC fan set on continuous, 24/7. These are not those thin replacement things people put on their air returns, but a thick, large filter contained in a box in the attic which I replace once a year (and if you buy the filters in bulk, they are cheaper). I think it is money well spent, especially since I have lots
Re: (Score:2)
>"I'd bet your allergies come indirectly from the cat."
Oh, I am absolutely allergic to cats, dogs, horses, rabbits, pollen, mold, mildew, dust mites, and tons of other stuff. But I can't live without cats (but yes, it does seem stupid to keep something I am allergic to, but read on). Even if I had no cats, I will still be allergic to most stuff. I have been on immunotherapy ("allergy injections") for many years.
Cat allergies stem mostly from the proteins in their saliva. Cats are extremely clean and
How does this compare to other types of particles? (Score:2)
In every breath, we breathe in dust, dander, pollen, bacteria, viruses, tire rubber particles, dirt, and who knows what else. Our systems are very adept at filtering and discarding the unwanted material. Is there something special about plastic, that makes it harder for our bodies to handle? Is there something especially toxic about plastic, as opposed to all that other stuff? Is the quantity any more than these other particles? I don't think any of these questions have been answered.
nearly meaningless (Score:2)
Note that they're careful to avoid giving you context.
68000!? That's a lot!
Actually it isn't. An earlier study suggested humans inhale 50 BILLION dust particles per day. Our lungs & systems (when healthy) are designed to cope just fine with this particulate load.
https://www.npr.org/2013/03/18... [npr.org]