Industry Executives Knew For Decades That Microplastics Were Infiltrating the Human Body (magzter.com) 109
Susanne Rust of the Los Angeles Times reports (paywalled) that industry executives knew for decades that microplastics were infiltrating the human body. Slashdot reader joshuark shares an excerpt from the report: Scientists today say we're just beginning to understand the harm that the tiny bits of plastic we drink, eat and breathe are doing to the human body. Internal memos among company scientists and executives obtained by The Times reveal that for at least half a century, the plastics industry has been aware of and concerned about the potential for microplastic contamination in the human body. But recently discovered chemical company documents dating back several decades show that industry scientists have long been aware of -- and concerned about -- the way microplastic particles migrate beyond the gut in animals and humans, depositing in important organs. And the potential for that knowledge to affect the plastic food packaging industry.
Their concern goes back to 1974 and a scientific meeting at a New York City hotel, where a German gastroenterologist presented a scientific paper that showed for the first time that ingested particles like microplastics could infiltrate the rest of the body. His presentation was largely overlooked by the government scientists in attendance but became a point of worried discussion among company scientists. Tracey Woodruff, professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University, who reviewed the documents, said they indicate scientists and executives at major chemical companies have known and remained silent even as microplastics accumulated in tissues. She likened it to other industries that knew about pollutants -- greenhouse gases, asbestos and tobacco -- but did not take action to make them safer.
A spokesperson with the chemical industry's largest trade group took issue with that characterization. "Scientific debate over what the evidence shows is not silence. It is how sound science and effective policy advance," said Craig Davis, senior director of plastics chemistry at the American Chemistry Council. "Our industry is committed to advancing microplastics science by supporting independent research and policies that would do so."
Their concern goes back to 1974 and a scientific meeting at a New York City hotel, where a German gastroenterologist presented a scientific paper that showed for the first time that ingested particles like microplastics could infiltrate the rest of the body. His presentation was largely overlooked by the government scientists in attendance but became a point of worried discussion among company scientists. Tracey Woodruff, professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University, who reviewed the documents, said they indicate scientists and executives at major chemical companies have known and remained silent even as microplastics accumulated in tissues. She likened it to other industries that knew about pollutants -- greenhouse gases, asbestos and tobacco -- but did not take action to make them safer.
A spokesperson with the chemical industry's largest trade group took issue with that characterization. "Scientific debate over what the evidence shows is not silence. It is how sound science and effective policy advance," said Craig Davis, senior director of plastics chemistry at the American Chemistry Council. "Our industry is committed to advancing microplastics science by supporting independent research and policies that would do so."
Thank you for smoking (Score:3)
They missed that one in the movie and went for mobile phones instead.
Color me surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't complain about congress. We are the ones responsible for overseeing them. We can completely replace the entire House of Representatives every two years. The senate takes longer, but it can be done. Reelecting 90% [opensecrets.org] of them every time is our failure, not theirs. It's actually a reflection of our corruption, always voting for the guy with the most money. We are rating our politicians by how much money they can raise, not their voting record in the legislature. That, and the whole tribal democrat/republica
Re: Color me surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Color me surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro tip: You better get used to two-party systems, you're living in one!
Seriously, 3rd parties a total dead end in America and most, like our stupid AC here, who push them are doing so to sow distrust in one party (usually Democrats) to favor the other (Republicans) or just generally sow distrust in the system in general, usually form foreign actors (cough). Like every 4 years the Russians activate Jill Stein out of her hibernation pod.
Until America changes *how* we vote away from First-Past-The-Post then voting 3rd party is a fools errand, it only serves to assuage the vain egos of politically incoherent people. In a FPTP system a vote for a 3rd party is basically support for whoever the winner ends up being. Same for staying home instead of voting. That "Uncommitted Movement" only served to help Trump.
We have a process to hear and vote on a hugely varied group of candidates, they're called primaries and maybe if more than 30% of people voted in them we'd get candidates we like better.
Moving to Ranked Choice, Approval Voting, STAR voting, these are all much better systems of how to vote but until we get those 3rd parties are dead ends. The Libertarians are cooked, completely subsumed by MAGA and fascist chuds like LPNH and the Green Party is just a Russian Op at this point. The LP had the chance to shoot their shot in 2016 to get that 5% and they failed, completely. It's joever.
The winner in 2024 was doing to be the D or R. In 2028 it will be the D or R. Get used to it, stamping your feet and pouting won't change that. 2028 will be one of the rare times we will have 2 primaries, probably a field of 20+ people, plenty of varied choices, there's your chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, single-member districts with first-past-the-post tends to reinforce a 2 party system but doesn't guarantee one. Bernie Sanders was an independent for most of his career.
You're proposing that we use a chainsaw to treat a rash. The alternate systems you're talking about are not "much better" unless your only goal is to promote candidates nobody wants. They
Re: (Score:3)
Exception that proves the rule, who did Perot end up helping? Clinton by draining off Republican voters and nobody has gotten close to that performance ever again. Her also did markedly worse in 1996.
Yes, single-member districts with first-past-the-post tends to reinforce a 2 party system but doesn't guarantee one. Bernie Sanders was an independent for most of his career.
And Bernie ran for President both time *as a Democrat* and did not do a 3rd party run because he understands this dynamic. Also Bernie caucuses with the Democrats and whoever runs in his place in VT will not be as an I, again, exception that proves the rule.
You're proposing that we use a chainsaw to treat a rash. The alternate systems you're talking about are not "much better" unless your only goal is to promote candidates nobody wants. They are worse.
They are quite a bit better if you want a non-2-par
Re: Color me surprised (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your cynicism fails a historical test. How did the Sherman Anti-Trust act get passed if you're right? Why did TR bust all those trusts if you're right? What happened to AT&T?
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to AT&T?
Well, after it was broken up into "baby Bells", the parts mostly merged back together. Sure, the part that originally kept the AT&T name was technically absorbed by one of the other parts, but the result was more or less the same. A couple of bits formed Verizon. The original shareholders ultimately profited unless they sold at just the wrong time. The rise of cellular service completely altered the landscape and allowed a new round of corporate control. The situation of people in the US having to rent
Re: (Score:2)
Though I'm not sure heavier fines or criminal charges is really going to fix this, it's too easy for executives to rationalize away any risks.
The real fix is more funding for researchers (university and government) so they have the resources to investigate these things on their own. We shouldn't have to rely on companies policing themselves.
Harm (Score:3, Informative)
Even today with the media frenzy over micro plastics and everyone worrying over them, the evidence linking them to harm is still pretty limited.
This is nothing like other industries where there was a clear harm known to exist. This is an unexpected impact that - to this day - we are unsure of in its impact to health.
The entire selling point of plastics is essentially that they are not very biologically active. Their mere presence is not evidence of harm or even danger.
Re: (Score:2)
I do have to say it does bother me that the modus operandi these daus is just "we'll spread microplastics all over the earth, and see how bad it is in a few decades"...
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing was done with lead. Along with a healthy put down of the chemical warfare specialists (the only government scientists studying it at the time) who said it was a bad idea with the argument that if it was that bad, they would have used it during the Great War.
Its usually not the plastics themselves (Score:2)
that are the problem - its the other chemicals that have been added to them that turn out to be biologically significant - plasticisers for example.
Re:Harm (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let's wait until there is undeniable evidence that it is causing massive problems" didn't work so well for climate change, did it?
Or smoking.
We should probably just view pollution as bad in general and try to limit it before it becomes a problem.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Back to this shit again, huh? I thought the denialists had moved on, but I guess there are some stragglers.
Re: Harm (Score:2)
What is pollution? If it's any change to the environment, then your house is pollution. If it's only harmful changes to the environment, I go back to thr original issue: what's the harm?
Re: (Score:2)
It's spreading microplastics throughout the environment indiscriminately.
Re: Harm (Score:2)
So, you admit your view is indefensible. Right on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's widely detrimental changes to the environment, and houses can, in fact, count. Generally anyone with a realistic understanding knows that calling some things pollution over others is a matter of degree. For example, all coolants being released into the air are technically pollution, but some are hundreds or thousands of times worse than others. In the end, it comes down to effects and equilibrium/homeostasis. For example, are you releasing something into the environment at a rate where the effects buil
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is black and white, dipshit. Maybe we could start by not enveloping so many foods with plastic?
Re: Harm (Score:2)
But why? Why are plastics special when we litter all sorts of shit all over the world.
Plastics have saved hundreds of millions - perhaps billions - of lives from harmful pathogens.
Re: (Score:2)
There are, indeed, situations where plastics have served important functions and saved lives. At this point I can't even count the number of plastic things that have been shoved into and implanted in my body that have saved my life or helped me medically, and I recognize that there's no good substitute for them. At one point I was going through more than a quarter of a ton of medical supplies a month, and basically all of it came surrounded in plastic in one way or another (to be clear, it's not a quarter t
Re:Harm (Score:4)
Agreed. I'm so so tired of the same people that say there is no evidence are the first ones to deny evidence when it exist and refuse to fund it on the logic that we don't have the evidence ... first?
.
Unfortunately, we don't police our food (or anything else), and/or pesticides on it, even after there is lots of evidence. . I guess the logic is that it's fine until we can prove it's a chronic problem we can no longer control it... ???. Then let off executives/industry leaders that have done far more to harm society as a whole than any mass murderer on death row.
I really don't want to hear another 'it's just the media'... until ... oh wait... it wasn't just hype and lots of people are dead now. It's okay to say that we don't know effects, but if we don't know wouldn't it be logical to either not introduce it until we know, or curb it until we do .... The burden off proof shouldn't be tons of dead people, before we prioritize people over profits.. When it comes to plastics..these are literally the same people who knew about climate change 30-40 years before we did and kept us in the dark...
Re:Harm (Score:4, Informative)
Also, I'm not expert but... it seems like there is evidence...
'Microplastics are a source of extreme concern for health: the presence of these tiny pieces of plastic has been linked to heart attacks, stroke, dementia and brain tumors. But what drives these associations is unclear. Now a study published in Nature offers a tantalizing clue: microplastics interact with water, generating highly reactive molecules. When microplastics come into contact with water, the water near their surface can become chemically active, generating highly reactive species that can modify nearby substances, including biologically important molecules.'
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that theory is its not limited to plastics. MIcro silicates - ie rock fragments - can do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
...and? Are you seriously saying we shouldn't address serious threats to health because there's other serious threats to health?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm saying biology has been exposed to microparticles since life first evolved.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that theory is its not limited to plastics. MIcro silicates - ie rock fragments - can do the same thing.
That's not a problem for recognizing microplastics as a hazard, because we already recognize silicates as a hazard. Thanks for your support!
Re: (Score:2)
So we can assume you never go near a sandy beach then?
Re: (Score:2)
So we can assume you never go near a sandy beach then?
You and the maggot in your pocket can assume anything you want, if you want to look like idiots.
Re: Harm (Score:2)
Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Climate Change: This is decided science. The only reason we're barreling toward climate disaster is the people in political power. We were making progress on this front for decades prior to 2016.
2. Tobacco: You mean, the science came out and contradicted the lies of tobacco company, there's been a 70% reduction in smoking in adults and an >80% reduction with youth? Vaping is still an issue, but it's significantly less harmful than smoking.
3. Purdue Pharma: Purdue pharma was officially dissolved in May
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed my point(s).
First trusting an industry or a company is INSANE. Second; so is not holding the people behind them accountable. Companies don't exist, they are only legal levers for the people that control them (huge powerful ones). Why do those people get to inflict more pain and suffering on society than any person on death row. Personally, I'm anti-capital punishment, but if anyone deserves it... it's the people that decided this was private information and it would be okay no matter how
Re: (Score:1)
This is a reasonably literate and intelligent forum. Or it used to be.
Can we at LEAST recognize the blatant idiocy involved in presenting as equivalent:
"some things that have been declared harmless turned out to be harmful"
and
"things that are harmless will likely actually be harmful"
I don't know what retards will buy that* but it is such a very internet-flavored-argument it makes me recoil.
*that's actually a lie: I know *EXACTLY* what sort of retards will cheerfully gobble such nonsense up and likely chase
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it DID work for climate change and smoking.
We made absolutely MASSIVE strides in reducing the risk of catastrophic climate change leading up to the early 2000s and then the US GOP started actively fighting against the science. Looking at California alone, they went from a huge amount of smog days per year to them being rare. (https://www.aqmd.gov/home/research/publications/50-years-of-progress)
And the decided science empowered social change to MASSIVELY reduce the incidence of smoking in America.
Re:Harm (Score:4, Insightful)
Famously the US health secretary chainsmoked his entire way through a presentation on how cigarettes cause cancer. At the time there was also "limited" evidence of that link and the actual clear link would come later.
There's a mountain of studies coming out correlating microplastics to various health conditions. There's a mountain of studies coming out directly linking specific plastic exposure to specific health effects, e.g. hydrocarbons are known to be able to leach from plastic to a bloodstream, direct long term exposure to plastic is a known endocrine disruptor, and we know so very VERY little about our brains but have also shown that some microplastics can cross the blood brain barrier, and literally nothing other core nutrients crossing this barrier has ever ended well for the people involved.
There's really little need to sit around and wait for someone to put 2 and 2 together.
The entire selling point of plastics is essentially that they are not very biologically active.
Leaving aside the word "very" doing heavy lifting for any substance for which we are continuously exposed to (reminder, asbestos is not biologically active in the slightest), the components that make up plastics very much are biologically active, and there's more and more evidence that they do not stay in their little contained environment (we didn't ban Bisphenol A from use in plastics which come in contact with food stuff because we thought we're bored and need more regulations).
Re:Harm (Score:5, Interesting)
Gold, on macroscopic scales, is yellow, inert, melts at 1064C, and is a conductor.
Gold, on nanoscales, is wine-red, purple, blue, brown, or clear, is a catalyst, melts at ~400C, and behaves like a quantized semiconductor.
Scale matters greatly when it comes to material properties. And one thing to clear up here: while people commonly talk about "microplastics", for clarity, some scientists divide it up between microplastics and nanoplastics. Microplastics (such as from abrasion, fine fibres, etc) are not harmless (inhalation is similar to other inhaled particle matter, for example - not great for your lungs), but they're not the primary area of concern. Nanoplastics are where the concern is. These come from for example hot liquids in plastic containers close to their glass transition temperatures and the like.
When a nanoparticle enters a biological fluid, it becomes coated in proteins and lipds on its surface (a "protein corona" [wikipedia.org]). The core particle becomes masked and begins to interact with cells and bypasses cellular defense mechanisms (nanoparticles are often used for drug delivery). Microplastics largely pass through the digestive tract uneffected, but nanoplastics cross straight through the intestinal epithelium, and even the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier.
The evidence of harm is no longer "limited"; this is unfortunately not a factual statement, unfortunately. I would recommend reading for just one example Marfella et al., N Engl J Med [nejm.org]. Cartoid plaques of patients were analyzed and studied for microplastics; there were significant accumulations in 58.4% of patients. This in itself is not meaningful, but the consequences were: the patients with microplastics had a massive 4,5x higher risk of heart attack, stroke, or all-cause death. And it appears directly causal: as previous research had suggested that nanoplastics are pro-inflammatory, they studied this, and found that the plastic-positive plaques had dramatically higher inflammatory biomarkers.
The inflammatory problem is what's called "frustrated phagocytosis". When macrophages encounter persistent non-biodegradable particles, they respond by engulfing them. But their enzymes cannot break down plastics. Like a gull that has consumed plastic-laden food in its diet and dies with a gut full of plastics, it will eventually kill them. Because enzymatic degradation fails, they churn out ever-increasing quantities of reactive oxygen species and pro-inflammatory cytokines (to call for help) until they end up destroying themselves - undergoing apoptosis and spilling these toxins into the surrounding tissue. It drives chronic sterile inflammation.
A good analogy is asbestos. The entire commercial selling point was that it was a miracle mineral: completely non-combustible, chemically inert, and basically indestructable. The problem is that those properties carry over into the human body as well: macrophages attempt to engulf and destroy asbestos particles, fail, and undergo an oncogenic inflammatory cascade.
Another example is fine particulate matter. Macroscale carbon is extremely inert. Grind it into PM2.5 particles and inhale that, however, and it's horrible for your lungs, and causes systemic vascular inflammation. A chunk of quartz could not be less harmful to you. Grind it into nanoparticles, breathe enough in, and congrats, you have silicosis.
Also, you have to understand that plastics are not pure; they're loaded with a whole zoo of additives in significant quantities (often even the catalysts used in their production - plastic catalysts are commonly lost in the process of producing their respective plastics). There's colorants, plasticizers, flame retardants, UV stabilizers, and on and on and on, at percentag
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for that!!
Re:Harm (Score:5, Interesting)
Another one of those counterintuitive things (on the algal oil) line for me was creatine. Clearly more athletic power and performance is unambiguously evolutionarily advantagenous - if it were good and safe for us to have more, why wouldn't we just produce more?
It turns out that the answer is: it's massively costly to us to produce. We can't just produce and attach methyl groups (part of the creatine synthesis pathway) out of thin air. Creatine alone consumes half of our transmethylation flux from SAMe -> SAH -> homocysteine! We have to utilize the essential amino acid methionine (which is low in most plant matter, which makes up the majority of most hunter-gatherer calories). And the process is actively harmful to us. The intermediary SAH inhibits almost all transmethylation enzymes. Homocysteine is toxic (endothelial damage, oxidative stress, protein misfolding, etc). Clearing homocysteine is expensive, SAMe does double duty with epigenetic regulation and as a metabolic sensor, etc. High methionine metabolism is directly linked to accelerated aging, and methionine restriction leads to significant increases in lifespan in animal models.
Since consumption of dietary creatine downregulates the production of innate creatine and thus its transmethylation requirements, it's arguably outright healthy to consume more dietary creatine.
Re: Harm (Score:2)
Wow, what an amazing series of informative comments! Thank you very much!
Re: (Score:2)
Even today with the media frenzy over micro plastics and everyone worrying over them, the evidence linking them to harm is still pretty limited.
The difficulty is finding a control group without microplastic contamination. It doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, humanity is good at doing population wide unintentional experiments upon itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire selling point of plastics is essentially that they are not very biologically active.
This is so offensively stupid and wrong that it makes me wonder if you are a paid shill for the plastics industry.
Re: (Score:3)
So snort a line of fine plastic powder every morning.
Being chemically inert doesn't make a particle inherently harmless. The fact that they're inert is precisely why it's practically impossible for any biological process in your body to excrete them from the body, so, they just accumulate in your tissues and arteries, triggering your immune system against an invader they cannot destroy, and this leads to prolonged and endless inflammatory response.
Chronic inflammation then leads to a whole host of condition
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While this is true, being the subject of an experiment to see what happens when you do that is not something most people would choose for themselves. It's not *irrational* to be concerned. Absence of evidence on a largely unexplored question like microplastic infiltration in human bodies is not the moral equivalent of absence of evidence in an extensively studied question like a vaccine-autism link.
There was no clear harm for smoking either (Score:2)
Seriously it doesn't take five phds to figure out that having your body full of microplastics isn't a good thing. The only reason the research is preliminary is because they keep cutting funding to science research for exactly this reason.
It's not that we don't know it's bad to have your balls stuffed with microplastics. It's that we don't know exactly how bad. An
Re:Harm (Score:5, Interesting)
An yet, fertility rates are dropping world wide, cancer rates and obesity are increasing - all things you could expect to happen from something that can have a hormonal and endrocrine disrupting effects in the body - which microplastics most definitely have shown to have.
More Harm (Score:2)
An yet, fertility rates are dropping world wide, cancer rates and obesity are increasing
Sugar should have a dis-honorable mention here. Remember the board is *legally* obliged to produce a profit for investors and until harm to human health is in the realm of plausible deniability they will continue to do so. Make legal consequences for boards and things will change.
all things you could expect to happen from something that can have a hormonal and endrocrine disrupting effects in the body - which microplastics most definitely have shown to have.
Ahhh the human body, such a profitable place to dispose of many waste products.
Re: (Score:1)
How about some solid data. Data breaking down the birth rate issue suggests that the primary anti-fertility drug is prosperity. Then we have government dictats such as in China during 1 child and the subsequent mess. On the obverse side we see religions, one a total failure for its adherents and another whose adherents while unpopular when they come to the door are on the whole rather prosperous. Both demand many children of their adherents. Both seem to deliver. With that background does your falling popul
Re:More Harm (Score:4, Insightful)
That's science. A theory starts with a feeling, an intuition about data, then design an experiment to prove it, offer it up for refutation.
Taking cancer as an example, its epidemic, that might be a result of better data collation and detection, but even calling it epidemic requires comparison to historical data that doesn't really exist. We certainly live more sedentary, inactive lives, and we also live in a cocktail of man made chemistry that our ancestors were not exposed to, because they didn't have an industrial revolution and plastic .... everywhere. There is an artistic irony, that the oil of past life, might end ours through hubris, mother nature is a tough teacher.
Microplastics are an example of something we don't have a precedent for, it's worth exploring as an environmental factor of disease.
You have a scientific mind, are you moaning about the scientific method?
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, well, I have an intuition that you have no idea of what science really is. So should I operate on that intuition or should I investigate, test, produce DATA, and analyze the results thus producing tentative testable conclusions. I am not complaining about the scientific method. I am noting, however, that the scientific method involves honest data (something lamentably lacking in recent decades) and honest analysis before the conclusions are reached. I see that jump all over the place, here as well. An i
Re: (Score:3)
Ok princess no need to get your knickers in a twist.
We get this often from sceptics, "where's the data?" Climate change deniers do the same.
If we provide data, the sceptics undermine the value of the data, why, because they are sceptics and that's what they do. We need sceptics, but they are as vulnerable to confirmation bias as the rest of us.
What data do you need? How much of it? I'd give it to you , but I doubt you would be happy with it.
My AI (Actual Idiot) tells me there are lots of "studies" from more
Re: (Score:2)
How about some solid data.
On what specifically? I am referring to sugar's relationship to obesity and the way insulin behaves in the blood when confronted with sugar and fat.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember the board is *legally* obliged to produce a profit for investors and until harm to human health is in the realm of plausible deniability they will continue to do so.
The only people who benefit from the persistence of this myth is the very industries under discussion. No they aren't legally obligated. No sane society gives such an overriding immunity unless it's what SCOTUS did for Trump.
Re:More Harm (Score:5, Informative)
Remember the board is *legally* obliged to produce a profit for investors
This is completely wrong. The law in the US and the UK is quite clear: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”
This is a statement by the US Supreme Court (quoted here: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo... [nytimes.com])
Governing boards can choose to behave in ethical ways. They can choose to prioritize public health and community safety. They can choose to address the harms their products may be causing (even with out "proof"). They can even choose to prioritize maintaining jobs, strong communities, and healthy, safe work places over maximizing dividends and CEO golden parachutes. These are all completely legal decisions boards can make.
But they hardly ever make them because most boards are filled with psychopathic, greedy bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
and when they came for the psychopathic, greedy bastards there was no one left to speak for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Mass consumption of refined sugar is a 500 year long experiment, starting with the mass cultivation of sugar beats in the European low countries and sugar cane in the Caribbean.
I wonder what the results will be?
Re: (Score:2)
Both you and the GP are following a fairly Eurocentric perspective though. I mean, you even note sugar as a luxury, but the reason it was a luxury in Europe was because sugar cane did not grow well there and, as you note, sugar beets weren't a thing yet, so the sugar they did have was part of the spice trade from areas where sugar cane and the other spice plants grew. There was heavy sugar production a thousand years ago in the middle east (where they basically invented the modern idea of dessert). China ha
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile even questioning the safety of vaccines will have you downmodded to (-1) Troll.
Re: (Score:3)
"Meanwhile even questioning if the earth is flat will have you downmodded to (-1) Troll."
What you might as well have said.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you paid to defend them?
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually people who are paid to question the safety of vaccines: scientists and the FDA but you don't believe them because this isn't about science or safety, it's about political ideology. Accusations of people getting paid off only makes that point stronger.
I don't know if there a formal name for this but it's a common fallacy you see everywhere these days, "All Roads Lead to Rome", IE, the facts don't matter, the outcome is already decided. Facts not on my side? Obviously everyone was paid off
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, do you read what you write to yourself? "...questioning the safety of vaccines...". As if vaccines are some monolithic entity. Hey, if you want to do a meta-analysis or scientific review of all published papers on vaccine safety, be our guest. That could be interesting. Likewise, if you want to consider a single, specific vaccine, and seriously discuss the safety details and the public health ramifications or even just the philosophy of public health, also be our guest.
If however, you think you're m
Re: (Score:1)
You are exactly on point. We're being scared by innuendo, "It stands to reason", and "of course" with NO actual studies showing real harm. By now we should be seeing them popping up under every liter soda bottle floating in the ocean. "Ooooo, that's icky!" is not science. I want to see the, non-Fauci-ized, science.
{^_^}
How much are you paid to be this ignorant? I hope you're actually making money and not just another pawn.
Re: (Score:1)
Where's your proof? You're simply trying to defame me rather than produce data. I'm willing to investigate proof. Such as I have seen suggests they are not producing any harm. I rather resent your comment.
{^_^}
Re: (Score:2)
...says the person who defamed Fauci in the thing being replied to, something that only people who intentionally consume only media that agrees with them knowing full well it lies about 90% of the time would do.
Let me guess: you think children are getting sex change surgeries. You also think that schools are providing sex change surgery for free. You think that there are litterboxes in school classrooms for furry students. You won't fly any more because there's a risk the airplane pilot might be a furry, an
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: you think children are getting sex change surgeries. ... Oh, and that pizzeria Hilary Clinton got her pizzas from has a child rape basement. Sure.
This is a brand of stupid that's proud of being stupid. I'm in Ohio, they're real and their proud of it, their leaders whether religious, or otherwise, tell them what to think.
You ever tried teaching a dog math? Kinda like that, their logic was handed "down" to them and that's Ok with them. Unlike most dogs you can't train them not to shit everywhere in the house.
Which political group was proud to say "It's sometimes necessary to have casualties of gun violence." while leaving out the words "school child
Re: (Score:2)
Fauci is on record of falsifying data and making statements contrary to what he knew as fact. It VERY strongly appears he was involved in financing the development of the virus in Wuhan China, whether Xi "Poohbear" Jinping likes that or not. (All societies and people screw up from time to time. The real people can admit it, fix the problem, and move on. He seems to not get it.) So, yes, I state and believe it can (and has) been proven that he was up to his neck in creating the mess and only his blanked pard
Re: (Score:2)
The fun thing is that microplastics are here to stay, so if they cause harm, it will be caused for all living things*, probably for centuries. That's a nice legacy to leave...
With smoking, people stopped and the next generation got a health reset. There's a good chance it ain't so with microplastics.
*I learned that this argument doesn't move anyone worshipping an Abrahamic god, as nothing but humans is important in those religions.
Re:Harm (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing about plastics is it could have knock-on effects [msn.com] we haven't foreseen.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I want to see the, non-Fauci-ized, science.
Thank you so much for letting us know that you're a piece of shit whose opinion is worse than worthless, it was purchased.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I want to see the, non-Fauci-ized, science.
Thanks for letting us know you're a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
non-Fauci-ized, science.
What is non-Fauci-ized science? Do you mean not watered down for mass public consumption? That would be a fair thing to request, the job of communicating science to a broad population does often include pushing the descriptions towards what the lowest common denominator might understand. Still, it's odd to specifically mention Fauci there. He's hardly the first person to need to explain public health/science policy to the population. Or do you have something more specific in mind invoking Fauci? If so, you
Re: (Score:2)
Fauci has a lamentable record for being "science" personified. He did the science. He got the data. He lied about the conclusions and financing it all. Fauci-ized science is travesty science if you prefer a different wording.
{^_^}
Re: (Score:2)
Try using sentences that encompass complete concepts. I can't tell what you're talking about.
Greed ruins everything (Score:1)
It sometimes just takes a little while. Unless the human race leans to not give any power to greedy assholes, the future does not look good at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Dirty little secret. We all are "greedy assholes". It's a matter of scale. Pretending it's only one particular group is just lying to oneself.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself.
Sociopathic oligarchy doing it's thing (Score:2)
This story is a repeat of tobacco industry or oil company playbooks. What you do, when you're paid enough, is cover up and run interference so that profits can continue as long as possible. We should be deeply invested in sustainable energy, but we're not because insanely greedy rich fucks who run oil companies can only be bothered to do what is best for them personally.
Re: (Score:3)
The oil problem isn't one problem or one industry, it's our entire way of life.
When you make fuel you get other crap out that's not good for making fuel. We make plastic mostly out of that. So being addicted to oil is being addicted to plastic is being addicted to oil again.
In order to reduce our oil consumption we also have to reduce our use of plastic. The plastics industry is not interested in that. The oil industry is also not interested in that. Either has immense influence, together they are titan.
Re: (Score:2)
We're addicted for the simple reason plastic is a very versatile material. Try this, look around your life at all the plastics and ask yourself, what will I replace this with?
Re: (Score:2)
We're addicted for the simple reason plastic is a very versatile material. Try this, look around your life at all the plastics and ask yourself, what will I replace this with?
As I look around I see a mixture of things, some things which would be very difficult to replace, and some things which would be very easy to replace, and some things where they would still need some plastic but they could use a lot less. The rest could be made of wood or metal. Mostly I propose using aluminum because it's extremely recyclable.
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing it now would not be easy, simple, or cheap.
Just following the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (Score:2)
Rule 99: "Trust is the biggest liability of all."
Executives, or scientists (Score:2)
So, just like (Score:2)
1) the tobacco industry
2) the petrochemical industry
3) the auto industry...
Not sure this is meaningful? (Score:2)
It's at least notable that the plastics industry documented the possibility that microplastics were accumulating in the human body. But with there being such limited knowledge on what harm they do, if any, just by being there? I don't see why this would have sounded any alarms back as far as 1974?
Comparing this to cigarette manufacturers is a little disingenuous, IMO. That's an industry that encountered mounting evidence that smoking was doing harm and even killing people, yet they doubled-down, paying off
The paper, for those that are interested... (Score:1)
HEMATOGENOUS DISSEMINATION OF INGESTED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PARTICLES
Gerhard Volkheimer
DOI:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1975.tb51092.xCorpus ID: 30938937
killing blow (Score:2)
The Graduate (Score:1)
From the 30's to 60's one got too much lead from rigged gas, and 70's+ microplastics.
As long as the shareholders are happy... (Score:1)
Why should we care about our children's health after all...