I’m pretty sure that 90% of all biomass in general contains microplastics these days.
Thanks boomers!
Removed by mod
In case you’re not joking, Baby Boomers = Boomers. Their parents were from the Silent Generation or the Greatest Generation. Baby Boomer refers to people born in the “baby boom” caused by the prosperity and optimism following WWII, and these days is often shortened to just Boomer.
Removed by mod
You’re one of the 10K today!
You realize that the boomers ARE the baby boomers right? It’s like saying Gen-Z, or Zoomers. Same generation.
You greatly underestimate the pervasiveness of microplastics.
The other 10% contains macroplastic.
deleted by creator
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt
TL;DR: science currently has no efficient way to actually measure microplastic content with being able to control for outside contaminants
edit: please read the other comments below!
IIRC, there’s a harder, trusted process for measurement. But an easier method that has gained widespread adoption, and that method is what has been called into question.
This is a hit piece, echoes of big oil & tobacco. It’s picking studies that have (debatable) issues, then is casting a wide net that is encouraging doubt of all microplastics in the body studies. They take the time to explain why these can be ignored, but depend on you to go read the counter-counterarguments made by the original researchers of each study yourself.
Rauert says there are absolutely nanoplastics in our bodies, but micro plastics are unlikely due to their size.
It doesn’t do a meta-analysis of all MNP studies and doesn’t disregard bad criticisms or biased voices (Kuhlman). It’s also sensationalised.
Pulled from a chat about this when this was released
i’m not too knowledgeable which is why i didn’t bother to read the counter-counter arguments (case solved, problem in between seat and screen). also i didn’t realize it’s a hit piece, by no means would i like to propagate denialism.
you appear to be way more knowledgeable, do you have more conclusions from that chat? also can you do an eli5 what is meta-analysis?
My wife is the more knowledgeable one, but a meta-analysis is basically when you combine all the data of similar studies on a subject. It can expose studies that are bad within the data set and better assess the efficacy of the techniques used in a study. Compare that to what was done here, which was mostly just cherrypicking and highlighting the issues of a handful of studies.
I encourage you to give a peek at the counter counter-arguments! There is some jargon, but there is decipherable stuff in it (moreso than the original papers imo). One of them says something to the effect of “we had to skip the standard control because the control was in a container that was releasing microplastics” which I would consider reasonable.
I called this a hit piece because the person they quote about it being a “bombshell” works for DOW Chemical.
When you lack a control, though you should still be able to compare those with tumours and those without. One treatment (no tumour) to the other.
Controls answer: what if we did nothing? And how big are the effects vs doing nothing?
E: they can’t get accurate measurements themselves that’s the issue, not the lack of uncontaminated controls
can I get a eli5 for this? it sounds scary but I’m also not sure what you meant.
%90 of human tissues probably contain microplastics. title sounds like baity. Is it significantly less or more than other tissues is the question.
The article states that cancerous areas had ~2.5x more microplastics than the surrounding non-cancerous areas. It could be a chicken and egg/correlation≠causation situation, (is cancer caused by microplastics, or do cancerous cells attract microplastics?) but the article does outline that cancer cells clearly had more microplastics.
It should still be compared to differences in other resources being transported to the tissue, see my answer below. I am not a fan of microplastics, I don’t try to discredit their health effects. It is just that this much information does not help much. I understand that causation would be much harder to prove, but at least one should try to prove for instance that ratio of cancerous to healthy tissue microplastics is much higher than the same ratio other for other stuff that tissues generally transport by blood vessels. This would atleast show that there is an extraordinary relation between the tissue and microplastics in the context of cancer. It could still be causation on the other direction, such as “maybe tissue structure of prostate cancer allows it to absorb microplastics more than other types of resources” but even that would be a useful piece of information.
All tumours, no exception, contain dihydrogen monoxide.
Notably, tumor tissue contained significantly more plastic. On average, cancerous samples had about 2.5 times the concentration found in healthy prostate tissue (about 40 micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue compared with 16 micrograms per gram).
Sure, though it’s to be expected that everything contains water in the body. To expect microplastics, however, is kind of different – leaving aside their showing a legitimate difference in microplastic quantity between healthy and unhealthy prostates.
Correlation still doesn’t prove causation. Tumors process resources different than surrounding cells. The worst thing about the study is that it chooses to focus on microplastics without distinction when we know certain types of plastics have far higher carcinogenic risk than others, it would have just taken than slight bit more effort to actually make it worthwhile.
Yeah, what if it happens that micro plastics are somehow being trapped in tumors actually removing them from the bloodstream? What if cancer is how we can get the micro plastics out? I’m only half joking here lol. A bleak thought for sure.
Naturally, more studies need to be conducted and microplastics have only been intensively studied beginning this past decade (PFAS being separate and longer). Similar to the carnivore fad diet, odds are exceedingly-high that having microplastics is not good for us but long-term and fully causal studies have not fully identified all mechanistic linkages. Yet I recall tobacco industries rhetorically hiding behind these arguments in a similar manner despite growing concerns from scientists and medical professionals.
I just take issue with the implication of the other user that this is as harmless as ubiquitous and as fearmongering as water. That in itself is absurd.
Microplastics should not be in our fucking bodies. Water should.
It shouldn’t, but as a problem it is no longer preventable, at least for most people not able to be born into a socioeconomic bubble now that it has been identified as a problem. Lumping them altogether into microplastics is like lumping all addictive substances - coffee, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine - into the same category. Sure, you’d be a lot better not being addicted to anything, but some addictions are worse than others, and for different reasons. It also lumps carcinogenic agents under the same smoke screen as, say, biodegradable microplastics which have considerably lower ecotoxicity.
We are all full of microplastics, but our tumors are too.
90% of non-cancerous prostates too.
Dash is all you need.
Notably, tumor tissue contained significantly more plastic. On average, cancerous samples had about 2.5 times the concentration found in healthy prostate tissue (about 40 micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue compared with 16 micrograms per gram).
Still, correlation does not imply causation. It might just be that because of the nature of what tumors are, they get stuck with more microplastics. The biggest problem with this study is that there are known carcinogens in some types of plastics over others, and it seems to outright choose to dismiss any attempt at distinction for the sake of the microplastic boogieman.
Or maybe people that have unhealthy lifestyles that generally might include more ultra-processed foods or living conditions more susceptible to microplastics intake. IOW more plastics packaged foods and drinks, living near roadways where tire particles and exhaust both add to poor health and stress, etc.
Yeah, I remember reading that tires are the biggest microplastic contributors. Those are some good points.
I guess we should switch to glass disldos.
Whew good thing I only have dildos and not disldos
/j
Does the extra letter increase its girth? ;)
i read glass diodes and imagined a cyberpunk future lol
Good thing we just deregulated like everything
Plastic seems to I be a massive problem
Goddamn. This is probably why prostate cancer is sky rocketing. I am pretty sure I got it, but I doubt I can afford to get checked. Wothless fucking life anyway.
That’s horrible, I’m sorry you’re going through that. Is there not any free way to get it checked out in your country?
I am trying. But my state is facing heavy brain drain. And honestly it’s taking all I got to even care right now.
My mom is sick too. She keeps denying it. And wants to visit Hawaii which we have been trying for years to set up and now is our last chance and I simply can’t even live with myself if I let that chance go.
Dr.'s hate this one trick - tell them you’re facing issues peeing and you’ll get recommended to a urologist. Even with my family history of prostate cancer I couldn’t get one until I started having issues with my stream. Sure enough my prostate is slightly enlarged even at 40 and am now on meds for it.
Just gotta find a doctor on grinder /s
In the US the process is to become too sick to work so you qualify for government assistance and hope some part of your safety net can keep you out of homelessness and cross your fingers for filling out paperwork correctly.
I saw someone else in another thread post they weren’t too expensive (relatively) to get checked. I think someone said something like $1500 uninsured in USA, and googles AI answer says on average $2400.
Not cheap, but it’s not some crazy $20,000 bill kinda thing.
To me $2400 is some crazy bill kinda thing.
I’m gonna die soon too I guess , I’d rather not even know at this point. Hope I can figure it out in time to try crack and heroin which are at least somewhat affordable
Nobody who can’t afford insurance can afford 2400
I don’t think that’s true.
Health insurance is expensive in the US. Many sites indicate an average monthly cost in the $400-$600 range, and given it’s average also means it can be even higher.
That’s $4800 - $7200 a year, vs a 1 time $2400 if they are in the average cost area for a colonoscopy.
It’s not great, many people can’t afford that either, but it’s not true that if you can’t afford insurance, you can’t afford $2400
Pricing is far more complicated with the old having Medicare, many of the poorest having subsidies some free, and others a range of plans mostly at least somewhat subsidized by employers.
We are a fat unhealthy folk in a country where a single hospitalization can run you 10-100k and financially ruin you due in no small part to cartel pricing.
So your various medical providers have negotiated given rates for given things that are less special rates and more what you might consider normal pricing whereas if you are not protected by such a “deal” you may pay several times more at hundreds of percent profit for the provider with the expectation that you pay up front for services or die essentially so long as your death isn’t immediately caused by their immediate neglect. Eg you can’t be allowed to actually bleed out for lack of a stitch but you can be allowed to get septic and then be admitted after it’s really too late to do anything but try to bill your family 100k and steal any inheritance from your estate if any.
So you are incentivized to buy at least the shittiest high deductible plan with an 8000 deductible just to have access to sane pricing, get treated and then billed, and limit max damage if things go bad even if you expect to not actually get much direct benefit. Plus favorable tax treatment paid in.
Whilst some may choose to risk it being literally incapable of paying a subsidized 100-300 for the shittiest plan possible means that you are poor in a state which doesn’t choose to subsidize the poor and likely illiquid. Most people in America don’t have 2500 to cover am emergency of any variety. This is true of nearly 100% of the bottom half
Furthermore anyone who needs a colonoscopy needs other things like annual checkups and medication.
The number of people who can cash pay the sucker uninsured rate but not shitty insurance is basically zero
If I’m reading this right, you’re saying there are cheaper insurance options, but the deductible would be so high it wouldn’t cover this $2400 anyway? It’s just more catastrophic things, like if this came back positive and now you needed surgery?
And ya, even if you have $2400 and think the test is important to take because you have reason to believe you might have it, it doesn’t mean you’d be able to afford the aftercare.
$2400 every few years.
Ya that’s not good for routine checks which is what should be normal, but if you think something is actively wrong its an option, or at least on the lower end of the scale price wise if that’s where you happen to live. That doesn’t count for what happens if its positive and you’re uninsured either.
American healthcare sucks. I’m in Australia which is much better but I wouldn’t say it’s good.
And 100% contain dihydrogen monoxide.
Researchers also found that these fragments appeared in greater amounts inside cancerous tumors than in nearby noncancerous prostate tissue.
For those who want to give an opinion based on even a smidge more than just the title.
I am worry about the systematic error treatment of this data, cancer is per se very abnormal in growing parameters…
Oh, that’s just the credit card I eat sometimes. I like to go down to the fridge on the weekend and shove that shit in like an atm. My prostate makes the “munch munch” ticket feeder sound every time.
