this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
40 points (75.6% liked)
Technology
57435 readers
3240 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, more data is needed, yet the article itself is super alarmist imho. It waffles on about microplastics for several paragraphs, mentioning the way lower sounding count of nanoplastics only offhandedly, then suddenly does a grudging 180 and admits that microplastics aren't likely to be an issue, but nanoplastics might be bad.
The study the article conveniently defends is not really a good indicator. They overdosed the plastic they had the (isolated) cells in significantly, justifying that by "but buildup might occur" without a base for what amount of which buildup would be realistic and if the exposure they chose is close to that. This sort of vagueness usually points to an exaggerated experiment.
I have heard this sort of thing Just waaaay too often. I'm the end, this shit might be getting dangerous only on levels 99% of people never ever reach. It's the same as "testing in mice has shown..." Thing. That does only hint at possible implications, it doesn't tell you anything about reality. In the end, mice aren't human, isolated cells are not babies and however chosen concentrations of a substance in a petry dish aren't real life exposures.