Thank you for the response, apparently asking pertinent questions around here is worthwhile of downvotes for some reason.
My next question would be how carcinogenic are they and how big is this risk with all else accounted for? Plenty of things from water to the very air we breathe are carcinogens, it’s a question of scale.
Right now the cytotoxic effects are the only effects confirmed in humans I believe.
We are consuming microplastics at an alarming rate, it’s found in our stomach, brain, lungs and blood. Fish and drinking water are the two largest sources of human ingestion of microplastics.
If carcinogenic then it would likely be pretty substantial.
Yes. It’s an assumption but the higher the exposure generally means higher chances of issues. Such is true for most things, especially other cytotoxic materials.
Whilst I agree with the logic presented about exposure an important variable is missing in how much damage actually occurs. It could still be a negligible amount of damage when weighed up against carcinogens that we are already exposed to in our lives even if that negligible amount was multiplied.
Has it been proven to be harmful to health?
Edit: why is this worthy of a downvote? How close minded do you have to be to downvote someone asking a basic and relevant question?
Microplastics? Yes.
Microplastics cause damage and death to cells in the body. While not confirmed, it is believed that this will result in a cancer risk in the future.
Thank you for the response, apparently asking pertinent questions around here is worthwhile of downvotes for some reason.
My next question would be how carcinogenic are they and how big is this risk with all else accounted for? Plenty of things from water to the very air we breathe are carcinogens, it’s a question of scale.
Research into those topics is still ongoing.
Right now the cytotoxic effects are the only effects confirmed in humans I believe.
We are consuming microplastics at an alarming rate, it’s found in our stomach, brain, lungs and blood. Fish and drinking water are the two largest sources of human ingestion of microplastics.
If carcinogenic then it would likely be pretty substantial.
Why is it likely substantial? Isn’t that just an assumption?
Yes. It’s an assumption but the higher the exposure generally means higher chances of issues. Such is true for most things, especially other cytotoxic materials.
Whilst I agree with the logic presented about exposure an important variable is missing in how much damage actually occurs. It could still be a negligible amount of damage when weighed up against carcinogens that we are already exposed to in our lives even if that negligible amount was multiplied.
deleted by creator