The Reuters article is based on an article published by the WWF about a study they commissioned at the U. of Newcastle (Australia). Press release is here (<a href="https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?348337" rel="nofollow">https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?348337</a>) and the summary is here (<a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxvyl3v5s9d0a1v/PLASTIC%20INGESTION%20Web%20spreads.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxvyl3v5s9d0a1v/PLASTIC%20INGESTIO...</a>). If I'm reading this right, the study itself was a analysis of 50 other studies, not original work. A brief about the methodology is here (<a href="https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-ingestion-by-people-could-be-equating-to-a-credit-card-a-week/how-much-microplastics-are-we-ingesting-estimation-of-the-mass-of-microplastics-ingested" rel="nofollow">https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-inges...</a>).<p>And, given the language "people could be ingesting...", "suggests people are consuming...", I'm a bit suspicious of the numbers given. The study itself is said to be under review for publication and has been for over six months now. Anyone know if that's a long time, normal or short?<p>Not sure if this matters, but the naive math doesn't really work... they say "about 2000 pieces a week" and that they were "fibers", and "about 5 grams". The pieces are stated to be < 1mm in size. Assuming an average of 1mm x 0.1mm x 0.1mm "fibers" (rather large IMO), that's 20 cu mm or 0.02cc. Given plastic's density that's 0.03g, not 5g. I wonder if someone misplaced a decimal point or confused mg with g.
I wish I had more options to consume less plastic.<p>I'm pretty sure most of the plastic I use doesn't get recycled for various reasons, although I can estimate 90% of it by weight I do put in the proper recycling can.<p>I also care enough to avoid plastic if given a reasonable alternative.<p>However for a bunch of consumer goods there is no reasonably priced alternative.<p>I wish I could vote with my wallet and spend a significant (but not prohibitive) percentage more for detergent or shampoo or whatever in another container.<p>I can't help but feel like policy could help here.
From the article: "but the scientific community is still only scratching the surface of understanding just how much plastic we consume and how harmful it could be."<p>Zero harm, so far. That's phrased like they're racking up lists of harm it causes. But so far, zero. So 'scratching the surface' means 'haven't found anything'?
It's unlikely that I wouldn't notice eating a piece of plastic the size of a sesame seed. Maybe occasionally, sure, but I sure notice tiny fish bones or the slightest bit of grit in clam chowder, or egg shell in a cookie. If I'm eating a bottle cap worth of plastic a week I would notice on a daily basis.
up to 5mm long pieces are called microplastic. That seems huge to me. I'd expected microplastic to be microscopic in size.<p>I was imagining things like plastic molecules wearing off the inside of an overused water bottle and consumed with the water
> In our lifetime, 20kg of plastic<p>Yeah and you can be pretty sure that kind of quantity does not stay in the human body over 50 years+. So there is a factor of how much is in, and how much gets out. This, and not all plastics are equal, and some (most?) of hydrocarbons are fundamentally inert and unreactive and whether or not they cause harm is a big question mark.
It would be interesting to see how micro-plastics differ from silica/ sand. Something most of us have been exposed to, especially if you live near a beach or other sandy environment.<p>One thing I do know is that not all sand is alike. There's the normal sand that has been ground & rounded over millennia and 'sharp sand' used in construction. Getting normal sand on your skin is a minor annoyance, and I'm not aware of any real damage if some are inhaled. Sharp-sand is much more irritating to the skin/ eyes, it feels more like fibreglass than the beach variety, and I believe the sharp particles are the reason for silicosis as they are not easily removed by mucus.<p>It would be interesting to know which category microplastics fall into. You would think (hope) micro-plastic would be more like the natural 'soft' sand variety than the more troublesome sharp sand.
Having just watched them movie Dark Waters[1], I'm surprised I hear more about this than I do of that [2].<p>That said, while I'm glad that they're doing these studies, I'd like to here something more conclusive.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...</a>
Is eating plastic really a problem? Plastic is inert, that's actually the reason why there is so much of it in the oceans. But it also means that it should go straight through our body, untouched.<p>The problem about microplastics seem to be more about its effects on marine microorganisms than the fact that we are eating them.
Are there any like X-ray/etc. images of microplastics actually accumulating in peoples' bodies? I know that plastics are a huge problem, and there's been a lot of talk about microplastics in the past couple years, but I haven't seen any definitive proof of it being a problem in our bodies.
I'm more concerned about dissolved plastic residues than the bigger plastic particles. The particles have more of a chance of passing through your body untouched. The unstudied plastic residues dissolved in your hot coffee are much more likely going to be absorbed into your body.
Monsieur Lotito would like to have a word.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito</a>
We also consume a great deal of sand, dirt and indigestible organic matter.<p>The microplastic has been in the environment for a long time - reacting with the ecosystem and potentially passing through quite a lot of digestive systems before it gets to us.<p>The question is whether environmental micro plastic is any more harmful than the micro quartz crystals we've been digesting and expelling since the dawn of time.<p>Trying to trigger the yuck factor with visualisations isn't science. What's the actual risk here?
Tasty! That's a lot indeed.<p>Which types of diet contain more plastic than others?<p>I'm a vegan for example. Does this mean more or less plastic than average?<p>Which materials do not end up as microplastic? I assume natural fibres don't but besides them?