>We're all test subjects for a worldwide experiment to put microplastices everywhere and see what happens.
Honestly, I think if you think about it and look around, we are test subjects for a whole swathe of worldwide experiments of various kinds. At some point you have to just realise that it's the cost of progress.
I am not saying that microplastics are harmless, but statements like: "It seems incredibly unlikely that they don't disrupt various mechanisms in the environment and our bodies." are baseless. It's unlikely that it does nothing, but it's more than likely (all things considered) that it's potentially worth the cost.
I wish I had a better reply than "deal with it" but you live on a planet with lots of other people and that includes dealing with pollutants you have no control over. All we can do is demand research be done on these things so we can progress while mitigating the risks as they come up. It would truly be wrong to just ignore microplastics and assume they're safe. But it is also alarmist to assume they must have a significant negative impact without any evidence for such a negative impact.
Think of it this way, while we don't fully understand how microplastics affect us, if they were shortening our lifespan by a significant amount we would probably already know about it.
> I am not saying that microplastics are harmless, but statements like: "It seems incredibly unlikely that they don't disrupt various mechanisms in the environment and our bodies." are baseless. It's unlikely that it does nothing, but it's more than likely (all things considered) that it's potentially worth the cost.
I don't see how you can evaluate the cost of using plastics everywhere when the biggest benefit is simply to increase profits for huge corporations that don't have to worry about cleaning up after themselves.
> But it is also alarmist to assume they must have a significant negative impact without any evidence for such a negative impact.
I don't think it is alarmist to decry putting microplastics with unknown effects, into literally everywhere, including people's brains and mothers' breast milk. It's an obviously stupid thing to do - "we don't know what this does, let's pollute the entire planet with it and see what happens".
> if they were shortening our lifespan by a significant amount we would probably already know about it.
That seems overly optimistic to me. There's plenty of nasty chemicals/products that were sold for long periods of time before we eventually realised the damage that we were doing. e.g. lead in fuel, asbestos in buildings, tobacco usage etc. We have already noticed the direct harm that PFAs cause to human development and yet you seem happy to carry on spreading microplastics everywhere without requiring any evidence that they are safe.
Honestly, I think if you think about it and look around, we are test subjects for a whole swathe of worldwide experiments of various kinds. At some point you have to just realise that it's the cost of progress.
I am not saying that microplastics are harmless, but statements like: "It seems incredibly unlikely that they don't disrupt various mechanisms in the environment and our bodies." are baseless. It's unlikely that it does nothing, but it's more than likely (all things considered) that it's potentially worth the cost.
I wish I had a better reply than "deal with it" but you live on a planet with lots of other people and that includes dealing with pollutants you have no control over. All we can do is demand research be done on these things so we can progress while mitigating the risks as they come up. It would truly be wrong to just ignore microplastics and assume they're safe. But it is also alarmist to assume they must have a significant negative impact without any evidence for such a negative impact.
Think of it this way, while we don't fully understand how microplastics affect us, if they were shortening our lifespan by a significant amount we would probably already know about it.