So people kind of knew asbestos was harmful wayyy before it mostly stopped being used in 1979 (USA). But, it was still used constantly in many industries and ended up everywhere. What do you think is an example of something we find out is DRASTICALLY harmful 10-50 years from now? My guess would be screen time.
Microplastics.
In everything from clothes to blankets to tires. Everything including chewing gum.
There’s no replacing plastic like we could do with asbestos. We’re screwed
There are bioplastics that are actually compostable and biodegradable, and I’m sure with enough research we could develop others with better properties.
But why would we research a way to make the world a better place when we can just pull oil out of the ground and burn it and make forever chemicals out of it instead?
I think so too. We don’t really have conclusive studies yet on what microplastics do to our health, but we do know we have quite a lot of them inside our bodies. At the same time certain types of cancers are getting ever more common, and amongst younger people as well. Might not be connected, but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised.
Every year microplastic pieces get smaller and more numerous. The health effects of microplastics likely worsen over time
Aren’t at least some of those cancers thought to be from processed food and low fibre diets?
If you’re referring to the study blaming colon cancer on processed meats, it’s a major reach.
It was an epidemiological study, which are notorious for poor controlling of variables. If the effect has a relative risk increase greater than 100% (i.e. doubles risk or more), then you can use the results of an epidemiologal study, but results less than that should be treated with a lot of skepticism. This particular study was only 18%, well within the error bounds of this type of study.
For contrast, the epidemiological studies used to establish a causal link between smoking and lung cancer had a risk increase in the ballpark of 10,000%
You’re totally on the money with your core thesis about epidemiological studies here, and I agree processed meats as a standalone variable are likely a massively overplayed factor in CRC research.
When it comes to the more general claims in the GP comment though, re: processed food and low fiber, there are literally hundreds of independent studies at different levels all pointing in similar directions. It’s pretty incontrovertible at this point.
See any recent review on CRC etiology for reference, e.g.: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elroy-Weledji/publication/377724506_Clinics_in_Oncology_The_Etiology_and_Pathogenesis_of_Colorectal_Cancer_OPEN_ACCESS/links/65b3f83e79007454973be66e/Clinics-in-Oncology-The-Etiology-and-Pathogenesis-of-Colorectal-Cancer-OPEN-ACCESS.pdf
Thanks for an interesting source!
I legitimately think it’ll be what kills humans off.
We can survive climate change, albeit at a greatly reduced population, but microplastics are already impacting fertility rates.
Nah, we’ll adapt. There are already bacteria that can break down and eat plastic. At some point, someone will have a genetic mutation in their gut bacteria that also causes it to breakdown and consume plastic and then the probiotic industry will be tripping all over itself to patent and sell it to us.
Are fertility rates really a problem caused by microplastics? There are people who want to have kids who can’t, but the ones who are young are a small percentage of people.
The two things with the most overwhelming influence on fertility rates is the willingness of people to have children and their access to birth control.
It’s not something that’s been extensively studied in humans, but it does cause reproductive harm in animal models.
Yeah thats a scary one