I feel the field of microplastics has done itself no favours by referring to everything < 5mm as a microplastic particle. 5mm is huge. In american terms, it's amost as wide as a .22 calibre bullet, or a popcorn kernel
2. Young-onset cancers (especially colorectal cancer) which were inferred to be caused by a rise in microplastics are being linked explicitly to other mechanisms and cohorts. (https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.3619)
This does not say that and it's irresponsible to summarize it that way. That's a letter addressing a specific study from 2024 (which did record baseline levels because that's a standard experimental design step), arguing that it used an inadequate control so may have had background contamination when reporting the level of microplastics found in bottled water.
A "cohort of core studies" were not involved, and nothing was "judged to have invalid methodology". The study authors also replied, arguing that their choice of blanks was actually the better one: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2415874121
There's been a slightly weird trend of people on HN that seem so eager to judge the microplastic story as overblown and unsupported that they're overstating and overextrapolating the smallest counter evidence into its own competing narrative, as if what we needed were more narratives. Resist this! That's not how good science or science communication is done.
I respectfully disagree, this was a commonly cited technique for measuring microplastics, which is why it calls into question many studies. Thanks for calling me weird :) I guess the suggestion though is I'm paid by big plastic or something, no infact I'm just a guy reading papers who is scared of death like everyone else.
> There's been a slightly weird trend of people on HN that seem so eager to judge the microplastic story as overblown and unsupported that they're overstating and overextrapolating the smallest counter evidence into its own competing narrative, as if what we needed were more narratives. Resist this! That's not how good science or science communication is done.
This is completely true and well stated. However, this sort of rush to counter narrative is imo inevitable as a response the original rush to craft the narrative that we were all gonna die immediately micro plastics unless we did a Marxism right away.
I am deeply concerned for the environment of the Earth, I believe strongly that we should embed that concern into our economics (i.e. priced externalities, etc. ) so that we make a fewer bad decisions that pollute our nest.
However, I have sadly come to feel that many journalists who write about science, and perhaps even some scientists, see their role as activism toward a specific outcome rather than discovering and describing reality as it exists.
So while I agree, it’s not productive, I totally understanding the glee felt at the possible puncturing of the original narrative.
> However, I have sadly come to feel that many journalists who write about science, and perhaps even some scientists, see their role as activism toward a specific outcome rather than discovering and describing reality as it exists.
That's not a feeling, for journalism anyway it's an explicit fact. The Accrediting Council for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) - the primary agency that reviews and accredits journalism programs across the United States and whose mandates directly shape the curricula of over 100 universities - has changed their standards over the years away from emphasis on truth and towards emphasis on advocating change to institute certain policies. See https://www.acejmc.org/about/strategic-plan . They still mention truth, but almost tangentially among long lists of outcomes that journalists must pursue. The current generation of journalists were trained by these principles.
The Associated Press (AP) StyleBook https://www.apstylebook.com/ similarly polices the language that journalists use to favor certain policy outcomes, with some news organizations requiring compliance as a condition of employment.
But what exactly are you fighting for? What benefits are there to plastic food packaging, plastic kitchen utensils, kitchenware/food storage, clothing?
Plastic packaging made 20% of EU's total packaging waste in 2023 out of which 42% were recycled/downcycled. Personally plastic food packaging is the biggest portion of my family's waste output.
Plastic kitchen utensils like black plastic ladles are not durable (they break easily), and visibly degrade when exposed to heat or acidic food, unlike metal or wooden counterparts...
Plastic kitchenware and food storage containers are also considerably less durable than equivalent metal or glass products. They also stain and degrade when in contact with acidic or other specific foods...
I take it you've worn synthetic clothes, need I go into detail about how uncomfortable that is?
On top of that, most of these are tied with fossil fuel supply and prices, and you can see for yourself what's going on with that right now...
p.s. I'm pretty sure use of metal, glass, and wood is not marxism...
My point is that limiting plastic use (especially single-use plastic) is a win in my book even if it is ultimately done for the wrong reason. Thus it's not worth my time going out of my way to disprove specific research that still ultimately points out the need to curtail plastic use...
What benefits? Single use plastics have one purpose and one purpose only: allow for fossil fuel producers to dispose of the ethane byproduct that accumulates during extraction. They get paid for the disposal vs having to process it as waste themselves.
I’ve never heard Marxism mentioned in the same sentence as microplastics. If you think advocating for a functioning EPA and regulatory control of manufacturing is Marxist then you’re just a straight up fool.
Can't read the full study, but it seems to be specifically about people who run ultramarathons. Which sounds like a very small subset of the general population. I doubt that tiny cohort is in any way responsible for the overall increase in bowel cancer in younger people.
Actually this is the shocking part - it actually is enough to move the needle. Incidents of young people with cancer is small so a 100% increase can be driven by a small absolute number of patients. There has been an absolutely enormous increasing in high endurance sport something more like 20x (or 1900% increase) and ultramarathon/marathon runners are 7.5x more likely to get colon cancer, so this leads to a surprisingly large relative increase in colon cancer.
“Young-onset cancers (especially colorectal cancer) which were inferred to be caused by a rise in microplastics are being linked explicitly to other mechanisms and cohorts.”
After which you link to a study showing that ultramarathon runners are at increased risk for colon cancer. Are you insane? This doesn’t refute the role of microplastics in any way shape or form. Do you know what % of the population with colon cancer are fucking ultramarathon runners?
I’m sorry but it’s impossible to tell whether you’re acting out of bad faith or are just a complete moron. Good God.
I don’t cooperate while others defect. I don’t subscribe to the marketplace of ideas or see any point in engaging in good faith with someone signaling bad faith.
A segment of the population has decided that they don’t care if economic growth comes at the price of health of ourselves or our environment. As far as I’m concerned, that is a declaration of war. An announcement of intent to carry out a mass genocide on their fellow human beings. There’s no point in debate. I just want them to know that we know what they’re up to.
I think those papers mostly show that parts of the microplastics literature were overstated or methodologically weak, not that microplastics are harmless.
The PNAS paper is a pretty good critique of contamination/baseline issues, and I agree some of the “microplastics are causing young-onset cancer” claims got ahead of the evidence.
But the broader concern still exists: people are clearly exposed constantly, particles are being found in human tissue, and there are plausible mechanisms for harm. So no, there is not "much less to worry".
I agree that there is not evidence to "not worry", but many explicit worries are being accounted for.
Also - in terms of human tissue:
"The problem is that some small molecules in the fumes derived from polyethylene and PVC can also be produced from fats in human tissue. Human samples are “digested” with chemicals to remove tissue before analysis, but if some remains the result can be false positives for MNPs. Rauert’s paper lists 18 studies that did not include consideration of the risk of such false positives." (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/micropla...)
Summary: dry contact with nearly any laboratory glove will lead to sample contamination and over estimation of microplastics.
They found one type of clean room gloves that contaminate less.
Is there any indication on how bad this really is?
Around 2000 to over 7000 false positives per mm^2 based on the type of glove. Essentially, regular lab gloves shed enough particles to swamp microplastic measurements to warrant switching to clean room gloves for this type of analysis.
It's difficult to avoid contamination, since everything (samples, containers, equipements, etc) will have been in contact with glove at least once, and good decontamination is very hard.
Let's say you want to determine the amount of microplastics in ocean water samples.
You'd create a control by creating saline solution with distilled water and sodium chloride. Then you treat both the control and your sample(s) the same way in the analysis.
Surely something should tick you off when the microplastic levels aren't much lower in your control compared to your actual sample?
Actually bare hands ok while working in food production if correctly washed with an antimicrobial agent, and assuming one doesn't pick his nose on the job.
I find that picking your nose can be a unconscious thing you do, but the sensation of sticking a glove into your nose quickly makes it very not unconscious very fast
But of course, hopefully the person in question will choose to change the glove.
Otherwise yes, glove wearing dogma is overdone, however still, should probably wear them.
I feel the field of microplastics has done itself no favours by referring to everything < 5mm as a microplastic particle. 5mm is huge. In american terms, it's amost as wide as a .22 calibre bullet, or a popcorn kernel
There is growing evidence that there is much less to worry about on microplastics on several fronts.
1. A whole cohort of core studies have been judged to have invalid methodology due to not recording baseline microplastic levels (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2411099121)
2. Young-onset cancers (especially colorectal cancer) which were inferred to be caused by a rise in microplastics are being linked explicitly to other mechanisms and cohorts. (https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.3619)
> A whole cohort of core studies have been judged to have invalid methodology due to not recording baseline microplastic levels (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2411099121)
This does not say that and it's irresponsible to summarize it that way. That's a letter addressing a specific study from 2024 (which did record baseline levels because that's a standard experimental design step), arguing that it used an inadequate control so may have had background contamination when reporting the level of microplastics found in bottled water.
A "cohort of core studies" were not involved, and nothing was "judged to have invalid methodology". The study authors also replied, arguing that their choice of blanks was actually the better one: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2415874121
There's been a slightly weird trend of people on HN that seem so eager to judge the microplastic story as overblown and unsupported that they're overstating and overextrapolating the smallest counter evidence into its own competing narrative, as if what we needed were more narratives. Resist this! That's not how good science or science communication is done.
I respectfully disagree, this was a commonly cited technique for measuring microplastics, which is why it calls into question many studies. Thanks for calling me weird :) I guess the suggestion though is I'm paid by big plastic or something, no infact I'm just a guy reading papers who is scared of death like everyone else.
> There's been a slightly weird trend of people on HN that seem so eager to judge the microplastic story as overblown and unsupported that they're overstating and overextrapolating the smallest counter evidence into its own competing narrative, as if what we needed were more narratives. Resist this! That's not how good science or science communication is done.
This is completely true and well stated. However, this sort of rush to counter narrative is imo inevitable as a response the original rush to craft the narrative that we were all gonna die immediately micro plastics unless we did a Marxism right away.
I am deeply concerned for the environment of the Earth, I believe strongly that we should embed that concern into our economics (i.e. priced externalities, etc. ) so that we make a fewer bad decisions that pollute our nest.
However, I have sadly come to feel that many journalists who write about science, and perhaps even some scientists, see their role as activism toward a specific outcome rather than discovering and describing reality as it exists.
So while I agree, it’s not productive, I totally understanding the glee felt at the possible puncturing of the original narrative.
> However, I have sadly come to feel that many journalists who write about science, and perhaps even some scientists, see their role as activism toward a specific outcome rather than discovering and describing reality as it exists.
That's not a feeling, for journalism anyway it's an explicit fact. The Accrediting Council for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) - the primary agency that reviews and accredits journalism programs across the United States and whose mandates directly shape the curricula of over 100 universities - has changed their standards over the years away from emphasis on truth and towards emphasis on advocating change to institute certain policies. See https://www.acejmc.org/about/strategic-plan . They still mention truth, but almost tangentially among long lists of outcomes that journalists must pursue. The current generation of journalists were trained by these principles.
The Associated Press (AP) StyleBook https://www.apstylebook.com/ similarly polices the language that journalists use to favor certain policy outcomes, with some news organizations requiring compliance as a condition of employment.
But what exactly are you fighting for? What benefits are there to plastic food packaging, plastic kitchen utensils, kitchenware/food storage, clothing?
Plastic packaging made 20% of EU's total packaging waste in 2023 out of which 42% were recycled/downcycled. Personally plastic food packaging is the biggest portion of my family's waste output.
Plastic kitchen utensils like black plastic ladles are not durable (they break easily), and visibly degrade when exposed to heat or acidic food, unlike metal or wooden counterparts...
Plastic kitchenware and food storage containers are also considerably less durable than equivalent metal or glass products. They also stain and degrade when in contact with acidic or other specific foods...
I take it you've worn synthetic clothes, need I go into detail about how uncomfortable that is?
On top of that, most of these are tied with fossil fuel supply and prices, and you can see for yourself what's going on with that right now...
p.s. I'm pretty sure use of metal, glass, and wood is not marxism...
Those are all great reasons. What's the need to push for yet-to-be-subtantiated fears of microplastics?
What is OP fighting for? Idk, an unbiased view of reality, maybe?
My point is that limiting plastic use (especially single-use plastic) is a win in my book even if it is ultimately done for the wrong reason. Thus it's not worth my time going out of my way to disprove specific research that still ultimately points out the need to curtail plastic use...
What benefits? Single use plastics have one purpose and one purpose only: allow for fossil fuel producers to dispose of the ethane byproduct that accumulates during extraction. They get paid for the disposal vs having to process it as waste themselves.
I’ve never heard Marxism mentioned in the same sentence as microplastics. If you think advocating for a functioning EPA and regulatory control of manufacturing is Marxist then you’re just a straight up fool.
"Straight Up Fool"-ism is running rampant on HN
"Exercise induced gastrointestinal injury"!
Can't read the full study, but it seems to be specifically about people who run ultramarathons. Which sounds like a very small subset of the general population. I doubt that tiny cohort is in any way responsible for the overall increase in bowel cancer in younger people.
Actually this is the shocking part - it actually is enough to move the needle. Incidents of young people with cancer is small so a 100% increase can be driven by a small absolute number of patients. There has been an absolutely enormous increasing in high endurance sport something more like 20x (or 1900% increase) and ultramarathon/marathon runners are 7.5x more likely to get colon cancer, so this leads to a surprisingly large relative increase in colon cancer.
“Young-onset cancers (especially colorectal cancer) which were inferred to be caused by a rise in microplastics are being linked explicitly to other mechanisms and cohorts.”
After which you link to a study showing that ultramarathon runners are at increased risk for colon cancer. Are you insane? This doesn’t refute the role of microplastics in any way shape or form. Do you know what % of the population with colon cancer are fucking ultramarathon runners?
I’m sorry but it’s impossible to tell whether you’re acting out of bad faith or are just a complete moron. Good God.
Fortunately however it's not hard to tell when people calling others "complete moron" are acting out of bad faith.
I don’t cooperate while others defect. I don’t subscribe to the marketplace of ideas or see any point in engaging in good faith with someone signaling bad faith.
A segment of the population has decided that they don’t care if economic growth comes at the price of health of ourselves or our environment. As far as I’m concerned, that is a declaration of war. An announcement of intent to carry out a mass genocide on their fellow human beings. There’s no point in debate. I just want them to know that we know what they’re up to.
Then don't reply.
I think those papers mostly show that parts of the microplastics literature were overstated or methodologically weak, not that microplastics are harmless.
The PNAS paper is a pretty good critique of contamination/baseline issues, and I agree some of the “microplastics are causing young-onset cancer” claims got ahead of the evidence.
But the broader concern still exists: people are clearly exposed constantly, particles are being found in human tissue, and there are plausible mechanisms for harm. So no, there is not "much less to worry".
I agree that there is not evidence to "not worry", but many explicit worries are being accounted for.
Also - in terms of human tissue:
"The problem is that some small molecules in the fumes derived from polyethylene and PVC can also be produced from fats in human tissue. Human samples are “digested” with chemicals to remove tissue before analysis, but if some remains the result can be false positives for MNPs. Rauert’s paper lists 18 studies that did not include consideration of the risk of such false positives." (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/micropla...)
and Rauert's paper (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c12599)
Summary: dry contact with nearly any laboratory glove will lead to sample contamination and over estimation of microplastics. They found one type of clean room gloves that contaminate less.
Is there any indication on how bad this really is?
Around 2000 to over 7000 false positives per mm^2 based on the type of glove. Essentially, regular lab gloves shed enough particles to swamp microplastic measurements to warrant switching to clean room gloves for this type of analysis.
Shouldn't any lab analysis have control samples to detect environment contamination like this?
It's difficult to avoid contamination, since everything (samples, containers, equipements, etc) will have been in contact with glove at least once, and good decontamination is very hard.
Yes, exactly, that's why you use control samples to get the baseline.
You see how it's a bit of a self-starting problem?
Let's say you want to determine the amount of microplastics in ocean water samples.
You'd create a control by creating saline solution with distilled water and sodium chloride. Then you treat both the control and your sample(s) the same way in the analysis.
Surely something should tick you off when the microplastic levels aren't much lower in your control compared to your actual sample?
Freshly cleaved mica has an extremely clean and flat surface.
This shouldn't really be a problem. Just use aseptic techniques to avoid glove contact (direct, indirect, and airborne) with the test material.
Now, I'm worried about people preparing my food with gloves.
“Are you wearing gloves? That’s disgusting. Use your bare hands, you animal.”
Actually bare hands ok while working in food production if correctly washed with an antimicrobial agent, and assuming one doesn't pick his nose on the job.
Picking noses presumably isn't a unique problem to bare hand prep, unless the ungloved finger is somehow a more tempting scoop?
I find that picking your nose can be a unconscious thing you do, but the sensation of sticking a glove into your nose quickly makes it very not unconscious very fast
But of course, hopefully the person in question will choose to change the glove.
Otherwise yes, glove wearing dogma is overdone, however still, should probably wear them.
Just like high end chefs do. It works fine.
"I only allow robots with stainless steel tools to prepare and serve my food."