Excellent article, well-researched and argued. I try my best to limit exposure, knowing full well that I'm not sure how much of a difference I'm making, or whether microplastics are harmful or not. But until research comes in I think a good rule of thumb for most health related issues is to err on the side of caution, and to use first-principles intuition. For example, my gut tells me that microplastics are neutral or harmful, but likely not positive, because there is much less chance of accidently and unspecifically adding some component to a complex system and the complex system being improved as a result. A metaphor that comes to is that if you had a complex mechanical system, such as a jet engine, and somehow some material/particle accumulated at random points in the engine, the odds that the jet engine is improved in any desirable metric is likely 0, where the opposite has a real chance of occuring.
That makes sense, but the cost of buying all glass containers all of the time or avoiding plastic in restaurants when going out might be a bit too tough for a lot of people at the beginning of this journey. So focusing on small changes works the best when working on a system as complex as the human body. Just like the jet engine, the microplastics may affect people in different ways (the particles may get stuck at different parts), but it's hard to avoid them completely when they're in the air around us.
Taking it a bit further, it's like saying that in order for the jet engine to remove all of the particles, the jet needs to stay grounded. It's impractical to say this because while there will be no particle accumulation, the jet is no going anywhere too.
Excellent article, well-researched and argued. I try my best to limit exposure, knowing full well that I'm not sure how much of a difference I'm making, or whether microplastics are harmful or not. But until research comes in I think a good rule of thumb for most health related issues is to err on the side of caution, and to use first-principles intuition. For example, my gut tells me that microplastics are neutral or harmful, but likely not positive, because there is much less chance of accidently and unspecifically adding some component to a complex system and the complex system being improved as a result. A metaphor that comes to is that if you had a complex mechanical system, such as a jet engine, and somehow some material/particle accumulated at random points in the engine, the odds that the jet engine is improved in any desirable metric is likely 0, where the opposite has a real chance of occuring.
That makes sense, but the cost of buying all glass containers all of the time or avoiding plastic in restaurants when going out might be a bit too tough for a lot of people at the beginning of this journey. So focusing on small changes works the best when working on a system as complex as the human body. Just like the jet engine, the microplastics may affect people in different ways (the particles may get stuck at different parts), but it's hard to avoid them completely when they're in the air around us.
Taking it a bit further, it's like saying that in order for the jet engine to remove all of the particles, the jet needs to stay grounded. It's impractical to say this because while there will be no particle accumulation, the jet is no going anywhere too.