• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Doesn’t everything everywhere contain microplastics? Brains, the rain, livers, ovaries, the external ovaries that guys have, blood, bone marrow.

  • Avicenna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 day ago

    %90 of human tissues probably contain microplastics. title sounds like baity. Is it significantly less or more than other tissues is the question.

  • wpb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Researchers also found that these fragments appeared in greater amounts inside cancerous tumors than in nearby noncancerous prostate tissue.

    For those who want to give an opinion based on even a smidge more than just the title.

    • sircac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I am worry about the systematic error treatment of this data, cancer is per se very abnormal in growing parameters…

  • drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Goddamn. This is probably why prostate cancer is sky rocketing. I am pretty sure I got it, but I doubt I can afford to get checked. Wothless fucking life anyway.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I saw someone else in another thread post they weren’t too expensive (relatively) to get checked. I think someone said something like $1500 uninsured in USA, and googles AI answer says on average $2400.

      Not cheap, but it’s not some crazy $20,000 bill kinda thing.

      • AoxoMoxoA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 hours ago

        To me $2400 is some crazy bill kinda thing.

        I’m gonna die soon too I guess , I’d rather not even know at this point. Hope I can figure it out in time to try crack and heroin which are at least somewhat affordable

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          I don’t think that’s true.

          Health insurance is expensive in the US. Many sites indicate an average monthly cost in the $400-$600 range, and given it’s average also means it can be even higher.

          That’s $4800 - $7200 a year, vs a 1 time $2400 if they are in the average cost area for a colonoscopy.

          It’s not great, many people can’t afford that either, but it’s not true that if you can’t afford insurance, you can’t afford $2400

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          Ya that’s not good for routine checks which is what should be normal, but if you think something is actively wrong its an option, or at least on the lower end of the scale price wise if that’s where you happen to live. That doesn’t count for what happens if its positive and you’re uninsured either.

    • jaek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s horrible, I’m sorry you’re going through that. Is there not any free way to get it checked out in your country?

      • JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        In the US the process is to become too sick to work so you qualify for government assistance and hope some part of your safety net can keep you out of homelessness and cross your fingers for filling out paperwork correctly.

      • drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I am trying. But my state is facing heavy brain drain. And honestly it’s taking all I got to even care right now.

        My mom is sick too. She keeps denying it. And wants to visit Hawaii which we have been trying for years to set up and now is our last chance and I simply can’t even live with myself if I let that chance go.

        • Zanathos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Dr.'s hate this one trick - tell them you’re facing issues peeing and you’ll get recommended to a urologist. Even with my family history of prostate cancer I couldn’t get one until I started having issues with my stream. Sure enough my prostate is slightly enlarged even at 40 and am now on meds for it.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    Notably, tumor tissue contained significantly more plastic. On average, cancerous samples had about 2.5 times the concentration found in healthy prostate tissue (about 40 micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue compared with 16 micrograms per gram).

    Still, correlation does not imply causation. It might just be that because of the nature of what tumors are, they get stuck with more microplastics. The biggest problem with this study is that there are known carcinogens in some types of plastics over others, and it seems to outright choose to dismiss any attempt at distinction for the sake of the microplastic boogieman.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Notably, tumor tissue contained significantly more plastic. On average, cancerous samples had about 2.5 times the concentration found in healthy prostate tissue (about 40 micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue compared with 16 micrograms per gram).

      Sure, though it’s to be expected that everything contains water in the body. To expect microplastics, however, is kind of different – leaving aside their showing a legitimate difference in microplastic quantity between healthy and unhealthy prostates.

      • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Correlation still doesn’t prove causation. Tumors process resources different than surrounding cells. The worst thing about the study is that it chooses to focus on microplastics without distinction when we know certain types of plastics have far higher carcinogenic risk than others, it would have just taken than slight bit more effort to actually make it worthwhile.

        • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Yeah, what if it happens that micro plastics are somehow being trapped in tumors actually removing them from the bloodstream? What if cancer is how we can get the micro plastics out? I’m only half joking here lol. A bleak thought for sure.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Naturally, more studies need to be conducted and microplastics have only been intensively studied beginning this past decade (PFAS being separate and longer). Similar to the carnivore fad diet, odds are exceedingly-high that having microplastics is not good for us but long-term and fully causal studies have not fully identified all mechanistic linkages. Yet I recall tobacco industries rhetorically hiding behind these arguments in a similar manner despite growing concerns from scientists and medical professionals.

          I just take issue with the implication of the other user that this is as harmless as ubiquitous and as fearmongering as water. That in itself is absurd.

          Microplastics should not be in our fucking bodies. Water should.

          • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            It shouldn’t, but as a problem it is no longer preventable, at least for most people not able to be born into a socioeconomic bubble now that it has been identified as a problem. Lumping them altogether into microplastics is like lumping all addictive substances - coffee, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine - into the same category. Sure, you’d be a lot better not being addicted to anything, but some addictions are worse than others, and for different reasons. It also lumps carcinogenic agents under the same smoke screen as, say, biodegradable microplastics which have considerably lower ecotoxicity.

  • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Oh, that’s just the credit card I eat sometimes. I like to go down to the fridge on the weekend and shove that shit in like an atm. My prostate makes the “munch munch” ticket feeder sound every time.