Logo
    Search

    Microplastics Are Everywhere. How Dangerous Are They?

    enMay 31, 2024

    Podcast Summary

    • Plastics health risksPlastics contain micro and nanoplastics that can harm health, found in consumer products and human bodies, potential consequences include endocrine disruption and increased cardiovascular risk, legal action against manufacturers, reduce exposure by avoiding plastic packaging and containers.

      Plastics, while convenient and essential in many ways, may pose health risks due to the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics. These tiny plastic particles can be found in various consumer products and even in human bodies, with potential consequences including disruption of the endocrine system and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Recent studies and reports have highlighted these concerns, and legal action is being taken against manufacturers of certain plastic chemicals. It's important for individuals to be aware of these potential risks and take steps to reduce exposure, such as avoiding plastic packaging and containers whenever possible. The evidence is still developing, but the mounting concerns warrant attention and action.

    • Microplastics and nanoparticles from plasticsPlastics, when broken down in the environment, form microplastics and nanoparticles that can enter our bodies and potentially cause harm. These particles are also generated when using plastic containers for food and water. Recycling does not completely solve the issue, and limiting exposure involves avoiding single-use plastics and pushing for government regulations.

      Plastics, made primarily from fossil fuels, contain both a polymer structure and various chemical additives. When plastics break down in the environment, they form microplastics and nanoparticles. These particles can enter our bodies through ingestion in food and water or inhalation, and once inside, they can traverse cell membranes and enter the bloodstream, potentially causing harm in various organs. Microplastics and nanoparticles are not just formed in the environment but also generated when we use plastic containers for food and water. It's important to note that plastic recycling does not completely address the issue, and limiting our exposure involves small steps like avoiding single-use plastics and larger steps like government regulations.

    • Micro and nano plastics health risksRecent research reveals harmful health effects of micro and nano plastics, from workers manufacturing them to cardiovascular diseases in humans, emphasizing the need to address plastic pollution

      The danger of micro and nano plastics has been overlooked due to their invisible nature, the complex life cycle of plastics, and the overshadowing issue of climate change. However, recent research has started to reveal the harmful effects of plastics on human health at every stage of their life cycle. Workers who manufacture plastics were among the first to experience the health risks, with cases of rare cancers and lung diseases being reported as early as the 1970s. More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found a link between microplastics in the human body and cardiovascular diseases. This study is significant as it is the first to directly connect microplastics to disease. The discovery of these health risks highlights the importance of addressing the issue of plastic pollution and its impact on human health.

    • Plastic particles in arteriesA recent study suggests that micro and nanoplastic particles in the carotid artery could increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, or death by 4.5 times, similar to asbestos or smoking. However, causality is not yet proven and further research is needed.

      A recent study found a significant link between the presence of micro and nanoplastic particles in the carotid artery and a 4.5-fold increased risk of heart attack, stroke, or death within the next three years. This risk is comparable to that of asbestos or cigarette smoking. However, causality is not yet proven, and further studies are needed to confirm these findings and establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The presence of micro and nanoplastics in the body could be due to various factors, including diet or environmental pollution. The study found that only about half of the participants had detectable levels of these particles, which was surprising given their ubiquity. Another study from the same week reported the discovery of microplastics in human testicles, adding to the growing body of evidence on the potential health hazards of plastic pollution.

    • Plastic health issuesMicroplastics and nanoplastics in human testes can cause hormonal disruption and act as Trojan horses carrying toxic chemicals, emphasizing the importance of reducing plastic exposure through production, use, and recycling stages.

      Microplastics and nanoplastics, which have been found in human testes at higher levels than in dogs, may contribute to health issues including hormonal disruption. These particles can enter cells mechanically and act as Trojan horses, carrying toxic chemicals that can leach out and cause harm. While more research is needed, it's important to consider the production, use, and recycling stages of plastics to reduce exposure. At the production stage, efforts are being made to make plastic production safer for workers and the environment. It's crucial to consider the impact of plastics on our health, especially as research continues to emerge in this area.

    • Plastic production risksPlastic production increases, exposing people to hazardous chemicals at every stage, with single-use plastics being a major concern. Making conscious choices can help minimize exposure.

      Plastic production is increasing rapidly, with 40% of it being single-use plastics. This complex life cycle of plastic, from extraction to disposal, exposes people to hazardous chemicals at every stage, increasing the risk of diseases and death. Consumer use is another major concern, as we are surrounded by thousands of plastic products, intentionally made disposable and difficult to avoid. Although it's not easy to live plastic-free in today's world, small steps like using reusable bags, paper bags for trash, glass containers, and avoiding microwaving food in plastic can help minimize exposure. The plastic industry's push for single-use plastics has made it impossible to completely escape, but being aware and making conscious choices can make a difference.

    • Plastic reductionReducing plastic use is crucial for personal health and the environment. Most plastic isn't recycled and ends up in landfills or developing countries, so reducing consumption is key.

      Reducing plastic use is crucial for both personal health and the environment. Plastic bottles should be avoided in favor of tap water or steel containers. Additionally, limiting the use of plastic bags, containers, and microwave dishes can help minimize exposure to toxic chemicals. However, it's important to understand that plastic recycling is largely ineffective due to the difficulty of mixing different polymers and the presence of toxins. Only a small percentage of plastic is actually recycled, with most ending up in landfills, incinerators, or being exported to developing countries. Therefore, the best solution lies in reducing plastic consumption and advocating for policy changes to limit plastic production and usage.

    • Plastic pollution solutionsCountries implement EPR laws and UN works on a plastics treaty, combining national regulations and global agreements to reduce plastic pollution, but ongoing research is crucial before implementing overarching regulations.

      Addressing the issue of plastic pollution requires a multi-faceted approach, including both national and global efforts. Some countries, such as California, have implemented Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, making manufacturers responsible for plastic disposal. At the global level, the UN is working on a plastics treaty, which may include a cap on plastic production to eliminate unnecessary plastics while retaining essential ones. Comparing this to the successful Montreal Protocol that phased out ozone-depleting substances, reducing plastic pollution will involve a combination of national regulations and enforcement, as well as global agreements. However, it's important to balance the need for action with the ongoing scientific research on the effects of plastics and their additives on human health. The Montreal Protocol was successful due to overwhelming evidence of harm, but more research is needed on plastics before implementing overarching regulations.

    • Plastic waste crisisThe risks of inaction on the plastic waste crisis far outweigh the risks of taking action, as plastic waste is clogging the world and loaded with toxic chemicals, and if production continues to increase, we'll deal with twice as much waste and chemicals. It's better to err on the side of caution and take action.

      Just as there was a pressing need to address the issue of chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone hole in the past, despite uncertainties, we now face a similar urgency with the plastic waste crisis. The risks of inaction far outweigh the risks of taking action. Plastic waste is clogging the world and is loaded with toxic chemicals. If plastic production continues to increase, we will be dealing with twice as much waste and twice as many toxic chemicals. As a society, we must ask ourselves if we know enough to take action. Using an analogy, the situation is akin to a pediatrician making a decision in an emergency room. The risk of taking action and finding that the situation is not as dire as thought is minimal compared to the risk of delaying action and dealing with the consequences. It's better to err on the side of caution and take action to mitigate the plastic waste crisis.

    Recent Episodes from Plain English with Derek Thompson

    Whatever Happened to Serial Killers?

    Whatever Happened to Serial Killers?
    In the first five decades of the 20th century, the number of serial killers in the U.S. remained at a very low level. But between the 1950s and 1960s, the number of serial killers tripled. Between the 1960s and 1970s, they tripled again. In the 1980s and 1990s, they kept rising. And then, just as suddenly as the serial killer emerged as an American phenomenon, he (and it really is mostly a he) nearly disappeared. What happened to the American serial killers? And what does this phenomenon say about American society, criminology, and technology? Today's guest is James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern University. The author of 18 books, he has been publishing on this subject since before 1974, the year that the FBI coined the term "serial killer." If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: James Alan Fox Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    The Radical Cultural Shift Behind America's Declining Birth Rate

    The Radical Cultural Shift Behind America's Declining Birth Rate
    We've done several podcasts on America's declining fertility rate, and why South Korea has the lowest birthrate in the world. But we've never done an episode on the subject quite like this one. Today we go deep on the psychology of having children and not having children, and the cultural revolution behind the decline in birthrates in America and the rest of the world. The way we think about dating, marriage, kids, and family is changing radically in a very short period of time. And we are just beginning to reckon with the causes and consequences of that shift. In the new book, 'What Are Children For,' Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman say a new "parenthood ambivalence" is sweeping the world. In today's show, they persuade Derek that this issue is about more than the economic trends he tends to focus on when he discusses this issue. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guests: Anastasia Berg & Rachel Wiseman Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    Breathing Is Easy. But We’re Doing It Wrong.

    Breathing Is Easy. But We’re Doing It Wrong.
    Today’s episode is about the science of breathing—from the evolution of our sinuses and palate, to the downsides of mouth breathing and the upsides of nasal breathing, to specific breath techniques that you can use to reduce stress and fall asleep fast. Our guest is James Nestor, the author of the bestselling book 'Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art.' If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: James Nestor Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    The News Media’s Dangerous Addiction to ‘Fake Facts’

    The News Media’s Dangerous Addiction to ‘Fake Facts’
    What do most people not understand about the news media? I would say two things. First: The most important bias in news media is not left or right. It’s a bias toward negativity and catastrophe. Second: That while it would be convenient to blame the news media exclusively for this bad-news bias, the truth is that the audience is just about equally to blame. The news has never had better tools for understanding exactly what gets people to click on stories. That means what people see in the news is more responsive than ever to aggregate audience behavior. If you hate the news, what you are hating is in part a collective reflection in the mirror. If you put these two facts together, you get something like this: The most important bias in the news media is the bias that news makers and news audiences share toward negativity and catastrophe. Jerusalem Demsas, a staff writer at The Atlantic and the host of the podcast Good on Paper, joins to discuss a prominent fake fact in the news — and the psychological and media forces that promote fake facts and catastrophic negativity in the press. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Jerusalem Demsas Producer: Devon Baroldi Links: "The Maternal-Mortality Crisis That Didn’t Happen" by Jerusalem Demsas https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/no-more-women-arent-dying-in-childbirth/678486/ The 2001 paper "Bad Is Stronger Than Good" https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71516.pdf Derek on the complex science of masks and mask mandates https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/03/covid-lab-leak-mask-mandates-science-media-information/673263/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    Microplastics Are Everywhere. How Dangerous Are They?

    Microplastics Are Everywhere. How Dangerous Are They?
    Plastic is a life-saving technology. Plastic medical equipment like disposable syringes and IV bags reduce deaths in hospitals. Plastic packaging keeps food fresh longer. Plastic parts in cars make cars lighter, which could make them less deadly in accidents. My bike helmet is plastic. My smoke detector is plastic. Safety gates for babies: plastic. But in the last few months, several studies have demonstrated the astonishing ubiquity of microplastics and the potential danger they pose to our bodies—especially our endocrine and cardiovascular systems. Today’s guest is Philip Landrigan, an epidemiologist and pediatrician, and a professor in the biology department of Boston College. We start with the basics: What is plastic? How does plastic become microplastic or nanoplastic? How do these things get into our bodies? Once they’re in our bodies what do they do? How sure are we that they’re a contributor to disease? What do the latest studies tell us—and what should we ask of future research? Along the way we discuss why plastic recycling doesn’t actually work, the small steps we can take to limit our exposure, and the big steps that governments can take to limit our risk. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Philip Landrigan Producer: Devon Baroldi Links: "Plastics, Fossil Carbon, and the Heart" by Philip J. Landrigan in NEJM https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2400683 "Tiny plastic shards found in human testicles, study says" https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/health/microplastics-testicles-study-wellness/index.html Consumer Reports: "The Plastic Chemicals Hiding in Your Food" https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/the-plastic-chemicals-hiding-in-your-food-a7358224781/#:~:text=BEVERAGES,in%20this%20chart Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    Why the New NBA Deal Is So Weird. Plus, How Sports Rights Actually Work.

    Why the New NBA Deal Is So Weird. Plus, How Sports Rights Actually Work.
    In an age of cults, sports are the last gasp of the monoculture—the last remnant of the 20th century mainstream still standing. Even so, the new NBA media rights deal is astonishing. At a time when basketball ratings are in steady decline, the NBA is on the verge of signing a $70-plus billion sports rights deal that would grow its annual media rights revenue by almost 3x. How does that make any sense? (Try asking your boss for a tripled raise when your performance declines 2 percent a year and tell us how that goes.) And what does this madness tell us about the state of sports and TV economics in the age of cults and cord-cutting? John Ourand, sports correspondent with Puck News, explains. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: John Ourand Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    What America’s Bold New Economic Experiment Is Missing

    What America’s Bold New Economic Experiment Is Missing
    The news media is very good at focusing on points of disagreement in our politics. Wherever Democrats and Republicans are butting heads, that's where we reliably find news coverage. When right and left disagree about trans rights, or the immigration border bill, or abortion, or January 6, or the indictments over January 6, you can bet that news coverage will be ample. But journalists like me sometimes have a harder time seeing through the lurid partisanship to focus on where both sides agree. It's these places, these subtle areas of agreements, these points of quiet fusion, where policy is actually made, where things actually happen. I’m offering you that wind up because I think something extraordinary is happening in American economics today. Something deeper than the headlines about lingering inflation. High grocery prices. Prohibitive interest rates. Stalled out housing markets. Quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, a new consensus is building in Washington concerning technology, and trade, and growth. It has three main parts: first, there is a newly aggressive approach to subsidizing the construction of new infrastructure, clean energy, and advanced computer chips that are integral to AI and military; second, there are new tariffs, or new taxes on certain imports, especially from China to protect US companies in these industries; and third, there are restrictions on Chinese technologies in the U.S., like Huawei and TikTok. Subsidies, tariffs, and restrictions are the new rage in Washington. Today’s guest is David Leonhardt, a longtime writer, columnist, and editor at The New York Times who currently runs their morning newsletter, The Morning. he is the author of the book Ours Was the Shining Future. We talk about the history of the old economic consensus, the death of Reaganism, the demise of the free trade standard, the strengths and weaknesses of the new economic consensus, what could go right in this new paradigm, and what could go horribly wrong. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: David Leonhardt Producer: Devon Baroldi Links: David Leonhardt on neopopulism: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/briefing/centrism-washington-neopopulism.html Greg Ip on the three-legged stool of new industrial policy: https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-u-s-finally-has-a-strategy-to-compete-with-china-will-it-work-ce4ea6cf Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    The Five Superstars Who Invented the Modern NBA

    The Five Superstars Who Invented the Modern NBA
    The game of basketball has changed dramatically in the last 40 years. In the early 1990s, Michael Jordan said that 3-point shooting was "something I don’t want to excel at," because he thought it might make him a less effective scorer. 20 years later, 3-point shots have taken over basketball. The NBA has even changed dramatically in the last decade. In the 2010s, it briefly seemed as if sharp-shooting guards would drive the center position out of existence. But the last four MVP awards have all gone to centers. In his new book, ‘Hoop Atlas,’ author Kirk Goldsberry explains how new star players have continually revolutionized the game. Goldsberry traces the evolution of basketball from the midrange mastery of peak Jordan in the 1990s, to the offensive dark ages of the early 2000s, to the rise of sprawl ball and "heliocentrism," and finally to emergence of a new apex predator in the game: the do-it-all big man. Today, we talk about the history of paradigm shifts in basketball strategy and how several key superstars in particular—Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, Manu Ginóbili, Steph Curry, and Nikola Jokic—have served as tactical entrepreneurs, introducing new plays and skills that transform the way basketball is played. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Kirk Goldsberry Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    Are Smartphones Really Driving the Rise in Teenage Depression?

    Are Smartphones Really Driving the Rise in Teenage Depression?
    Today—a closer critical look at the relationship between smartphones and mental health. One of the themes we’ve touched on more than any other on this show is that American teenagers—especially girls—appear to be “engulfed” in historic rates of anxiety and sadness. The numbers are undeniable. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which is published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, showed that from 2011 to 2021, the share of teenage girls who say they experience “persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness” increased by 50 percent. But there is a fierce debate about why this is happening. The most popular explanation on offer today in the media says: It’s the smartphones, stupid. Teen anxiety increased during a period when smartphones and social media colonized the youth social experience. This is a story I’ve shared on this very show, including with Jonathan Haidt, the author of the new bestselling book 'The Anxious Generation_.'_ But this interpretation is not dogma in scientific circles. In fact, it’s quite hotly debated. In 2019, an Oxford University study titled "The Association Between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use" found that the effect size of screen time on reduced mental health was roughly the same as the association with “eating potatoes.” Today, I want to give more space to the argument that it's not just the phones. Our guest is David Wallace-Wells, bestselling science writer and a columnist for The New York Times.  He says something more complicated is happening. In particular, the rise in teen distress seems concentrated in a handful of high-income and often English-speaking countries. So what is it about the interaction between smartphones, social media, and an emerging Anglophonic culture of mental health that seems to be driving this increase in teen distress? If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: David Wallace-Wells Producer: Devon Baroldi Links My original essay on the teen anxiety phenomenon https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/04/american-teens-sadness-depression-anxiety/629524/ "Are Smartphones Driving Our Teens to Depression?" by David Wallace-Wells https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/smartphones-social-media-mental-health-teens.html 'The Anxious Generation,' by Jonathan Haidt https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book Haidt responds to his critics https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic Our original episode with Haidt https://www.theringer.com/2022/4/22/23036468/why-are-american-teenagers-so-sad-and-anxious Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    Are Flying Cars Finally Here?

    Are Flying Cars Finally Here?
    For decades, flying cars have been a symbol of collective disappointment—of a technologically splendid future that was promised but never delivered. Whose fault is that? Gideon Lewis-Kraus, a staff writer at The New Yorker who has spent 18 months researching the history, present, and future of flying car technology, joins the show. We talk about why flying cars don't exist—and why they might be much closer to reality than most people think. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com.  Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Gideon Lewis-Kraus Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices