Humans Inhale as Much as 68,000 Microplastic Particles Daily, Study Finds (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0178914984
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/08/28/1316211/humans-inhale-as-much-as-68000-microplastic-particles-daily-study-finds
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/28/microplastics-in-hair-study
> The study, [2]published in the journal Plos One , estimates humans can inhale as much as 68,000 tiny plastic particles daily. Previous studies have identified larger pieces of airborne microplastics, but those are not as much of a health threat because they do not hang in the air as long, or move as deep into the pulmonary system.
>
> The smaller bits measure between 1 and 10 micrometers, or about one-seventh the thickness of a human hair, and present more of a health threat because they can more easily be distributed throughout the body. The findings "suggest that the health impacts of microplastic inhalation may be more substantial than we realize," the authors wrote.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/28/microplastics-in-hair-study
[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0328011#abstract0
Sure (Score:2)
Okay I am sure that your millage may vary depending on where you live, what you buy, want where you spend your time. But if their point is that many environments are saturated with the stuff, they are certainly right.
Well (Score:2, Interesting)
Since we are told that plastics of any form are killing us - what exactly is the way they are killing us. This whole we must eliminate plastics kind of reminds me of the freakout that when you flush the toilet, you are inhaling fecal matter.
So why am I supposed to know how I'm going to drop dead soon because of those 68K microparticles? And that disease are theycausing, and can this be traced back to the first use of plastics, And if we are to ban all plastics, what will take their place? Paper is killin
Re: (Score:2)
The exact same type of squeeling arguments were made by the car and petrochemical industries when countries started to ban leaded fuel back in the 80s and 90s. They were BS then and they're BS now.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny enough another top level commenter was also saying something like "we survived the 20th century without problems, lead was fine, plastic is worse".
The difficulty is that plastic is relatively harmless, (relatively, compared to things like lead), it hasn't so far impacted IQ scores or DNA (that we can tell!), and there was a dramatic and noticable impact on brain development in kids with something like lead. [1]https://today.duke.edu/2022/03/lead-exposure-last-century-shrunk-iq-scores-half-americans [duke.edu]
Pla
[1] https://today.duke.edu/2022/03/lead-exposure-last-century-shrunk-iq-scores-half-americans
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
> The exact same type of squeeling arguments were made by the car and petrochemical industries when countries started to ban leaded fuel back in the 80s and 90s. They were BS then and they're BS now.
I don't care if there was pushback - they were pushing back from a known thing, and asking for something other than "REEEE, plastics are bad!" without knowing what makes them bad are so different that even your hot hand fallacy that since banning lead isn't relevant at all.
You are actually using the hot hand theory about this? Did you know why leaded fuel was banned? A researcher, one Herbrt Needleman was looking into the problems of lead poisoning in children. They would tend to get it from eating paint chips that contained lead. Which unfortunately are sweet tasting.
It has been known for many, many years that lead is a poison, and that it causes a number of problems in humans, like mental decline, IQ loss, and poor impulse control, which leads to violent tendencies. It is also a teratogen. Known in medieval times and earlier. I have a book from the 1870's that outlines all the issues of lead poisoning. So hardly something new.
So my esteemed arguer, what on earth does this have to do with leaded gasoline? Well, in furtherance of his research, had violent criminals in prison tested. The results came back - high levels of lead. Some really high. Then in furtherance of his research, Needleman looked into where they lived as a child. Turns out that most all of the violent offenders lived right next to busy highways. After presentation of this very compelling evidence, lead was banned in gasoline. Yeah there was pushback.
[1]https://www.biologicaldiversit... [biologicaldiversity.org] And it wasn't that difficult to make a definitive statement that lead causes terrible problems. So your argument is specious, and we banned it because we knew the problems it caused.
And here you are just showing you are on the the opposite side of the same coin, not knowing what exactly plastics cause. And attacking anyone who dares to ask - what is the disease or infirmary? Plastics have been around a long time - it would seem to be just as effective as the lead ban to show what they do.
You are showing the same outlook as the vaccines cause autism people, when it has been proven they are not - just the actions of a now unemployed and disgraced British researcher who had a get rich plan with lawyers. Unfortunately, anti vaxxers just switched the cause from merthiolate to other vaccine ingredients, meanwhile missing the discovery that autism rates seem linked to the distance pregnant women lived from fields that were sprayed with glyphosate chemicals. [2]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov] and [3]https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] [4]https://www.autism360.com/roun... [autism360.com] [5]https://www.biologicaldiversit... [biologicaldiversity.org]
What you consider "sqeeling" is just dealing with facts, not whatever you think is real even if it is made up bullshit. I don't care if some geared was pissed off that his valves didn't last as long. Lead was dropped quickly after shown the proof. Today un teh US, the only leaded fuel is for aeronautical use.
Have you had yourself checked for lead exposure?
[1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Needleman_2004.pdf
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10972278/
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691525003898
[4] https://www.autism360.com/roundup-herbicide-a-trigger-for-autism-says-mit-122/
[5] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Needleman_et_al_2002.pdf
Re: Well (Score:3)
Did you actually read that load of incoherent babble first before you cut and pasted it from chatgpt?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when gasoline was leaded? Then we had "ethyl" and "unleaded" at the pump - octane wasn't a thing yet. We used to siphon gas when we were broke as kids with a piece of garden hose. If you were out of practice you ended up gulping down some. Lead was the very least of our problems lol. And microplastics? ROTFL. Shine on you crazy diamonds.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't disagree with your points. Sounds like I breathed in several million micro plastics so far this month, and I'm somehow not dead yet.
but I would point out that we CAN recycle paper and plastic, but apparently, we don't have the will to do so, it' probably costs more than whatever we do now. Or, perhaps, it's just the people who are profiting from plastic, for the sake of the argument, do things to make recycling unattractive, thereby keeping their control over the supply, and therefore continue to pr
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't disagree with your points. Sounds like I breathed in several million micro plastics so far this month, and I'm somehow not dead yet. but I would point out that we CAN recycle paper and plastic, but apparently, we don't have the will to do so, it' probably costs more than whatever we do now. Or, perhaps, it's just the people who are profiting from plastic, for the sake of the argument, do things to make recycling unattractive, thereby keeping their control over the supply, and therefore continue to profit.
It must depend on where. In my little town in Appalachia, we have plastic, glass and metal recycling pickup, people who separate the items, and our local nature conservancy takes recycling that the pickup system doesn't.
Incumbents have those advantages, and they aren't going to let go of them until we pry them from their dead hands, as the saying goes. That's pretty much human nature, imo.
Re: (Score:2)
> what exactly is the way they are killing us
That's a good question that needs answers before I take up my limited "bandwidth" of things to worry about. There's only so much we can process, so we need to set priorities. Then is the matter of people that live a life of worrying about such little things because so much has been removed from our lives to worry about. I think of people with so much money, so many personal aids to deal with their schedules, bills, and so on that they get wrapped up about getting the "wrong kind" of bottled water or thei
Re: (Score:2)
>> what exactly is the way they are killing us
> That's a good question that needs answers before I take up my limited "bandwidth" of things to worry about. There's only so much we can process, so we need to set priorities. Then is the matter of people that live a life of worrying about such little things because so much has been removed from our lives to worry about. I think of people with so much money, so many personal aids to deal with their schedules, bills, and so on that they get wrapped up about getting the "wrong kind" of bottled water or their restaurant order being the "wrong" temperature or color.
Yup, I'm all about getting rid of things that are provably bad, like leaded fuel, asbestos, and benzene. But there is a sizable number of people who seem to believe they simply have to have something to ban - as if they are trying to go back to the 1500's, or even earlier, because all people then lived long healthy lives free of toxins and the bad thing du jour. Or maybe not.
Re: (Score:2)
>> The overarching question however is, does fecal matter?
> That was a poopy pun, shithead.
But at least I triggered you, so I'm happy!
Re: (Score:2)
> Since we are told that plastics of any form are killing us - what exactly is the way they are killing us.
If you had the background to understand the explanation, you would already know the answer. Dumbing down the explanation to the point where most of us could understand it introduces sufficient imprecision for nit-pickers to declare the explanation a lie.
This is the basis of the anti-science problem we face as a society. We all believe that we understand more than we do, so we reject the work of those whose work we do not understand. " A little knowledge is dangerous. "
Re: (Score:2)
>> Since we are told that plastics of any form are killing us - what exactly is the way they are killing us.
> If you had the background to understand the explanation, you would already know the answer. Dumbing down the explanation to the point where most of us could understand it introduces sufficient imprecision for nit-pickers to declare the explanation a lie.
> This is the basis of the anti-science problem we face as a society. We all believe that we understand more than we do, so we reject the work of those whose work we do not understand. " A little knowledge is dangerous. "
It is very very very simple - I will understand the big words, despite what you think of me. I have academic access to most research. I ask for one thing only.
Show me the research and the causes that require us to ban plastics. Simple, action following supporting evidence.
For someone who claims greater intellectual prowess than me, you seem to be incapable of understanding what I already wrote.
Or do you just believe anything anyone tells you? Accepting claims without supporting evidence is by its ver
Re: (Score:2)
> It is very very very simple - I will understand the big words, despite what you think of me. I have academic access to most research. I ask for one thing only.
> Show me the research and the causes that require us to ban plastics. Simple, action following supporting evidence.
> For someone who claims greater intellectual prowess than me, you seem to be incapable of understanding what I already wrote.
See, there you go thinking this is a personal attack. It is not. It is not about *YOU* (and I did not "claim greater intellectual prowess than you". I said people do not believe what they don't understand -and most of us do not have the background to understand the explanations, ergo we do not believe the science. )
If you have the background to understand the answer to your question: "what exactly is the way [plastics] are killing us?" go read up on it. It is out there. You can likely get the basics of
Re: (Score:2)
> Since we are told that plastics of any form are killing us - what exactly is the way they are killing us. This whole we must eliminate plastics kind of reminds me of the freakout that when you flush the toilet, you are inhaling fecal matter.
Yeah, I'd like some context too. 68k particles sounds like a lot. But for comparison, how many dust particles do I inhale every day? How many actual dust mites? How many non-plastic particles of various sizes do we inhale?
A human lung has something like 10-100 billion cells. That means we inhale one particle per lung cell every 15 years. Are the consequences of this measurable? Or are the health consequences of sitting at a desk all day ranting to strangers far worse?
Not just us (Score:2)
This crap is all over the enviroment too when it floats out the window into the breeze. If you want to see it shine a bright torch in a dark room with synthetic fabrics/carpets and look at all the synthetic fibres floating about.
Re: (Score:2)
Or put on clothing with the sun shining through the window just right. Some clothing sheds so much it makes a 3d hologram. Worse in lower humidity.
Well (Score:2)
Well, that's something I didn't need to know.
The real reason for AI? (Score:2)
Maybe all these whacked-out trans-humanist brogligarchs have known this for a while, figure it's going to kill humanity as we know it, and decided that the future of the human race lies in silicon and steel with maybe a few token 'meat' parts.
Challenge Accepted (Score:3)
"humans can inhale as much as 68,000 tiny plastic particles daily"
*BUrP* Hold my beer.
"as much as" (Score:2)
and humans eat as many as 100 spiders per day!
it's easy to get impressive numbers when you prefix it with "as much as". That's just the upper limit. Often not even anywhere near the average
Clickbait.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a Haitian joke in here somewhere.
Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
The alternative is no plastics and I don't think that is an option. Friction is on everything and it all breaks down, you find another cheap durable material and it's going to do the same thing as plastics, it's going to be everywhere. We could probably build more things out of wood or plants, which breaks down well but not as durable.
Someone needs to do a cost benefit analysis and determine the good plastics does vs the bad. I'm sure plastics save lives also and improves costs then to get me to switch I want to see a pros/cons list, not just the cons list that makes headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is saying to stop using any types of plastics?
Cellulose! (Score:2)
Cellulose, which is what holds trees up, eventually breaks down via bacteria, which evolved that ability because cellulose became common around 300m years ago. Termites have such bacteria in their guts to assist with metabolism.
The details have yet to be worked out, but it's a possible plastic substitute. It has properties very similar to plastic when processed certain ways. The downside is the microbes would eventually eat your spank-bank laptop.
Re: (Score:1)
Addendum: Cellulose may not be able to replace all uses of plastic just yet, but it's a start. As there is more R&D on it (and other alternatives), more options will appear, similar to the battery learning curve.
Thank god that I smoke. (Score:2)
I'm protected by the tobacco filter.
Does this cause us any real problems. (Score:1)
I know its awful and all and every were in our bodies which is fucked. But like cell phones and microwave radiation and power lines, Is this really causing any issues.
I know it cant be good for us, and I know a lot of the science but if it was causing issue would we have found them by now?
68000? (Score:2)
So are they getting plastic blast processing out of it?
Exhale? (Score:2)
How many do we exhale? We're probably more interested in inhaled - exhaled, rather than just inhaled.
Filters (Score:2)
I am sure I have plenty of plastics in my home environment, including from my wall-to-wall carpet.
For decades, I have been using a whole-house AprilAire HVAC-inline MERV-13-rated filter, with the HVAC fan set on continuous, 24/7. These are not those thin replacement things people put on their air returns, but a thick, large filter contained in a box in the attic which I replace once a year (and if you buy the filters in bulk, they are cheaper). I think it is money well spent, especially since I have lots
Re: (Score:2)
Lead is a single poison and the body can just about cope up to a point. After all, those of us alive in the 20th century breathed a ton of the stuff in from car fumes.
The problem with plastic is that it isn't a single chemical, its a whole farmyard of them so it hits the body on a whole host of fronts with different toxic effects.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've read some theorize the fall of the roman empire might have been connected to pollution...
I'd not be surprised in in the future we find Trump voters had the most brain damage from modern pollution.
Re: (Score:3)
> I've read some theorize the fall of the roman empire might have been connected to pollution...
> I'd not be surprised in in the future we find Trump voters had the most brain damage from modern pollution.
Don't rural folks, who live in far cleaner and greener areas, typically overwhelming vote conservative?
And it's the pollution-heavy urban areas that typically overwhelmingly vote liberal?
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't rural folks, who live in far cleaner and greener areas, typically overwhelming vote conservative?
Do they, though? Some of the worst air quality in California is in the central valley, a vast agricultural region.
Re:The Romans (Score:5, Informative)
This is the reason "most likely" why certain trends are up. Cancers? Likely plastic breaking down and releasing hormone-mimicing chemicals. Decreases in fertility? Same. People going gay or transgender? same. Autism? Same. At last the bogeyman to blame everything not genetic we haven't discovered a cure for.
In the grand scheme of things, the entire point of plastic was that it didn't interfere with anything, it just passed through the system harmlessly. That's what Teflon does. However the chemical used to make it stick onto metal C-8 is one of those PFAS chemicals that is one of these forever-chemicals that are causing health problems in people.
Another thing? Oh did you know that the largest source of microplastics in food comes from the actual processing pipeline? That's why chicken nuggets have the highest concentration of microplastics. Another large source? Polyester, every time you wash your clothes, you are shedding microplastics all over your environment.
Unfortunately the only way we're getting microplastics or C8 out of the environment is to find a way to reclaim them from the environment, which means that's one more thing we need to be mindful of when sending stuff to the landfill.
Re: The Romans (Score:2)
Just think how many silica particles youâ(TM)re breathing in! So far, almost everyone who has ever breathed in silica has died!
Re: (Score:2)
> Just think how many silica particles you're breathing in! So far, almost everyone who has ever breathed in silica has died!
Breathing causes death. !00% of all dead people were habitual breathers.
[From my college logic class. :-) ]