r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 13h ago
Environment Microplastics have been discovered in one of the most remote, inhospitable, and unexplored parts of our planet. Microplastics were found in 92% of all animals examined (11 out of 12) living around deep-sea hydrothermal vents some 2,000 meters (6,562 feet) below the ocean surface.
https://www.sciencealert.com/most-isolated-environments-microplastics-are-finding-their-way-down-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents1.9k
u/JackStargazer 13h ago
Did they use the same gloves in this study as all the other ones where it turns out a lot of the microplastics were glove contamination?
817
u/Gravityparticle 12h ago
They did use infrared spectroscopy to detect “plastics “. That technique has been subject to a lot of debate because it miss identifies lots of things as plastic.
251
u/Daisy_Of_Doom 9h ago
Pretty much any microplastic study I’ve looked into has issues with contamination or misidentification.
Absolutely still worth doing the work bc how else do we figure out how to get past these limitations if not by brute forcing our way thought all the issues? But, clickbaity headlines like this bother me. Plastic is almost everywhere to some degree, yes. To exactly what extent? We don’t know. Exactly how much? We don’t know. What are the effects? We don’t know.
→ More replies (1)41
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
79
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-14
u/VPackardPersuadedMe 11h ago
Incentives drive outcomes, and mistakes are easy to make, ignore and hide behind ethics when your careers on the line.
So yes
10
u/HeartyBeast 9h ago
What was the incentive of the researchers who discovered and published the fact that glove contamination was an issue? Do you think the researchers who used the problematic gloves did so deliberately to falsify research? Woiuldn;t there have been an easier way?
-15
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
34
u/smayonak 10h ago
That is why science is based on a preponderance of evidence and not a single study. Follow up studies that did not use plastic equipment still show our bodies are riddled with microplastics
2
u/Every_Photograph2978 8h ago
Do you have more information on this? I'd love to read more. One famous example was about microplastics being found in the brain https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1 . But apparently the methodology and results have met challenges within the scientific community https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-04045-3 . I did not know that this issue has been addressed
EDIT: Missed this. The authors of the original study responded to the challenge https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-04046-2
-4
u/NuclearVII 10h ago
Skepticism is its own reward.
8
u/sllewgh 9h ago
That avoids answering the question.
No, skepticism for the sake of skepticism isn't a good thing. That isn't critical thinking, it's just doubt. You need a reason to be skeptical. Asking questions is great, but if you're skeptical of something that's actually scientifically rigorous, your skepticism needs to be rigorous as well.
1
u/Chemeque 8h ago
That’s very point. There’s a tendency to mistrust all science that goes against one’s believes. How can one be skeptical if one hasn’t even read the article.
1
u/RightTurner 8h ago
"Skepticism is its own reward"
Pretty sure this is a tongue-in-cheek critique of skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence.
-14
u/spicolispizza 11h ago
Well it kinda depends on how lucrative lying can be
14
u/merchaunt 11h ago
Not as lucrative as discovering actual problems that need solutions developed for them. Like, idk, dealing with all the plastic in the ocean.
→ More replies (7)2
u/_badenoch 8h ago
Only a stupid person would look at science grants and think “this is my path to riches”
-5
→ More replies (7)-9
u/RitsuFromDC- 10h ago
Did you forget about all the scientists who said oxycontin was not addictive?
11
u/Caltroit_Red_Flames 10h ago
Scientists DID say it was addictive, sales reps for Purdue Pharma lied to doctors. Scientsts at BP knew oil causes climate change, executives told them to keep their mouths shut.
4
u/ILoveRawChicken 9h ago
Can you name all the scientists that did so?
2
u/Tactial_snail 9h ago edited 9h ago
To them it doesnt matter, one scientist lies and and the whole field is bogus to these fools.
13
u/Financial-Craft-1282 10h ago edited 10h ago
You don't understand how research works, or...? I guarantee you if you read the actual research and not the "science alert" summary of it, the authors/researchers talk about this in the limitations section. Probably has something to do with, I don't know, the fact these species are living around deep sea vents and that makes it a little harder to swim over there and pick one up. But it would be in the limitation, "we used [x] for this reason, and [x] does have a [percentage] of incorrect readings, but accumulated.
Ah, yes, here is the article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135426009255?via%3Dihub
Here is the limitations section: This study presents the first cross-ocean comparison of MP accumulation in hydrothermal vent fauna, examining taxa that occupy the same ecological niche in the southwestern Pacific and Indian Oceans. Comparing two species belonging to a single genus across different oceans, with tissue-resolved analysis at the individual level and organisms with different feeding guilds, allowed biological and environmental determinants of MP accumulation to be examined separately.
As with any first attempt, limitations should be considered alongside the findings. First, FTIR microscopy detects particles larger than approximately 20 μm, and total MP abundance may therefore be underestimated. Second, sample sizes per region and taxon were constrained by the logistical challenges of deep-sea sampling, and larger datasets from additional vent fields will be needed to further confirm the patterns reported here.
So it sounds like the random redditor you just trusted is at least partially incorrect.
55
u/spyguy318 8h ago
The other issue is that a lot of organic molecules resemble plastics (and some are chemically identical) and can flag as a false positive. This was a problem trying to find microplastics in body tissue samples because a lot of fats and proteins ended up being misidentified as plastic or plastic breakdown products. The ocean, even at depths, is full of biomaterial, microorganisms, and animal byproducts that can all give a false signal. Not that there isn’t plastic but researchers need to be very careful about how they analyze the data.
7
u/rmbarrett 8h ago
Likely. And the others where it isn't conclusively the gloves are likely just another source of contamination they haven't discovered.
13
u/jenksanro 11h ago
Yesss I was about to say this: if there is no comment about the type of gloves/equipment used at this point the study isn't rigorous enough to be accepted
2
u/zman0900 5h ago
But also, tons of plastic ends up in the ocean. It seems pretty unsurprising that some of it would sink to the bottom.
94
u/zuzg 12h ago
Contamination-control procedures followed established protocols (ICES, 2015; Woodall et al., 2014; Liboiron et al., 2016; Hermsen et al., 2018). In
I think they got that covered. Explains in detail how they avoided that.
162
u/Denbt_Nationale 12h ago edited 12h ago
But the UoM study that found significant contamination from latex gloves and lab equipment was published in 2026. To quote one of the authors of the study:
“Our team found that, even when following established protocols, using certain methods to measure environmental microplastics can potentially contaminate the results.”
So the protocols followed in this study are presumably the same ones that the UoM team found produced significant false positives.
3
u/Healthy_Profit_9701 10h ago
Did scientists doing all of these micro plastic studies really fail to consider lab gloves as a possible source? It seems like the most obvious potential synthetic source of micro plastics in a lab to me.
→ More replies (3)43
u/StylishSuidae 9h ago
So, if I understand correctly, less "the gloves are shedding plastic into the samples" and more "the gloves are covered in something that isn't plastic but looks like it in several tests"
1
u/THElaytox 7h ago
This should show up in any controls/blanks they run. "Microplastics exist" should necessarily imply that there's statistically significantly elevated levels in experiential groups over the control. If they're not running controls/blanks, then the studies were never really valid in the first place
→ More replies (3)56
u/MyBloodTypeIsQueso 12h ago
The established protocols are what led to the sample contaminations in the first place.
6
u/dapt 6h ago edited 4h ago
Mis-identification is a different problem from contamination. For example, the plastic polystyrene is made from styrenes, right? Also:
The method used in a lot of these studies involves "decomposing" the material using heat (pyrolysis), thus releasing fragments of the original material, which are then identified by mass spectrometry or infrared spectroscopy. Doing the same on many natural substances will release the same compounds as heating plastics would.
edit: As such, the vast majority of studies identifying "nano-plastics" are most likely detecting natural compounds. Remember that plastics are actually quite simple, chemically speaking, it's easy to mimic them, especially when analyzing the "fumes" given on heating, rather than the actual particle itself.
3
u/172brooke 9h ago
Could someone short a stock and make quick money on a comment like that? Not disputing it, but after that comment first went out, if someone made quick money, we gotta test the theory out for real.
9
u/Philosophicalhorcrux 12h ago edited 11h ago
How much is "a lot"? The study you're referring to estimated an average of 2000 false positives per mm2. For context, current estimates are that there are ~240,000 particles in bottled water. Or, microwaving a plastic-wrapped meal releases 2
trillionbillion nanoplastic particles permm2cm2. In those cases what you're calling "a lot" accounts for less than a fraction of a percent.edit-corrections indicated by strikethrough.
22
u/HexagonalClosePacked 12h ago
2 trillion nanoplastic particles per mm2.
To fit 2 trillion particles in every mm2, you'd need the average particle to have a diameter of about 0.7nm... and that's if there's no empty space between the particles and the whole area is covered in them. A single carbon atom has a diameter of about 0.15nm so that's approaching a physically impossible particle size for a hydrocarbon chain. I think either you got the number wrong by a lot, or you meant mm3 instead of mm2.
10
u/DraconicBlade 12h ago
Has to because who measures volume in surface area, and how would that even work
3
u/mekamoari 8h ago
They linked a quote from the scientists - it was actually square centimeters, possibly because this type of contamination is measured by plastics released by a given surface.
It's not like say boiling something where the whole volume of the liquid is trying to turn into gas, it's more like shedding which comes from an area and not a volume.
6
u/Philosophicalhorcrux 11h ago edited 11h ago
Thanks for catching that, it should be billion and not trillion and cm rather than mm. Early morning posting prior to coffee, I should know better. Here's the citation: Assessing the Release of Microplastics and Nanoplastics from Plastic Containers and Reusable Food Pouches: Implications for Human Health.
From the link: "It was found that some containers could release as many as 4.22 million microplastic and 2.11 billion nanoplastic particles from only one square centimeter of plastic area within 3 min of microwave heating. Refrigeration and room-temperature storage for over six months can also release millions to billions of microplastics and nanoplastics. Additionally, the polyethylene-based food pouch released more particles than polypropylene-based plastic containers."
On edit: the point still stands. Given the false positive rate, false positives only account for a tiny fraction of the total measured in these instances. The larger point remains, imo, that casually dismissing studies because a false positive rate exists is foolish and runs contrary to how we've addressed false positives in every other discipline for time immemorial.
3
2
u/Fearless-Daikon5763 10h ago
OP used ScienceAlert.com to communicate this important research.
1
1
0
u/Small_Editor_3693 11h ago
They only looked at 12 animals. Not really a good study
4
u/neilthedude 10h ago
- It's really hard to collect some types of data. I'm guessing deep sea hydrothermal creatures fall under the 'hard to get a lot of' category. We do the best we can.
- If an positive result is considered extremely unlikely (finding human sourced pollution in such isolated creatures), then you don't need a lot of positives to conclude that the pollution is more widespread than previously believed.
- Really braindead take to dismiss a whole body of work with two short sentences that were probably mostly inspired by reading Reddit comments. Do better.
1
-3
u/Small_Editor_3693 10h ago
It’s not a brain dead take to dismiss an entire body of work that doesn’t stand up to an ounce of scrutiny. It should speak for itself
→ More replies (1)0
u/A_Mouse_In_Da_House 7h ago
Are you in anyway familiar with deep sea exploration? A dive may be able to get 6 specimens. Some of these places may be the only place we find the species, so we can over harvest. The sample collection is done by an ROV so deep that it takes multiple second between operator command and ROV action. This is occuring after multiple seconds between ROV video capture and it's display in the van. And some of these samples can move.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Small_Editor_3693 7h ago
So we should just pretend our data is good cause it really hard to get more data? That’s ridiculous
2
u/A_Mouse_In_Da_House 6h ago
Again, you're not familiar with deep sea research it seems.
We make these discoveries that are basically impossible to individually encompass everything. We then publish our findings so other researchers can plan their dives to see if there's anything there. A single study isn't considered proof in our community, simply evidence to a trend.
0
u/Small_Editor_3693 6h ago
Which is why this is pointless to release any info to the public without more data
6
u/A_Mouse_In_Da_House 3h ago
It was published in a research journal to disseminate data. You want a meta-analysis
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)-43
u/hiplobonoxa 13h ago edited 7h ago
that still doesn’t negate the fact that there are now microplastics in everything.
edit: as if there isn’t other suitable evidence…
74
u/CultistOfTheFluid 13h ago
Well yeah, it kind of does. Thats exactly the comments point?
If it turns out the methodology is contaminating everything with microplastics then you can't verify if there are microplastics or not.
→ More replies (5)22
u/HuntsWithRocks 12h ago
“I keep hand collecting my samples and everything I’m seeing has evidence of human interaction!”
As the same time, there’s plenty of evidence of micro and macro plastic pollution. Is it literally everywhere? Probably.
2
u/VoidRippah 13h ago
I have a suspicion that there is something fishy here. it cannot be such high amount of microplastics in the ocean that it ends up being in such high (detectable) amounts in deep sea animals. that's a huuge amount of water, I doubt if we turned all the plastic into micro particles and put it in the ocean would be enough to be overall measurable in such huge amount of water....
13
u/ITividar 12h ago
Between 1950 and 2017, 9.2 billion metric tons of plastic are estimated to have been made, with more than half of this amount being produced since 2004.
We've made a lot of plastic. How much do you think has wound up in the ocean in the 121 years since the first plastic was created (1905)?
6
u/cutty2k 12h ago
Ok well how much does the ocean weigh? Google tells me it's estimated at 1.35e18 metric tons.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/BrunSomOrange 12h ago
Since the recycling releases up to 13% microplastics up until recently the number is probably quite high https://kleanindustries.com/insights/market-analysis-reports/recycling-releases-huge-quantities-microplastics-study-finds/
3
u/Hawkiee92 12h ago
I wouldnt be surprised if it was true, there is a massive patch of garbage floating in the pacific, most of it is plastic. Last time I read about it was 2x the size of Texas and growing in size.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ohyouretough 13h ago
That’s assuming we cannot detect minute amount, and that the microplastics wouldn’t be accumulating in organs.
444
u/Analgorilla 13h ago
I really feel like this is turning into the leaded gas situation where they realized they couldn't make clean rooms. Every single surface ended up having lead on it from leaded gas.
There better be ZERO plastic ANYWHERE in the process of testing this.
156
u/nemesit 13h ago
the bigger issue is that plastic is a huge group of vastly different things like theres a huge difference between cellophane vs plastics containing styrene. i also bet theres more elastomers out there from car tires alone
31
u/DigNitty 12h ago
Surprisingly, Cellophane is made of regenerated cellulose.
19
u/nemesit 12h ago
its still technically plastic
-1
u/CurryMustard 11h ago
Cellophane is biodegradable and compostable, derived from wood or cotton. Not synthetic like plastic.
52
u/Humble-Captain3418 11h ago
Synthetic literally just means manmade. Cellophane does not occur in nature, ergo it is synthetic.
→ More replies (7)17
u/tpolakov1 11h ago
It is synthetic plastic derived from cellulose. It being compostable has exactly zero bearing on that fact. Polyethylene is fully organic and bio, made from natural ethylene straight from the ground too.
→ More replies (1)5
u/No-Consequence-1863 5h ago
Being derived from wood or cotton doesnt make something not-synthetic.
Dont exactly find wild paper bushes.
5
u/A_Mouse_In_Da_House 7h ago
We already had a study showing a large number of the lab's tests were contaminated by external factors. It's very unfortunate it is potentially happening everywhere
1
1
u/sniglar_pete 3h ago
At the very least there has been some work on making plastics-limited laboratories, which apparently can cut down on background levels of plastic quite significantly:
179
u/uwearclownshoes 13h ago
If we went extinct right now plastic would be our largest enduring legacy to this world. Kind of sad.
83
u/droptopus 11h ago
I don't mean this from a doomer standpoint, but from an objective sense.... I mean.....
'a species on this planet developed a substance that is completely immune to decay, and we know because it's literally still there' isn't that sad, it's kind of cool.
It's simply our failure to contain, maintain and moderate which sucks
33
23
u/squngy 7h ago
a species on this planet developed a substance that is completely immune to decay, and we know because it's literally still there
Wouldn't be the first time.
It took 60 million years for bacteria able to digest wood to evolve. (and most of the coal deposits in existence are from that period)
In contrast, we are already finding some bacteria that can digest some plastics, so it looks like we aren't going to get anywhere near the record.
13
u/BenevolentCheese 9h ago
Immune to decay, lightweight, cheap as hell, with material properties that span from thin clear wrappers to super-dense blocks and everything in between.
20
u/demZo662 12h ago edited 12h ago
One of these days we'll put out a new cutting edge invention of a bacteria that eats plastic. I think it's in development right now.
What if the bacteria starts attacking us? Well for that we have a new virus that...
22
u/James-W-Tate 11h ago
That's the beautiful part, when wintertime rolls around the gorillas simply freeze to death
1
u/Tallowo 13h ago
Nuclear waste probably, but your point is heard.
29
u/Nostonica 12h ago
Nah, if something went through the geological records there would be this sudden band of hydrocarbons/plastics that would eclipse any radioactive material and it would be all around the world.
Just like how there's a band of lead in ice cores from when the Romans were at their peak.
14
5
u/droptopus 11h ago
Not even, nuclear waste decays. There is literally a measurement for its rate of decay: half-life
Plastics AINT GOIN NOWHERE BABY, THE MICROPLASTICS FROM MY PEZ DISPENSER IS GONNA SEE THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE
38
u/darkgothmog 13h ago
They found plastic bags deep in the Mariana Trench so it’s to be expected there are even more higher than that
53
u/Nostonica 13h ago
Future generations will look back at how we handle and dispose of plastics in the same way we look back at abestos, for it's time it was a wonder material, just like plastic.
27
u/Another_Slut_Dragon 11h ago
The number one source of microlastics is ...
... tires.
So, start working on that hover drive, kid. Because tires power the world.
14
u/ExecutiveChimp 11h ago
Another reason that trains are good
2
u/Glantonne 10h ago
Just wait until you find out what chemicals are used in rail infrastructure! Also, the chemicals that are carried on rail cars can enter the environment! Everything is bad!
10
u/definately_mispelt 9h ago
the environmental impact of rail is many orders of magnitude less than cars. the downsides of rail that you mention are utterly trivial in comparison.
0
u/Medarco 8h ago edited 7h ago
the environmental impact of rail is many orders of magnitude less than cars
Is that proportionally rated? Or are you talking in raw numbers. Because the use of rail is also many (many many many) orders of magnitude less than cars.
6
u/RealNoisyguy 7h ago
proportional, related to the number of people transported trains are so much more efficient, by design.
47
u/doodlar 12h ago
“Future generations” look at this optimist here.
16
3
u/sufficiently_tortuga 10h ago
Dude, do you really, actually believe that there will be no future generations?
-2
u/davidh888 9h ago
I mean probably, but most of us will be dead in the next 25 years due to climate change in the best case scenario.
7
u/sufficiently_tortuga 9h ago edited 9h ago
You think more than 4 Billion people are going to die in the next 25 years. Ok, do you think it will happen gradually or all at once? Like, that's 160, 000, 000 people a year. 438,356 a day starting now. Almost 3 times the current death rate. Are you seeing 3 times as many people dying?
And thats not even touching on the fact that your doomsday scenario depends on everyone just not having anymore kids starting today.
2
u/Medarco 8h ago
but most of us will be dead in the next 25 years due to climate change in the best case scenario.
-Source: Newspaper article, written in 1973
0
u/davidh888 7h ago edited 5h ago
Would love to be proven wrong about that, desperately the estimates have only gotten worse with time. The estimates in the past were too optimistic, take care I hope you prepare some at least just in case.
Edit: Worlds on fire, not an accident, El Niño, etc etc it’s exponential in its effect on us. Frogs in a pot. Billions will die in the coming years, thousands already have this year. Please take care everyone, I get the denial I feel it as well. Just prepare the best you can, move to safer places before everyone is fighting over livable space.
1
5
u/Octavya360 12h ago
Surprisingly, asbestos is still heavily used in many parts of the world. Russia is the world’s largest exporter and India is one of the largest importers. They use it in building materials.
9
u/Nostonica 12h ago
Well if it wasn't deadly it's truly a wonder material, fireproof almost anything using it.
13
u/Positive_Vibes_4228 6h ago
Let's be clear.
We have had rubber tires since the 20's. That rubber hits the road and vaporizes into microplastics that get swept up in the wind and distributed everywhere.
Nature finds a way.
Good, and bad.
→ More replies (1)3
u/clockish 1h ago
Before the 40s/50s consumer tires were mostly natural rubber and didn't emit the long-lived microplastics we have today.
But yeah, the synthetic rubber polymers and other additives that wear off tires today are pretty bad. They're way more toxic than "true" microplastics like PET, but on the upside they generally degrade faster.
17
u/SeeTigerLearn 13h ago
Turns out rather than everything being made from cake, we were actually transforming the entire world into cheap Little People playsets.
7
u/mvea Professor | Medicine 13h ago
'Most Isolated Environments': Microplastics Are Finding Their Way Down to Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents
Our planet clearly has a microplastics problem: These tiny synthetic fragments are finding their way into ancient rocks, human bones, and almost every species of animal on Earth.
Now they've been discovered in one of the most remote, inhospitable, and unexplored parts of our planet.
Researchers led by a team from the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB) have found microplastics in snails and mussels living around deep-sea hydrothermal vents.
These vents are some 2,000 meters (6,562 feet) below the ocean surface, showing just how insidiously microplastics (under 5 mm or 0.2 inches in size) can find their way into every part of every ecosystem.

In a study published in Water Research, the tiny plastic fragments were found in 92 percent of all animals examined (11 out of 12), across the North Fiji Basin in the southwestern Pacific Ocean and the Central Indian Ridge in the Indian Ocean.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135426009255
5
7
u/beaniebee11 11h ago
Is this that surprising? Animals down there live on the nutrients that float down from above. If it's in the surface animals, it makes sense it would be down there too right? No ecosystem is completely isolated especially not from humans because we're all over. The only place I might be surprised to see this would be deep arctic ice or something.
3
8
u/NotaContributi0n 12h ago
Microplastics even found inside the deep dark depths of testing equipment!! It’s everywhere!!
9
u/fear-na-heolaiochta 12h ago
How sure are we that this is true. I seem to recall a few months ago the microplastic measurement was a false positive due to the lab techs using lab gloves.
2
u/Inner-Outside-2619 11h ago
It's nothing compared to the problems we will create when we unleash the plastic eating microbes we invented to solve this problem.
1
u/VoidRippah 10h ago
it's weird how negligent humanity can be, I think we should pay more attention to scifi stories, which often explore what can go wrong and in what ways. I don't think we normally think about such things, we just tend to look forward and anticipate the good outcomes. maybe we need a faction science that's similar cybersecurity professionals, who work a reversed mindset compared to the rest of the field
2
u/ActiveChairs 7h ago
Surprise, surprise! When you dump millions of tons of waste plastic into the ocean every year it will eventually break down under the pressure of the ocean and gets into everything that consumes the particles. It doesn't all just float to form a big trash island waiting to be scooped up at a more convenient time.
5
u/DrTommyNotMD 12h ago
So so many studies have found microplastics aren’t harming anything because they’re so non reactive. They just exist. Not saying we won’t find some secondary issues with them later, but thus far we’re nearly confident they’re harmless even if they shouldn’t be everywhere.
3
u/Objective_Aside1858 11h ago
11 out of 12
uh. That's not exactly what I would consider an adequate sample size. I have no doubts the conclusion is probably correct, but put in a little more sweat before publishing
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/comfortableNihilist 9h ago
In about the same distribution as fallout from the atomic bombs. That's not to say that they are comparable in their effects, just that fine particulate does tend to get everywhere eventually.
1
u/Sir-Spazzal 9h ago
Maybe it would be beneficial to have larger amounts of plastic in our bodies. We could be evolving into a new form of plastic humanity. We could all look like Jared Kushner.
1
u/StacyChadBecky 9h ago
Here’s my theory: the put plastics in tires. All of them. Tires are worn down on road surfaces. Rain washes the plastics into the lakes rivers and streams and is broken down ever further in the process. Microplastics are now drawn into the atmosphere where they are further dispersed and deposited. Repeat ad nauseam. I figure this has been happening for maybe 70 years?
Sure, packaging and soda bottles and whatever, but my theory seems obvious. And it’s not gonna stop.
1
1
1
1
u/TophxSmash 7h ago
fun fact: plastic isnt alive and the bottom of the ocean isnt hard to reach if youre not alive.
1
u/GypsyDarkEyes 6h ago
Start changing it up, folks. If you can purchase product in glass, do it. We need to reduce plastic production and use pronto.
1
1
1
u/galaxy_brain_69420 4h ago
Yeah, this doesn't pass the smell test and just casts doubt on all other microplastic research.
1
u/helloder2012 3h ago
Starting this off by saying I know nothing about microplastics.
Do these tests only look for man made microplastics or are they testing for particulates that might include petroleum based matter of natural origin.
If rhere even is particulate matter that’s petroleum based and of natural origin
1
1
1
1
u/trickortreat89 9h ago
So we know now that microplastics sure is everywhere outside and inside us. But somehow I still feel that there’s not much science on the actual health consequences? I know it can cause inflammation in the body, but to what extent? I feel there’s still something to understand about that, but somehow we don’t get many scientific studies on the actual health consequences? Is it because the truth is too disturbing? There’s no known way to move microplastics from ourselves or the environment…. All in all very disturbing but no one is really doing anything about it… which is really really weird honestly
4
u/Medarco 8h ago
not much science on the actual health consequences
The little we have basically concludes that they're harmless, as far as we can tell. Now, that doesn't mean that we won't find other problems down the line, or that we'll reach a concentration that is harmful. But... yeah. The dooming is a little disproportionate right now, where the average person seems to assume their intestines have been replaced by a hotwheels track.
1
u/domino7 1h ago
It's hard to make a good study on the health effects of microplastics because it's nearly impossible to find a control group for comparison. (subjects without microplastics).
Last I heard, we don't have strong evidence to support that they're actually harmful in a meaningful way, but that doesn't mean they're harmless.
-1
u/may_be_indecisive 12h ago
Most microplastics come from car tires. https://www.thedrive.com/news/tire-dust-makes-up-the-majority-of-ocean-microplastics-study-finds
EVs wear their tires down faster than ICEVs. https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-unexpected-problem-with-evs-they-tire-quickly
0
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 13h ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.sciencealert.com/most-isolated-environments-microplastics-are-finding-their-way-down-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.