Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Our bodies have few ways to excrete plastics and cells don’t appear to have a known way to identify or work around absorbed plastics.

You could give blood, use mechanisms to capture bile, and hope staying hydrated can help your kidneys to by chance get rid of more, but otherwise, it comes down to cell breakdown and time. Our best bet seems to be source-reduction, but a large amount of household dust is from fine plastics, such as synthetic clothes and carpet naturally breaking down.

Consider high-filtration filter options for forced air and vacuums and frequent dusting and vacuuming.

The plastic differential in premature versus normal term placentas is striking. It was described as “significantly higher” in “microplastics and nanoplastics.”

1 posted on 02/02/2025 9:56:03 AM PST by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Mazey; ckilmer; goodnesswins; Jane Long; jy8z; ProtectOurFreedom; matthew fuller; telescope115; ...

The “Take Charge Of Your Health” Ping List

This high volume ping list is for health articles and studies which describe something you or your doctor, when informed, may be able to immediately implement for your benefit.

Email me to get on either the “Common/Top Issues” (20 - 25% fewer pings) or “Everything” list.

2 posted on 02/02/2025 9:56:28 AM PST by ConservativeMind (Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

Stupid article

5 micrometers or less, not millimeters


3 posted on 02/02/2025 9:58:26 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

Bottled water, dairy products, juices, soft drinks, etc. in plastics may not be such a great idea.


8 posted on 02/02/2025 10:07:42 AM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

Out of all the things that we have to worry about, nano plastics tops my list. Cumulative production of plastics since 1950 (when there were essentially zero plastics produced) is close to 10 BILLION tons, more than one ton per living human. Current global production rate is 0.4 billion tons/year.


13 posted on 02/02/2025 10:10:36 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom (They were the FA-est of times, they were the FO-est of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind
Research has shown...
Now, researchers will unveil findings...
Researchers used...
Researchers found...
This led the investigators to conclude...

Those darned researchers have it all figured out, right down to human psychology.
18 posted on 02/02/2025 10:16:40 AM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

In another article about microplastics, I was surprised at the upper end of the size-range of what is considered ‘microplastics’ (2mm, if I remember correctly). The article focused on the alarming amount of microplastics in the oceans - I’m thinking in order to dramatize the amount, they may have seen fit to be more inclusive by expanding the size-range.

I would be curious to know the size-range of the plastic particles found in these placentas - since knowing that would help narrow down the likely source, i.e., confirm that it was from household dust arising from synthetic clothing and bedsheets, rug fibers, etc..- and suggest what filters might mitigate the problem.


24 posted on 02/02/2025 10:23:24 AM PST by enumerated (81 million votes my ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

If you thing a quarter inch is small, stop shoving pop bottles into your arm.


26 posted on 02/02/2025 10:45:59 AM PST by If You Want It Fixed - Fix It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

‘Significantly higher’ without number and confidence interval means NOTHING but junk science, which is this ‘study’ (not) is.
But keep posting those hysterical ‘findings’, they help showing how bad the anti plastic pseudo-science is.


28 posted on 02/02/2025 11:07:52 AM PST by miniTAX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind
Our best bet seems to be source-reduction, but a large amount of household dust is from fine plastics, such as synthetic clothes and carpet naturally breaking down.

I hadn't considered this, thank you. Time to install that bag filter with the FAU blower on a timer I've been contemplating for the last 25 years. We heat the house with wood, so we don't need the blower for anything else.

29 posted on 02/02/2025 11:13:46 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

I did not see any definition of “high” in the source. It just said “higher” than in the blood.

Means little.

The air pressure at the top of Mount Everest is much higher than the air pressure at 30,000 feet.

Higher or Lower are relative terms. It is a way of lying with statistics.

I would love to see absolute numbers if someone can find them for this article.


44 posted on 02/02/2025 12:15:31 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConservativeMind

>> Research has shown exposure to plastics in general is harmful to both the environment and humans. <<

Not really. It’s basically a mere presumption. The author feels safe in making this assertion because some plastic somewhere has proven harmful; a big plastic bouncy ball lodged in your throat can’t be good, right? And it COULD be REALLY bad, maybe?


51 posted on 02/02/2025 1:57:00 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson