Posted on 12/28/2021 9:11:33 PM PST by ConservativeMind
Microplastics—tiny pieces of plastic less than 5 mm in length –– are everywhere, from bottled water to food to air. According to recent estimates, people consume tens of thousands of these particles each year, with unknown health consequences. Now, researchers found that people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have more microplastics in their feces than healthy controls, suggesting that the fragments could be related to the disease process.
The prevalence of IBD, which includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, is rising globally. Characterized by chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, IBD can be triggered or made worse by diet and environmental factors. Microplastics can cause intestinal inflammation, gut microbiome disturbances and other problems in animal models.
The team obtained fecal samples from 50 healthy people and 52 people with IBD from different geographic regions of China. Analysis of the samples showed that feces from IBD patients contained about 1.5 times more microplastic particles per gram than those from healthy subjects. The microplastics had similar shapes (mostly sheets and fibers) in the two groups, but the IBD feces had more small (less than 50 μm) particles. The most common types of plastic were polyethylene terephthalate (PET; used in bottles and food containers) and polyamide (PA; found in food packaging and textiles). People with more severe IBD symptoms tended to have higher levels of fecal microplastics. The researchers found that people in both groups who drank bottled water, ate takeaway food and were often exposed to dust had more microplastics in their feces.
These results suggest that people with IBD may be exposed to more microplastics in their gastrointestinal tract. However, it's still unclear whether this exposure could cause or contribute to IBD, or whether people with IBD accumulate more fecal microplastics as a result of their disease, the researcher say.
(Excerpt) Read more at medicalxpress.com ...
We told people metric wasn’t easier.
5mm in length? Seems kind of stupid to be ingesting chunks of plastic that big.
It would seem to me that what goes in is just as important as what comes out. Did they consider, maybe the control group gets the same amount of microplastic but doesn’t get rid of it?
That was the Hubble Telescope..... and 5mm is 0.19 inches.... not hard to understand and convert.
Well, they say Math is Racists now.
Bad urinalism when you blow a key point in the first line of you piece.
See what I mean?
you=your.
Miss more coffee please.
I will begin to use these terms.
If this is Chinese research it is probably sloppy and likely fraudulent. The “5mm” error certainly indicates the first point is correct.
Microplastics are fragments of any type of plastic[1] less than 5 mm (0.20 in) in length, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)[2][3] and the European Chemicals Agency.[4] They cause pollution by entering natural ecosystems from a variety of sources, including cosmetics, clothing, and industrial processes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics
Plastic clothing fibers would make this up, too. Take a look at the dust around you or on your furnace filters, and you’ll see a bunch of lint, made up of skin cells and mostly small clothing fibers.
Well, somethings going on. I excreted a Tervis tumbler, complete with top and straw, the other day.
I thought IBD meant “Investor’s Business Daily” ... which has been able to give me great indigestion from time to time despite their wonderful reporting.
Sorry, I should have used the sarcasm tag.
The point of my intended sarcasm was that by only estimating the length (less than 5mm), the writers “buried the lead” - namely, that these tiny fragments are nearly invisible, and weightless enough to float in the air and unknowingly be inhaled or ingested.
In order to properly convey that property, the far more relevant dimension to offer would have been the estimated breadth - not the length.
I’ve been told I have a weird sense of humor.
I just thought it was funny picturing everyone brainlessly filling themselves up with 3/16” bits of plastic.
Wonder if they cross-referenced their findings to whether those affected also had adequate fiber in their diet. In other words, if low-fiber diets were the cause of not having enough fiber to scrape foreign matter out of the intestines, versus whether some people just have a natural vulnerability regardless of diet.
I pity the people who had the crappy job of looking for micro plastics.
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.