
Microplastics found in supermarket fish, shellfish - rhschan
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/microplastics-fish-shellfish-1.3954947
======
neotek
I know this article is about more than just microbeads, but the thing that
always angers me the most about this issue is that the people who decided to
use them in shampoos and body washes must have known exactly what the long-
term consequence was going to be, but went ahead and _did it anyway._

What kind of soulless, dead-eyed scumbag do you have to be to wilfully
introduce something so utterly pointless and utterly destructive just to sell
more shampoo? Microbeads didn't even contribute to the efficacy of the the
product, they were literally just there to help with marketing. It's
absolutely sickening and I wish the world had cottoned on sooner.

~~~
spodek
It's always somebody else who pollutes.

Try this: for one week, don't have any food that requires any packaging. Don't
just think about it. Do it. Then look back at how much packaging you
needlessly go through.

Or try not flying for one year. You won't die. In fact, you'll figure out ways
to enjoy life without causing all that jet fuel to go into the atmosphere.
Then look back at how much pollution you needlessly cause.

People lived for tens of thousands of years without food packaging or flying
while still making themselves happy.

If you're going to call someone soulless and a dead-eyed scumbag, are you
ready to look at your own behavior? Or is your pollution better than theirs?
Do your excuses apply to you but theirs don't apply to theirs?

I'll probably get downvoted because people don't like facing their pollution,
only everyone else's. Theirs is always okay, or can't be avoided.

Bottom line: if you want them to reduce their plastic, you can reduce yours.

~~~
Dylan16807
> I'll probably get downvoted because people don't like facing their pollution

Oh shut up. You are violently misconstruing the comment you're replying to.
It's not about using plastic. It's about putting in a special, harmful kind of
plastic that does not improve the product in any way. It's extremely different
from packaging, which is important for almost all products.

~~~
melling
NO, according to the article, you are wrong:

""The biggest source is likely larger plastic items that we can see during
beach cleanups that enter the water and over time break down with the sunlight
into smaller and smaller pieces of microplastic."

Think plastic bags, styrofoam takeout containers and plastic cutlery, says
Rochman."

~~~
Dylan16807
That is irrelevant to this discussion of neotek's comment.

"I know this article is about more than just microbeads" is at the start of
that comment. The frustration is not all plastic. The frustration is the
microbeads.

------
andrewflnr
How do microplastics get into the tissue? I sort of assumed extracting
nutrients from the digestive tract was a chemical, molecular-scale process,
and anything big enough to be meaningfully called a chunk of plastic would be
ignored.

~~~
grzm
The particles are indeed very small. Smaller than what you would call a
"chunk". What you might think of as a molecule (say H₂O) of course is smaller
yet, but there are many proteins and larger-chain carbohydrates and lipids
that pass into the body that are much larger.

~~~
bjackman
Proteins don't get absorbed via the gut, they get broken down, the components
get absorbed, and they get rebuilt.

~~~
grzm
Good point. Thanks.

------
legulere
> Microplastics absorb or carry organic contaminants, such as PCBs,
> pesticides, flame retardants and hormone-disrupting compounds of many kinds,
> he says.

I wonder if this absorption of high surface plastics could get used to
actually filter out those organic compounds from highly contaminated waters.
For instance the baltic sea has high content of them, that even lead to some
heated debates in the EU, as Sweden and Finland allow the sale of contaminated
baltic fish.

------
dajohnson89
The EPA will likely not be of help to Americans on this matter. The nominated
chief is viciously anti-regulation, and also has received over $200,000 in
campaign donations from oil & gas companies.

Source:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Pruitt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Pruitt)

~~~
goodcanadian
While I have no doubt that the EPA will be more hampered than helped by the
current administration, I think we could leave politics aside and ask what can
practically be done short of banning all plastic production? As long as
plastic exists, these microparticles will continue to be produced. I don't
really see a way around it. Before we freak out, however, we should try to
understand what this even means. Most plastics are relatively inert, so this
may be basically harmless. Or, it may be a complete disaster; we don't know.

~~~
dajohnson89
Indeed, it will be a difficult problem to fix. For starters, being tougher on
industrial waste will help. Incentivizing the production of biodegradable
materials. Funding research into understanding the full impacts of
microplastics upon our food chain. Funding research into how best to clean up
our oceans, and practical clean-up efforts. (See
[http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws--pruitt-bay-
ab...](http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws--pruitt-bay-about-
face-20170123-story.html) as an example).

I hate hate hate talking about politics. But I'm starting to realize that for
big issues like this, it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation
without getting into government policy.

~~~
Retric
I never got all this government hate. Governments can solve problems, which is
why we have them in the first place. Yes, they are dangerous, so are cars.

------
whazor
I saw in a Dutch documentary that micro plastics were found in beer, honey,
and bottled water.

~~~
whazor
I found a link describing this:
[https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160623](https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160623)

------
based2
[http://elryderphotography.com/the-forever-
project-1/](http://elryderphotography.com/the-forever-project-1/)

------
stinos
_Fish is also a great source of iron, and those omega-3 fats are really
important in terms of our heart health_

Or aren't they? It is a controversial subject..
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968891](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968891)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885361](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885361)

~~~
coldtea
That's not what the link says. To quote:

"While supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) has
been shown to improve vascular function, it remains unclear if supplementation
decreases serious clinical outcomes. (...) Our results showed that
insufficient evidence exists to suggest a beneficial effect of omega-3 PUFA
supplementation in adults with peripheral arterial disease with regard to
cardiovascular events and other serious clinical outcomes."

So it does improves vascular function -- it just doesn't "decrease serious
clinical outcomes", which makes sense: if you have blocked arteries and eat
all kinds of crap all day and don't exercize nobody expects that Omega-3
itself will decrease the chances of you getting a heart attack or worse...

~~~
stinos
ok but I'd still call that controversial. Also the other one says:

"CONCLUSION: Overall, omega-3 PUFA supplementation was not associated with a
lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, _myocardial
infarction_ , or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of
association."

I mean, for years it sounded like omega-3 was the new miracle thing and even
now you get people saying it is 'really important in terms of our heart
health' but it doesn't seem to be quite that simple.

~~~
coldtea
Yeah, there's no silver bullet.

Then again, until something goes in university textbooks on nutrition, I'm
suspicious of all studies. So not sure if the study above is any better than
the tens of studies claiming they found positive results (and meta-studies are
not always definitive either).

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16879829](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16879829)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7698053](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7698053)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14505813](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14505813)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22180524](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22180524)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19685375](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19685375)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16879829](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16879829)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2234568](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2234568)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22313793](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22313793)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18774613](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18774613)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22113870](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22113870)
[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/5/1267.long](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/5/1267.long)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12433513](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12433513)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22317966](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22317966)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23184014](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23184014)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14505813](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14505813)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19685375](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19685375)

It seems omega-3 can improve all kinds of measurements regarding heart health
on an individual level, but it's not certain whether it can improve strokes
etc alone. Which I take to mean it's more of a whole lifestyle + omega 3 issue
than "just add omega-3 and you can eat/live anyway you like with perfect heart
health".

