The average liter of bottled water has nearly a quarter million invisible pieces of ever so tiny nanoplastics, detected and categorized for the first time by a microscope using dual lasers.

Scientists long figured there were lots of these microscopic plastic pieces, but until researchers at Columbia and Rutgers universities did their calculations they never knew how many or what kind. Looking at five samples each of three common bottled water brands, researchers found particle levels ranged from 110,000 to 400,000 per liter, averaging at around 240,000 according to a study in Monday’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

These are particles that are less than a micron in size. There are 25,400 microns — also called micrometers because it is a millionth of a meter — in an inch. A human hair is about 83 microns wide.

Previous studies have looked at slightly bigger microplastics that range from the visible 5 millimeters, less than a quarter of an inch, to one micron. About 10 to 100 times more nanoplastics than microplastics were discovered in bottled water, the study found.

  • be_excellent_to_each_other
    link
    fedilink
    2211 months ago

    Researchers still can’t answer the big question: Are those nanoplastic pieces harmful to health?

    “That’s currently under review. We don’t know if it’s dangerous or how dangerous,” said study co-author Phoebe Stapleton, a toxicologist at Rutgers. “We do know that they are getting into the tissues (of mammals, including people) … and the current research is looking at what they’re doing in the cells.”

    Sheesh.

    • @asdfasdfasdf
      link
      -1411 months ago

      Do we really need more research on this? Holy shit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2011 months ago

        Yes we do, science is better than gut feelings. Repetitive science is also necessary, reconfirming things we know is important, just because we’ve known something for a long time doesn’t mean its correct

        • @asdfasdfasdf
          link
          -4
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Science has proven many times that ingesting microplastics is bad. They even found they can cross the blood brain barrier.

          What we need now is to take action to stop this.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            7
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The study is about nanoplastics which are bigger. Not that you’re wrong since nanoplastics also cross the blood brain barrier (in fish), we just don’t know if they have any adverse effects on humans yet.

            They probably do, but I’m not a biologist. They may have no adverse effects other than piling up at the levels we are currently consuming. The adverse effects are still being studied:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9026096/

            So to reiterate, there is no proof that the nanoplastics are bad, so we still need studies

      • R0cket_M00se
        link
        English
        211 months ago

        Yes, for the same reason that mercury in vaccines isn’t a threat because it’s under the LD50.

        Certain things are only an issue when they are in a specific concentration.

    • @shalafi
      link
      English
      -2311 months ago

      Scientists actually studying the issue:

      “Not sure. We studying the issue.”

      Lemmy:

      “But I FEEL it’s harmful! I’ve done my research!”

      Antivaxxer by any chance? Because you’re tracking the same thought process.

      Whenever something like this comes up, of which I’m ignorant, I ask myself, “By what mechanisms could this be true or false? How would that work?”

      Your turn.

      • be_excellent_to_each_other
        link
        fedilink
        2711 months ago

        Wow man. I wrote, “Sheesh.”

        And you got AAAAAALLLL this:

        Scientists actually studying the issue:

        “Not sure. We studying the issue.”

        Lemmy:

        “But I FEEL it’s harmful! I’ve done my research!”

        Antivaxxer by any chance? Because you’re tracking the same thought process.

        Whenever something like this comes up, of which I’m ignorant, I ask myself, “By what mechanisms could this be true or false? How would that work?”

        Your turn.

        Yeah, I’ll pass.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        911 months ago

        Lmao…

        “We don’t know yet”, and “No” are two very different answers.

        Antivaxxers interpret “No [not harmful]” to mean “Yes [harmful]”.

        Completely unrelated.