Oh, that’s just the credit card I eat sometimes. I like to go down to the fridge on the weekend and shove that shit in like an atm. My prostate makes the “munch munch” ticket feeder sound every time.
I guess we should switch to glass disldos.
i read glass diodes and imagined a cyberpunk future lol
Whew good thing I only have dildos and not disldos
/j
Does the extra letter increase its girth? ;)
I’m pretty sure that 90% of all biomass in general contains microplastics these days.
You greatly underestimate the pervasiveness of microplastics.
The other 10% contains macroplastic.
Thanks boomers!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt
TL;DR: science currently has no efficient way to actually measure microplastic content with being able to control for outside contaminants
edit: please read the other comments below!
IIRC, there’s a harder, trusted process for measurement. But an easier method that has gained widespread adoption, and that method is what has been called into question.
When you lack a control, though you should still be able to compare those with tumours and those without. One treatment (no tumour) to the other.
Controls answer: what if we did nothing? And how big are the effects vs doing nothing?
E: they can’t get accurate measurements themselves that’s the issue, not the lack of uncontaminated controls
Agreed. The technology is still new, evolving, or not there yet. I was at an aquarium only last month. They were showing me a machine where there are only 7 available in the US so far. The scientist only got it like 3 days before I spoke to her so she hadnt used it yet but it measures concentration of microplastics in the ocean and is specific enough to tell you what different microplastics are there and their likely sources. Really cool but this science is super new and in its infancy.
This is a hit piece, echoes of big oil & tobacco. It’s picking studies that have (debatable) issues, then is casting a wide net that is encouraging doubt of all microplastics in the body studies. They take the time to explain why these can be ignored, but depend on you to go read the counter-counterarguments made by the original researchers of each study yourself.
Rauert says there are absolutely nanoplastics in our bodies, but micro plastics are unlikely due to their size.
It doesn’t do a meta-analysis of all MNP studies and doesn’t disregard bad criticisms or biased voices (Kuhlman). It’s also sensationalised.
Pulled from a chat about this when this was released
i’m not too knowledgeable which is why i didn’t bother to read the counter-counter arguments (case solved, problem in between seat and screen). also i didn’t realize it’s a hit piece, by no means would i like to propagate denialism.
you appear to be way more knowledgeable, do you have more conclusions from that chat? also can you do an eli5 what is meta-analysis?
My wife is the more knowledgeable one, but a meta-analysis is basically when you combine all the data of similar studies on a subject. It can expose studies that are bad within the data set and better assess the efficacy of the techniques used in a study. Compare that to what was done here, which was mostly just cherrypicking and highlighting the issues of a handful of studies.
I encourage you to give a peek at the counter counter-arguments! There is some jargon, but there is decipherable stuff in it (moreso than the original papers imo). One of them says something to the effect of “we had to skip the standard control because the control was in a container that was releasing microplastics” which I would consider reasonable.
I called this a hit piece because the person they quote about it being a “bombshell” works for DOW Chemical.
We are all full of microplastics, but our tumors are too.
Take that, tumor!
With everything going on in the world, i actually dont care about microplastics. If i was rich then i would care way more about my future 😂
No shit. Give me a pool if micro plastics and I’ll go for a swim. I have insurance and will not take medicine that could save my life because living is scarier than dying at this point. Fuck it.
correlation doesnt equal causation. CANCER cell in general have higher metabolic energy requirements, so they intake more(pump) in the surrouding environment to fuel thier uncontrolled cell division, so naturally microplastics on the outside of the cell would be pumped into the cell along with nutrients it stealing at higher than normal tissue to fuel its growth.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12505851/ (October, 2025)
Microplastics as emerging carcinogens: from environmental pollutants to oncogenic drivers
ABSTRACT: The widespread environmental pollution of microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) has become a major public health issue, with increasing evidence associating their bioaccumulation with cancer onset. This review offers a thorough examination of the etiological contributions of MPs/NPs in carcinogenesis, clarifying their mechanistic roles in in vitro, in vivo, and patient-derived evidences. Relevant studies were systematically identified and screened following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines to ensure methodological transparency and quality. We highlighted recent discoveries that emphasize the varied accumulation of MPs in several human cancer tissues, including lung, colorectal, gastric, cervical, breast, pancreatic, prostate and penile malignancies. These particles induce harmful biological effects by chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, genotoxicity, disturbance of lipid metabolism, and alteration of the tumor immunological microenvironment. Significantly, MPs/NPs disrupt various oncogenic signaling pathways, particularly NF-κB, PI3K/Akt/mTOR, Wnt/β-catenin, and p53, therefore facilitating tumor initiation, development, and metastasis. In vitro and in vivo studies have corroborated the carcinogenic potential of MPs/NPs, illustrating their capacity to cause cellular transformation, augment metastatic characteristics, and modify drug resistance pathways in cancer cells. Furthermore, the detection of MPs in human biological matrices, including blood, placenta, and tumor tissues, highlights direct human exposure and potential systemic effects. This review emphasizes the mechanistic insights with therapeutic significance, addressing current knowledge gaps in the field. Future research must prioritize biomarker identification, patient-centered investigations, therapeutic targeting, and the formulation of regulatory policies to alleviate the health hazards linked to microplastic exposure. Understanding the intricate relationship between MPs/NPs and cancer biology could facilitate the development of novel cancer prevention and management strategies related to environmental contamination.
Biased review written out of regional universities in India. These places crank out AI slop every week. All implications, no mechanism.
Tbh this comment sounds like biased AI slop. Especially when they detail the mechanisms literally in the abstract.
Everyone take note their Genetic Fallacy.
I agree with you, but with the carcinogenic nature of aryl compounds used in, and as by-products of, the polymerization and hardening/softening of plastics, the incidence of plastics in cells could in turn turn them cancerous, and thus increase the rate at which they draw nutrients and microplastics from the vascular system.
One may not necessarily cause the other, but they are overwhelmingly correlated - beyond the point of suspicion.
It would be interesting to see a study comparing other types of cancers, their microplastic levels, and the microplastic levels of other cells in progressively radiating distances from the cancerous cells.
Lymph nodes with cancer also contain dust and plant fibers. Mouse studies use stupid amounts of select plastic injected into susceptible strains.
This is junk until we see mechanism. Remember the BPA will give you tits scare? Shit science.
Wouldnt it be smarter to test for cancer risk with microplastics in blood as the explaining variable.
Because all that gives you is saying “wow Theres a tumor, and it contains microplastics”.
It’s no different than seeing amyloid plaques in brains with dementia and concluding they caused the dementia. That story has been going on for 30 years supported entirely by fraudulent manuscripts because it has to be true.
We have been implanting plastics in medicine with stents, prosthetics etc for 75 years. No one ever saw tumors at those implanted sites.
I dont know how one would reasonably test for a specific ‘risk’ of cancer from plastics considering the plethora of plastic and non-plastic causes of cancer as variables (both chemical and physical). One would have to go further and define specifically which mechanism(s) we’re talking about (Microplastic? Nanoplastics? Macroplastics? Physical contact/cellular damage from plastics? Amount of cancerous chemicals leeching out of the microplastics that entered the cell passively (considering theoretically it only takes a single molecule of a cancerous substance, to damage a specific oncogene whose reparation was simply overlooked by cellular gene repair chanisms thus causing cancer))? Do we differentiate between cancers caused by different plasticizers leeching out of different materials? And at what rate?)
As infinitely reductive as the thought experiment may be, ultimately, it’s almost unnecessary when you consider that any size of microplastics leeching any amount of carcinogenic chemicals inside cells is too much, and should be treated with as much disdain as drinking from leaded pipes.
More specifically, given the ubiquity of plastics in all humans, good luck finding a control group.
And 100% contain dihydrogen monoxide.
Dash is all you need.
All tumours, no exception, contain dihydrogen monoxide.
Notably, tumor tissue contained significantly more plastic. On average, cancerous samples had about 2.5 times the concentration found in healthy prostate tissue (about 40 micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue compared with 16 micrograms per gram).
Sure, though it’s to be expected that everything contains water in the body. To expect microplastics, however, is kind of different – leaving aside their showing a legitimate difference in microplastic quantity between healthy and unhealthy prostates.
Correlation still doesn’t prove causation. Tumors process resources different than surrounding cells. The worst thing about the study is that it chooses to focus on microplastics without distinction when we know certain types of plastics have far higher carcinogenic risk than others, it would have just taken than slight bit more effort to actually make it worthwhile.
Yeah, what if it happens that micro plastics are somehow being trapped in tumors actually removing them from the bloodstream? What if cancer is how we can get the micro plastics out? I’m only half joking here lol. A bleak thought for sure.
Naturally, more studies need to be conducted and microplastics have only been intensively studied beginning this past decade (PFAS being separate and longer). Similar to the carnivore fad diet, odds are exceedingly-high that having microplastics is not good for us but long-term and fully causal studies have not fully identified all mechanistic linkages. Yet I recall tobacco industries rhetorically hiding behind these arguments in a similar manner despite growing concerns from scientists and medical professionals.
I just take issue with the implication of the other user that this is as harmless as ubiquitous and as fearmongering as water. That in itself is absurd.
Microplastics should not be in our fucking bodies. Water should.
You know, I’ve never understood why there are no warning labels on the bottles of the stuff.
90% of non-cancerous prostates too.
Goddamn. This is probably why prostate cancer is sky rocketing. I am pretty sure I got it, but I doubt I can afford to get checked. Wothless fucking life anyway.
I saw someone else in another thread post they weren’t too expensive (relatively) to get checked. I think someone said something like $1500 uninsured in USA, and googles AI answer says on average $2400.
Not cheap, but it’s not some crazy $20,000 bill kinda thing.
Nobody who can’t afford insurance can afford 2400
I don’t think that’s true.
Health insurance is expensive in the US. Many sites indicate an average monthly cost in the $400-$600 range, and given it’s average also means it can be even higher.
That’s $4800 - $7200 a year, vs a 1 time $2400 if they are in the average cost area for a colonoscopy.
It’s not great, many people can’t afford that either, but it’s not true that if you can’t afford insurance, you can’t afford $2400
Pricing is far more complicated with the old having Medicare, many of the poorest having subsidies some free, and others a range of plans mostly at least somewhat subsidized by employers.
We are a fat unhealthy folk in a country where a single hospitalization can run you 10-100k and financially ruin you due in no small part to cartel pricing.
So your various medical providers have negotiated given rates for given things that are less special rates and more what you might consider normal pricing whereas if you are not protected by such a “deal” you may pay several times more at hundreds of percent profit for the provider with the expectation that you pay up front for services or die essentially so long as your death isn’t immediately caused by their immediate neglect. Eg you can’t be allowed to actually bleed out for lack of a stitch but you can be allowed to get septic and then be admitted after it’s really too late to do anything but try to bill your family 100k and steal any inheritance from your estate if any.
So you are incentivized to buy at least the shittiest high deductible plan with an 8000 deductible just to have access to sane pricing, get treated and then billed, and limit max damage if things go bad even if you expect to not actually get much direct benefit. Plus favorable tax treatment paid in.
Whilst some may choose to risk it being literally incapable of paying a subsidized 100-300 for the shittiest plan possible means that you are poor in a state which doesn’t choose to subsidize the poor and likely illiquid. Most people in America don’t have 2500 to cover am emergency of any variety. This is true of nearly 100% of the bottom half
Furthermore anyone who needs a colonoscopy needs other things like annual checkups and medication.
The number of people who can cash pay the sucker uninsured rate but not shitty insurance is basically zero
If I’m reading this right, you’re saying there are cheaper insurance options, but the deductible would be so high it wouldn’t cover this $2400 anyway? It’s just more catastrophic things, like if this came back positive and now you needed surgery?
And ya, even if you have $2400 and think the test is important to take because you have reason to believe you might have it, it doesn’t mean you’d be able to afford the aftercare.
You are missing the primary part. Without insurance it costs several times more than it would with insurance.
Not an uninsured colonoscopy, that is the uninsured price on average.
Edit: i get youre saying it’d be cheaper if insured, but when talking about this specific thing that is the price.
$2400 every few years.
Ya that’s not good for routine checks which is what should be normal, but if you think something is actively wrong its an option, or at least on the lower end of the scale price wise if that’s where you happen to live. That doesn’t count for what happens if its positive and you’re uninsured either.
To me $2400 is some crazy bill kinda thing.
I’m gonna die soon too I guess , I’d rather not even know at this point. Hope I can figure it out in time to try crack and heroin which are at least somewhat affordable
That’s horrible, I’m sorry you’re going through that. Is there not any free way to get it checked out in your country?
In the US the process is to become too sick to work so you qualify for government assistance and hope some part of your safety net can keep you out of homelessness and cross your fingers for filling out paperwork correctly.
I am trying. But my state is facing heavy brain drain. And honestly it’s taking all I got to even care right now.
My mom is sick too. She keeps denying it. And wants to visit Hawaii which we have been trying for years to set up and now is our last chance and I simply can’t even live with myself if I let that chance go.
Dr.'s hate this one trick - tell them you’re facing issues peeing and you’ll get recommended to a urologist. Even with my family history of prostate cancer I couldn’t get one until I started having issues with my stream. Sure enough my prostate is slightly enlarged even at 40 and am now on meds for it.
Now do bowel cancer as that’s exploding too.
We have so much toxic crap in every part of the world now…
We (the richest and most moral of us) have really made the plastics index hit amazing new highs. What a success!
Bowel cancer is only a problem in the US under 50. It’s the shit you eat you call food. Same with prostate cancer, rare disease outside the US.
Researchers also found that these fragments appeared in greater amounts inside cancerous tumors than in nearby noncancerous prostate tissue.
For those who want to give an opinion based on even a smidge more than just the title.
Plastic seems to I be a massive problem
So is lab techique that allows microparticle contamination, leading to over-measurement of microplastics.
Post a source if you are going to say things like that
I think that it’ll be the final nail in humanity’s coffin.
Climate Change is really bad, but humans are going to survive it, although in greatly reduced numbers for a long time.
But plastics currently have a measured negative impact on fertility rates. Can’t survive as a species if you can’t reproduce.
Can’t survive as a species if you can’t reproduce
Sounds good. Collectively humans are such unbelievable fuckups that we deserve to die out
No disagreement here. Agent Smith was right about us being a virus.
