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.
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).
Still, correlation does not imply causation. It might just be that because of the nature of what tumors are, they get stuck with more microplastics. The biggest problem with this study is that there are known carcinogens in some types of plastics over others, and it seems to outright choose to dismiss any attempt at distinction for the sake of the microplastic boogieman.
I don’t take any particular downvote personally, I just have a problem with the whole unregulated concept of downvoting is, and I think there’s a reason why the same networks that brought it into popularity over the predecessors that didn’t have are also the ones rampant today toxicity, cult-on-demand bubbles, circlejerks, and the like. Lemmy is the one platform where downvoting really isn’t worth anything - well, at least unless the piefed guys have a say in it, from my understanding. If it ever became popular to try to act like the upvote/downvote ratio means something in Lemmy, it would be far easier to manipulate and take advantage in contrast to non-federated platforms, and I already commonly see accounts with almost no comment or post participation since a few months just being used to slap upvotes and downvotes on an hourly basis.
It would just be so simple to improve, but people just keep trying to clone the same flawed systems that made them leave other platforms.
That’s the beauty of downvotes: no f-ing context on why people disagree with you or if they even do and are just holding a vendetta from somewhere else, since they aren’t forced to indicate why.
The account enjoys making a lot of very questionably inconsistent downvotes over their far fewer upvotes and even comments their own suggestion on how to sabotage Flock surveillance cameras in the thread yet doesn’t seem to be an edgelord in their own comments, so who knows. Unlike upvoting, where you presumably agree with a comment, downvoting provides no context as you have no clue why or how much they disagreed with something. Presumably the statement was too simplistic to resonate with their refined tastes, which to avoid the downvote should presumably have been stated with the collection of words they would favor as an argument, if they ever bothered to make it.
Fuck centralized surveillance.
They’ll get their tariff money back - if they remember to bribe Donny. Otherwise, he’ll probably try to get federal agencies to harass them.