Tbh this comment sounds like biased AI slop. Especially when they detail the mechanisms literally in the abstract.

Everyone take note their Genetic Fallacy.

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.

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.

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.

Plastic seems to I be a massive problem

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.

They are also found everywhere else, what does such statement try to imply?

So is lab techique that allows microparticle contamination, leading to over-measurement of microplastics.

Or maybe people that have unhealthy lifestyles that generally might include more ultra-processed foods or living conditions more susceptible to microplastics intake. IOW more plastics packaged foods and drinks, living near roadways where tire particles and exhaust both add to poor health and stress, etc.

%90 of human tissues probably contain microplastics. title sounds like baity. Is it significantly less or more than other tissues is the question.

You realize that the boomers ARE the baby boomers right? It's like saying Gen-Z, or Zoomers. Same generation.

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.

It's about 2.5x more than the surrounding non-cancerous prostate tissue.

If you read the article, the concentration was 2.5x higher than non-cancerous tissue. That's a statistically significant increase.

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.

Not really anymore. Boomer is just a generic term for old people standing in the way of progress now.

They are two different terms. Baby boomers describes a generation while Boomer is used as a pejorative term for old people out of touch with the younger generations.

Boomer is basically a modern version of fogie.

The article states that cancerous areas had ~2.5x more microplastics than the surrounding non-cancerous areas. It could be a chicken and egg/correlation≠causation situation, (is cancer caused by microplastics, or do cancerous cells attract microplastics?) but the article does outline that cancer cells clearly had more microplastics.

Cancerous tumors tend to siphon more resources than healthy cells. It's not surprising that they'd have a higher concentration of microplastics

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.

And the old people right now ARE the baby boomers. Again, same generation.

But the term isn't only used against baby boomers. It's basically the same as 'fogie' from back in the day. I guarantee you that there are Gen X people who have been called boomer unironically

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?

Gen X are worse than baby boomers. They gave us the antivaxx movement.

Killing future children with climate change was taking too long so they went with preventable diseases.

Post a source if you are going to say things like that

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the conversation.

90% of non-cancerous prostates too.

Calling them boomers insults boomers.

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.

Dash is all you need.

That's still not relevant to the discussion of whether or not the term Boomer is only used for baby boomers.

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.

Just gotta find a doctor on grinder /s

k.

Yeah, I remember reading that tires are the biggest microplastic contributors. Those are some good points.

It shouldn't, but as a problem it is no longer preventable, at least for most people not able to be born into a socioeconomic bubble now that it has been identified as a problem. Lumping them altogether into microplastics is like lumping all addictive substances - coffee, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine - into the same category. Sure, you'd be a lot better not being addicted to anything, but some addictions are worse than others, and for different reasons. It also lumps carcinogenic agents under the same smoke screen as, say, biodegradable microplastics which have considerably lower ecotoxicity.

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.

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

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.

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.

That's because people are stupid. I've been called a boomer and I'm millineal.

dives in

That's because Boomer isn't generation specific. It gets its name from them, but it's just another iteration of what kids call old people when they're being dismissive.

And really, you're pulling a Principal Skinner "No, it's the kids who are wrong," which is kinda the definition of Boomer.

And 100% contain dihydrogen monoxide.

$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.

American healthcare sucks. I'm in Australia which is much better but I wouldn't say it's good.

Although this is a scary number, it is worth considering this comes from one hospital and 10 patients. It is a strong hint to pursue research in this area but I wouldn't call it a proof yet