that is simply false but it does demonstrate the level of understanding the general public, including HN, has on this issue. nanoplastics, once again, have no proven health effects. what does at least have some attested health effects are the various plasticiser additives in plastic. the only actual health concern with plastics is and has always been: will they leach plasticisers into for example food? it only takes a very small amount of thinking to realise that suspended micro and nanoplastics in a solvent volume as great as the damn ocean likely means even if the dreaded micro and nanoplastics make it into your system they will be long devoid of any soluble plasticisers, especially if those happen to be degraded by the sun or brackish conditions
“Proven health effects” is a really high bar. Universal, long term, planetary contamination with a synthetic organic polymer seems like exactly the kind of situation that would warrant an abundance of caution rather than requiring conclusive proof of harm.
That said, perhaps the many studies I have seen showing that multiple plastics have hormone like effects on biological systems en vitro, especially when presented in fine particulate form were just wrong. Honestly could be.
But I’ve seen an awful lot of them supporting the biological activity of plastics and plastic decomposites, and only a couple suggesting failures of replication.
I’ll have to take a look into it again. Have you seen papers that strongly support biological neutrality in fine plastic particulates and decomposites?
