• Insekticus@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    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.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      How? You test the variables separately. For example, if smoking increases risk by 50%, combine the smoker and non-smoker groups with that in mind