SoylentNews

upstart [soylentnews.org] writes:

████ # This file was generated bot-o-matically! Edit at your own risk. ████

The ‘bombshell’ science that casts doubt on claims about microplastics [theage.com.au]:

With large microplastics, scientists can easily spot particles under a microscope and then fire a laser at them to see if they are plastic. But with nanoplastics, scientists must burn the particle and measure the gases emitted, which is less reliable and still in its infancy as a technique.

This unreliability of testing has made researchers more sceptical about the more alarmist findings. An abstract presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology last year showing microplastics in human reproductive fluids was met with raised eyebrows among scientists.

“Many previous scary sounding headlines on microplastics in blood and food have turned out to be measurement errors,” warns Oliver Jones, professor of chemistry at RMIT University, Melbourne, referring to reports that preceded last year’s findings.

Likewise, separate claims that microplastics had been found in human blood in 2022 were criticised by a US chemist as being “consistent with incidental or accidental contaminations”, in a letter to the Environmental International journal.

Likewise, separate claims that microplastics had been found in human blood in 2022 were criticised by a US chemist as being “consistent with incidental or accidental contaminations”, in a letter to the Environmental International journal.

Original Submission