While we know that huge amounts of plastic waste are generated each day, and that much of it is broken down into tiny fragments called microplastics, we don’t really know much about the risks they pose to animals and humans. With this in mind, scientists have developed a new method to detect trace amounts of plastic in tissues, and tried it out on a range of seafood to find plastic particles in all samples tested.

While we know that humans consume tiny amounts of plastics through things like bottled water or the seafood we eat, we really have no idea what effect this has on our wellbeing and what, if any, levels might be considered safe. The new technique is an early step toward addressing this, with an ability to identify and measure five different plastic types at the same time, with a high degree of sensitivity.

The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Exeter in the UK and the University of Queensland in Australia, who collected raw oysters, prawns, squid, crabs and sardines from a market. The analysis revealed plastics in all of the samples, at levels of 0.04 mg per gram of squid tissue, 0.07 mg in prawns, 0.1 mg in oysters, 0.3mg in crabs and 2.9 mg in sardines.

“Considering an average serving, a seafood eater could be exposed to approximately 0.7 mg of plastic when ingesting an average serving of oysters or squid, and up to 30 mg of plastic when eating sardines, respectively,” says lead author Francisca Ribeiro. “For comparison, 30 mg is the average weight of a grain of rice. Our findings show that the amount of plastics present varies greatly among species, and differs between individuals of the same species. From the seafood species tested, sardines had the highest plastic content, which was a surprising result.”

The plastic types found by the researchers come from everyday sources, such as packaging and synthetic textiles. These types of waste wash into the marine environment, where they are degraded and become tiny plastics that are nearly impossible to track. These types of advances can help scientists trace the path that they take through the environment, as well as better understand what impact they might be having on the animals and humans that consume it.

https://newatlas.com/environment/new-test-plastics-consume-seafood/

“While we know that huge amounts of plastic waste are generated each day, and that much of it is broken down into tiny fragments called microplastics, we don’t really know much about the risks they pose to animals and humans.”

Notably, this study doesn’t really address the risks, yet such an assessment is crucial to working out whether this is an important issue.

dv said:

“While we know that huge amounts of plastic waste are generated each day, and that much of it is broken down into tiny fragments called microplastics, we don’t really know much about the risks they pose to animals and humans.”

Notably, this study doesn’t really address the risks, yet such an assessment is crucial to working out whether this is an important issue.

We might all become Barbie Dolls.

dv said:

“While we know that huge amounts of plastic waste are generated each day, and that much of it is broken down into tiny fragments called microplastics, we don’t really know much about the risks they pose to animals and humans.”

Notably, this study doesn’t really address the risks, yet such an assessment is crucial to working out whether this is an important issue.

Ho hum. Risks were assessed decades ago. Completely negligible.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

“While we know that huge amounts of plastic waste are generated each day, and that much of it is broken down into tiny fragments called microplastics, we don’t really know much about the risks they pose to animals and humans.”

Notably, this study doesn’t really address the risks, yet such an assessment is crucial to working out whether this is an important issue.

Ho hum. Risks were assessed decades ago. Completely negligible.

Animals of all kinds in the oceans consume it and then starve to death as its fills their stomachs

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

“While we know that huge amounts of plastic waste are generated each day, and that much of it is broken down into tiny fragments called microplastics, we don’t really know much about the risks they pose to animals and humans.”

Notably, this study doesn’t really address the risks, yet such an assessment is crucial to working out whether this is an important issue.

Ho hum. Risks were assessed decades ago. Completely negligible.

LOL

There were no risks decades ago, so time to get the old head out of the sand and have a good look at the new world. You might be surprised at how things have changed.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

“While we know that huge amounts of plastic waste are generated each day, and that much of it is broken down into tiny fragments called microplastics, we don’t really know much about the risks they pose to animals and humans.”

Notably, this study doesn’t really address the risks, yet such an assessment is crucial to working out whether this is an important issue.

Ho hum. Risks were assessed decades ago. Completely negligible.

Animals of all kinds in the oceans consume it and then starve to death as its fills their stomachs

That’s macroplastica

dv said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ho hum. Risks were assessed decades ago. Completely negligible.

Animals of all kinds in the oceans consume it and then starve to death as its fills their stomachs

That’s macroplastica

But its the microplastics that gets into the food chain and as we are at or near the top, especially us, so anything is possible. The body generally does not like imbedded foreign objects. You had better hope the immune system does not take objection to them.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

Animals of all kinds in the oceans consume it and then starve to death as its fills their stomachs

That’s macroplastica

But its the microplastics that gets into the food chain and as we are at or near the top, especially us, so anything is possible. The body generally does not like imbedded foreign objects. You had better hope the immune system does not take objection to them.

I was aware that was large pieces of plastic but its everywhere in the ocean just like microparticles, who knows what chemicals leach out into the water

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

That’s macroplastica

But its the microplastics that gets into the food chain and as we are at or near the top, especially us, so anything is possible. The body generally does not like imbedded foreign objects. You had better hope the immune system does not take objection to them.

I was aware that was large pieces of plastic but its everywhere in the ocean just like microparticles, who knows what chemicals leach out into the water

Well, presumably biologists do

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

That’s macroplastica

But its the microplastics that gets into the food chain and as we are at or near the top, especially us, so anything is possible. The body generally does not like imbedded foreign objects. You had better hope the immune system does not take objection to them.

I was aware that was large pieces of plastic but its everywhere in the ocean just like microparticles, who knows what chemicals leach out into the water

Simply the larger plastic pieces break down into microplastics, so all head in the wrong direction and might even become an even greater hidden threat. Don’t forget, we live in interesting times when anything is possible.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

“While we know that huge amounts of plastic waste are generated each day, and that much of it is broken down into tiny fragments called microplastics, we don’t really know much about the risks they pose to animals and humans.”

Notably, this study doesn’t really address the risks, yet such an assessment is crucial to working out whether this is an important issue.

Ho hum. Risks were assessed decades ago. Completely negligible.

Animals of all kinds in the oceans consume it and then starve to death as its fills their stomachs

Sigh, not microplastics, which is what we are talking about here. Microplastics go almost straight through the digestive system and are far less dangerous than biological toxins.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ho hum. Risks were assessed decades ago. Completely negligible.

Animals of all kinds in the oceans consume it and then starve to death as its fills their stomachs

Sigh, not microplastics, which is what we are talking about here. Microplastics go almost straight through the digestive system and are far less dangerous than biological toxins.

You don’t seem to understand that we are not talking about plastic that you can see, but microbe size that can be absorbed into the body.

>>“The smallest microplastic particles are capable of entering the bloodstream, the lymphatic system, and may even reach the liver,” said Schwabl, who will report on the study at UEG Week in Vienna on Tuesday. “Now that we have the first evidence for microplastics inside humans, we need further research to understand what this means for human health.”<<

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/22/microplastics-found-in-human-stools-for-the-first-time

Once again you project your opinion as fact, which not very scientific.