Connect with us


The plastic in our bodies

Nobody, it seemed, had thought to look before.

When two Austrian scientists discovered last year th..

Nobody, it seemed, had thought to look before.

When two Austrian scientists discovered last year that its likely most people have plastic inside their bodies, it wasnt because they had invented some new, complicated scientific method. It was because they were the first to check.

Their approach was simple. They asked eight people, mostly in Europe, but also in Japan and Russia, to keep a weeklong food diary. Then, they examined stool samples from their subjects, looking for plastic.

They found it in every single one: On average, 20 tiny pieces in each 10 grams of stool; given that humans poop on average 400 to 500 grams a day, that means their subjects were likely passing some 800 to 1,000 pieces of so-called microplastic daily.

The scientists, Philipp Schwabl, a researcher at the Medical University of Vienna, and Bettina Liebmann of Austrias environment agency, are the first to admit their findings are at best preliminary. Their results dont say where that plastic came from, what exactly it contains, and how — or whether — it is affecting our health.

The Great Pacific garbage patch; debris found in fish, turtles and whales; microscopic pieces within us — plastic, it seems, is literally everywhere.

The study is just now undergoing peer review, and much larger sample sizes will be needed to confirm its conclusions. But based on their results, the scientists estimate that more than half of the worlds population might have plastic passing through their bodies.

The study set off a wave of concern about the potential impact plastic could be having on humans, adding momentum to the transformation that plastic is undergoing in the public consciousness.

In its short history, plastic has gone from miracle material to a cause of mounting global concern. The Great Pacific garbage patch; debris found in fish, turtles and whales; microscopic pieces within us — plastic, it seems, is literally everywhere.

And as a substance, its turning out to be devilishly difficult to do something about. Plastic is cheap to produce, useful nearly everywhere and incredibly durable. These qualities make it nearly indispensable to large swathes of the modern economy, from packaging and fashion to medicine and transportation. They also make it a nightmare to regulate or dispose of.

Plastics can lodge in the organs of fish, causing inflammation and physical damage | Miguel Riopa/AFP via Getty Images

At the same time, even if the science isnt yet clear about the effect plastics have on our bodies, worries are rapidly mounting.

“Were running this big human experiment on how they will affect us,” said Alice Bernard, a lawyer for environmental advocacy group ClientEarth. “It was not thought through at all.”

Endless possibilities

Its taken just over a century for plastics to become a ubiquitous part of our lives, our environment and perhaps even our bodies.

The first mass-produced plastic was invented in 1907, by Belgian-born scientist Leo Baekeland. In creating a hard, moldable material that would retain its shape after being heated, Baekeland opened a Pandoras box in reverse — a flurry of hope followed by microscopic mayhem.

The plastics boom began in earnest after World War II, when global production skyrocketed from 1.5 million tons annually in 1950 to 100 million tons in 1989. In 2017, nearly 350 million tons were being produced each year.

Of more than 6 billion tons of plastic waste produced since the 1950s, only 9 percent has been recycled, and 12 percent has been burned.

“In product after product, market after market, plastics challenged traditional materials and won,” wrote author Susan Freinkel in a book on the materials ubiquity. Plastics possibilities are near-endless: In its various forms it has replaced steel in cars, wood in furniture, paper and glass in packaging, and cotton in clothes.

It didnt take long for the material to move into the environment.

Although most plastics are derived from petroleum — an organic matter — the manufacturing process warps individual chemical units found in petroleum, helping them form extremely strong carbon bonds unlike anything produced in nature. Because of this uniqueness, the organisms that decompose organic matter dont know how to break down plastic.

This, combined with the fact that many plastic items are used once and thrown away, means the vast majority of the plastic that has been produced is still out there, somewhere.

Of more than 6 billion tons of plastic waste produced since the 1950s, only 9 percent has been recycled, and 12 percent has been burned.

Bio-degradable glitter, an alternative to microplastics, has gained more fans amongst festival and carnival goers | Carl de Souza/AFP via Getty Images

Some of the other 4.7 billion tons of plastic waste sits in landfills, little trash mountains piling up in every country in the world.

Some of it is floating in the oceans, contributing to island-sized patches of floating garbage accumulated by rotating ocean currents. The rest of it surrounds us in the form of microplastics, particles ranging in size from microscopic to 5 millimeters long.

The term microplastics was coined in 2004 by Richard Thompson, a professor of marine biology at Plymouth University. He noticed that groups trying to clean up plastic pollution on beaches were mainly looking for “trophy items” like tires and fishing nets. He decided to look a bit closer.

“We found small bits among the sand grains that looked like sand grains,” he said. “We confirmed that they were plastic.”

Microplastics can act as a “vehicle” for some of the more harmful chemical additives in plastic | Tobias Schwarz/AFP via Getty Images

The microplastics varied in size and origin: Some were created at a very small size — think the little beads in exfoliating cosmetics or in fertilizers — but most of them are the result of bigger plastic items breaking down into smaller and smaller pieces, then slipping into the environment unnoticed. The two biggest sources of unintentionally released microplastics are wear from synthetic rubber tires and plastic fibers released from washing polyester or nylon clothes.

Thompsons research demonstrated that the amount of microscopic plastic on beaches has increased substantially since the 1960s. And he made another discovery. “We showed that a range of creatures can ingest that material,” he said.

In the years since, Thompsons findings have been confirmed over and over again. Microplastics have been found in nearly every fish and aquatic animal thats been tested.

Mussels in the coal mine

Now concern is growing about the effect of plastics on the human body, primarily informed by research that has been done on animal health.

Studies have found that sea birds, and marine animals like whales that filter-feed, can ingest so many microplastics that they accumulate in their digestive systems and block the ability to digest food. Others found that plastics can lodge in the organs of fish, causing inflammation and physical damage by jabbing and rubbing up against organ walls.

And beyond the mechanical problems caused by small pieces of non-biodegradable material stuck in organs, research has also shown that microplastics can act as a “vehicle” for some of the more harmful chemical additives in plastic, carrying them directly into the bodies of animals.

“They can soak up all these substances from other toxins, colorants and additives, and bring those into an organism,” said Frédérique Mongodin, a marine litter policy officer at the environmental NGO Seas at Risk.

This contamination from microplastics has been found in marine animals big and small, and its been linked to a host of problems, from inhibiting brain activity in tilapia fish to contributing to the early death of whales.

Plastic pollution does not have the known deadly effects that other environmental challenges do.

But while it may seem intuitive that its only a matter of time until negative effects are proven for humans too, most researchers are more cautious.

Plastic has been found in the guts of many commercially fished species, but since humans dont generally eat fish stomachs, scientists thought it was possible we werent digesting it. Plastic also shows up in a range of food products — from table salt to drinking water to beer — but until Schwabl and Liebmann started looking through fecal samples, nobody had showed it was present in our bodies in large quantities.

Some scientists wondered if seafood we eat whole, like mussels, could be carrying chemicals from plastics into our bodies, but they found were exposed to most of these from so many other places that microplastics from eating seafood is actually a negligible factor.

Schwabl and Liebmanns study has helped propel a new wave of research — partly because it left two important questions unanswered.

A wild deer rummage through garbage dumped at an open ground in Sri Lanka | Lukruwan Wanniarachchi/AFP via Getty Images

First, it cant say anything about where the plastic came from. “We showed it must have been swallowed,” Schwabl said. But thats it. The plastic could have been in something people ate or drank, or it could have migrated from materials in packaging or forks.

Second, it says nothing about whether the plastics in our guts are doing us any harm.

The gastrointestinal tract serves as a barrier between what we eat and our insides. Some who have looked at the study argue that as long as the plastics simply pass through our digestive system and are flushed out as waste, there may not be a problem. “And I second that opinion,” Schwabl said.

Funding is being doled out globally to research projects that are examining whether microplastics pose a risk to human health. But as scientists call for more research on human health impacts, some are also calling for the response to be proportional to the risk.

Plastic pollution does not have the known deadly effects that other environmental challenges do. Air pollution contributes to 7 million deaths annually, and climate change-related diseases could each year claim a quarter of a million lives. Plastic pollution has never been blamed for a single death.

Of the 11.7 million tons of microplastics estimated to enter the environment every year, only 3 million of them began as tiny particles.

“There is a big discrepancy between the magnitude of this debate and actual scientific findings, which have merely shown the presence of microplastics in certain products,” concluded Sinja Rist, a researcher from the Technical University of Denmark, in a critical look at the science of microplastics and human health. “The recent debate has created a skewed picture of human plastic exposure.”

Earlier this year, the EU advisory body Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA) published a meta-analysis of all available studies on microplastics. Its conclusion: Read More – Source

Continue Reading


Monkeypox: First deaths outside Africa in Brazil and Spain

Brazil and Spain have reported their first monkeypox deaths.

A 41-year-old man in Brazil became the first fatality from the virus outside Africa. Spain announced two deaths soon afterwards – the first in Europe.

Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the monkeypox outbreak a global health emergency.

But infections are usually mild and the risk to the general population is low.

On Friday Brazil’s health ministry said the victim there had suffered from lymphoma and a weakened immune system, and “comorbidities aggravated his condition”.

Brazil has so far reported 1,066 confirmed cases and 513 suspected cases of the virus. Data from Brazil’s health ministry indicates that more than 98% of confirmed cases were in men who have sex with men.

Shortly afterwards, Spain’s health ministry confirmed Europe’s first death from the virus – a patient who suffered from encephalitis.

A second death linked to monkeypox was confirmed by Spanish authorities on Saturday.

The health ministry said that of 3,750 monkeypox patients with available information, 120 or 3.2% had been hospitalised.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 21,148 cases worldwide.

The monkeypox virus is a member of the same family of viruses as smallpox, although it is much less severe and experts say chances of infection are low.

It occurs mostly in remote parts of central and west African countries, near tropical rainforests.

Health officials are recommending people at highest risk of exposure to the virus – including some gay and bisexual men, as well as some healthcare workers – should be offered a vaccine.

Last week, WHO director general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said declaring the outbreak a global health emergency would help speed up the development of vaccines and the implementation of measures to limit the spread of the virus.

Dr Tedros said the risk of monkeypox is moderate globally, but high in Europe.

But, he added, “this is an outbreak that can be stopped with the right strategies in the right groups”. The WHO is issuing recommendations, which it hopes will spur countries to take action to stop transmission of the virus and protect those most at risk.


Read from:

Continue Reading


Covid: Woman caught virus twice within record 20 days

A 31-year-old healthcare worker caught Covid twice within 20 days – the shortest-known gap between infections, Spanish researchers have claimed.

Tests show the woman was infected with two different variants – Delta in late December and then Omicron in January.

This shows that even if you have had Covid before, you can still be infected again even if fully vaccinated, the researchers say.

Reinfections in the UK require 90 days between positive tests.

Based on that definition, health officials say nearly 900,000 people have potentially been infected twice with Covid up to the start of April.

It is difficult to pin down an exact number, because only whole genome sequencing can confirm the infections are caused by different strains, and very few positive tests go through this process.

The Spaniard did not develop any symptoms after her first positive PCR test, but less than three weeks later she developed a cough and fever which prompted her to take another test.

When the tests were analysed further, they showed the patient had been infected by two different strains of coronavirus.

In a presentation at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, study author Dr. Gemma Recio said the case highlighted that Omicron can “evade the previous immunity acquired either from a natural infection with other variants or from vaccines”.

She said: “In other words, people who have had Covid-19 cannot assume they are protected against reinfection, even if they have been fully vaccinated.

“Nevertheless, both previous infection with other variants and vaccination do seem to partially protect against severe disease and hospitalisation in those with Omicron,” added Dr Recio, from the Institut Catala de Salut, Tarragona in Spain.

She said monitoring reinfections in people who were fully vaccinated was important, and would help the search for variants which evade vaccines.

Covid reinfections rose sharply in December 2021 after the much more infectious Omicron variant emerged, and there was another increase when a slightly different version of it, called BA.2, appeared in early March.

Before that, 1% of all cases recorded in the UK were labelled as second infection – but that has now gone up to 11%.

Most are likely to be people infected by the Alpha or Delta variants and then infected again by the more contagious Omicron.

Scientists predict that eventually everyone will catch Covid twice, and probably many more times over the course of their lifetime.

Read from:


Continue Reading


Poverty, crime linked to differences in newborns’ brains

Poverty and crime can have devastating effects on a child’s health. But a new study from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis suggests that some environmental factors influence the structure and function of young brains even before babies make their entrances into the world.

A study published online in the journal JAMA Network Open found that MRI scans performed on healthy newborns. At the same time, they slept indicated that babies facing social disadvantages such as poverty tended to be born with smaller brains than babies whose mothers had higher household incomes.

MRI scans of full-term newborns born to mothers living in poverty revealed smaller volumes across the entire brain — including the cortical grey matter, subcortical grey matter and white matter — than found in the brains of babies whose mothers had higher household incomes.

The brain scans, conducted only a few days to weeks after birth, also showed more miniature folding of the brain among infants born to mothers living in poverty. Fewer and shallower folds typically signify brain immaturity. The healthy human brain folds as it grows and develops, providing the cerebral cortex with a more extensive functional surface area.

A second study of data from the same sample of 399 mothers and their babies — this one published online in the journal Biological Psychiatry — reports that pregnant mothers from neighbourhoods with high crime rates gave birth to infants whose brains functioned differently during their first weeks of life than babies born to mothers living in safer neighbourhoods.

Functional MRI scans of babies whose mothers were exposed to crime displayed weaker connections between brain structures that process emotions and structures that help regulate and control those emotions. Maternal stress is believed to be one of the reasons for the weaker connections in the babies’ brains.

“These studies demonstrate that a mother’s experiences during pregnancy can have a major impact on her infant’s brain development,” said Christopher D. Smyser, MD, one of the principal investigators. “Like that old song about how the ‘knee bone is connected to the shin bone,’ there’s a saying about the brain that ‘areas that fire together wire together.’ We’re analysing how brain regions develop and form early functional networks because how those structures develop and work together may impact long-term development and behaviour.”

Babies in the study were born from 2017 through 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic. Smyser, a professor of neurology, paediatrics and radiology, said that babies are fed when they arrive for scans because they tend to fall asleep after eating to scan newborns during the first few weeks of life successfully. They are then snugly swaddled into blankets and a device that helps keep them comfortable and still. The brain scans take place while they sleep.

In the study involving the effects of poverty, the researchers focused on 280 mothers and their newborns. First author Regina L. Triplett, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in neurology, had expected to find that maternal poverty — referred to in the paper as a social disadvantage — could affect the babies’ developing brains. But she also expected to see the effects of psychosocial stress, which includes measures of adverse life experiences and anxiety and depression.

“Social disadvantage

affected the brain across many of its structures, but there were no significant effects related to psychosocial stress,” Triplett said. “Our concern is that as babies begin life with these smaller brain structures, their brains may not develop as healthy as the brains of babies whose mothers lived in higher-income households.”

In the second study, which implicated living in high-crime neighbourhoods as a factor in weaker functional connections in the brains of newborns, first author Rebecca G. Brady, a graduate student in the university’s Medical Scientist Training Program, found that unlike the effects of poverty, the results of exposure to crime were focused on particular areas of the babies’ brains.

“Instead of a brain-wide effect, living in a high-crime area during pregnancy seems to have more specific effects on the emotion-processing regions of babies’ brains,” Brady said. “We found that this weakening of the functional connections between emotion-processing structures in the babies’ brains was robust when we controlled for other types of adversity, such as poverty. It appears that stresses linked to crime had more specific effects on brain function.”

Reducing poverty and lowering crime rates are well-established goals in public policy and health. And the researchers believe protecting expectant mothers from crime and helping them out of poverty will do more than improve brain growth and connections in their babies. But if social programs that aim to help people reach their full potential are to succeed, the researchers said the policies must focus on assisting people even before they are born.

“Several research projects around the country are now providing money for living expenses to pregnant mothers. Some cities have determined that raising pregnant mothers out of poverty is good public policy,” Smyser said. “The evidence we’re gathering from these studies certainly would support that idea.”


Read from:

Continue Reading