Saturday 27th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

plastic humanity...

plasticmanplasticmanThe ubiquity of microplastics (plastic particles <5 mm, including nanosized plastics <1 µm) in the global biosphere raises increasing concerns about their implications for human health (1–3).   Recent evidence indicates that humans constantly inhale and ingest microplastics; however, whether these contaminants pose a substantial risk to human health is far from understood. The lack of crucial data on exposure and hazard represents key knowledge gaps t hat need to be addressed to move forward.

Microplastics are created by the weathering and breakdown of plastic objects, car tires, clothing, paint coatings, and leakage of preproduction pellets and powders. They may also be intentionally added to daily-life products (e.g., cosmetics and abrasive cleaners) (1, 2). Microplastics represent a highly diverse class of contaminants spanning five orders of magnitude in size, are of various shapes (e.g., spheres, fragments, fibers), and have a complex composition, including polymeric materials and mixtures of chemicals (residual monomers, additives, and hydrophobic environmental contaminants) (4–6). Furthermore, biofilms growing on microplastics may be a source of harmful microorganisms (2, 7). Their ubiquity in the environment raises serious concerns about their effects on wildlife and ecosystems (1), but what are their effects on human health?

Microplastics may enter the human body through both inhalation and ingestion, potentially causing health effects (see the figure). A parallel can be drawn with particulate air pollution: Small particles (<2.5 µm), such as those from diesel exhaust, are capable of crossing cell membranes and triggering oxidative stress and inflammation, and have been linked with increased risk of death from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases or lung cancer (3). This parallel provides ample incentive to gather more information on the potential risk of microplastic particles.  A major issue when determining the risks of microplastics to human health is the lack of information on human exposure. Adequate analytical tools to sample, isolate, detect, quantify, and characterize small microplastics (<10 µm), especially nanosized plastic particles, are urgently needed. External exposure estimates comprise limited and highly variable data of mainly large particles (>10 to 50 µm), with poor standardization and quality control measures, hampering a comprehensive exposure assessment (1, 8). Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence suggests widespread exposure to microplastics from various foods, drinking water, and air (1, 9, 10).

Reported concentrations of microplastics in tap and bottled water vary between 0 and 104particles/liter, with generally greater particle counts for small-sized microplastics (8). The first atmospheric measurements of larger-sized, predominantly fibrous microplastics indicate that plastic particles are a relevant component of fine dust, with, for example, deposition rates in central London ranging between 575 and 1008 microplastics per square meter per day (9). Increased exposure through indoor air, direct swallowing of house dust or dust settling on food (10), and direct exposure to particles released from plastic food containers or bottles, such as polypropylene infant feeding bottles (11), are of special concern. Larger microplastics are likely excreted through feces, or after deposition in the respiratory tract or lungs through mucociliary clearance into the gut (1, 4). Given the methodological limitations and measurement bias toward larger particles, existing analyses probably underestimate human external exposure and generally do not include the fraction of smaller-sized particles <10 µm, which are likely more relevant to toxicity (1, 12). Notably, internal exposure measurements of plastic particles in human body fluids and tissues are still in their infancy.

A better understanding of the ability of microplastics to cross the epithelial barriers of the airway, gastrointestinal tract, and skin is needed to reduce the current uncertainty in the human risk assessment of microplastics. Limited in vitro and in vivo data suggest that only small fractions of administered microplastics are capable of crossing epithelial barriers of lungs and intestines, with specific uptake profiles and generally increasing uptake efficiency with decreasing particle size (2). This low proportion of particle uptake is not necessarily unimportant when considering life-long exposure and because of possible accumulation in tissues and organs. Studies with human cells in culture, and in rodents and aquatic species indicate translocation of microplastics <10 µm from the gut cavity to the lymph and circulatory systems, causing systemic exposure and accumulation in tissues including liver, kidney, and brain (12). Al though the smallest particles (<0.1 µm) may be capable of accessing all organs, crossing cell membranes (12), the placenta (13), and also the brain (14), major knowledge gaps regarding absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) still exist. Whether there are dose-dependent effects of microplastics in humans also remains unknown.

Once in contact with epithelial linings in the lung or intestine, or after being internalized, microplastics may cause physical, chemical, and microbiological toxicity, which could also act cumulatively. Several in vitro (i.e., human cell culture) and in vivo rodent studies indicate the potential of inhaled or ingested microplastics to cause a variety of biological effects, including physical (particle) toxicity, leading to oxidative stress, secretion of cytokines, cellular damage, inflammatory and immune reactions, and DNA damage, as well as neurotoxic and metabolic effects (12). The observed effects are usually triggered at high exposure concentrations of microplastics, and these experiments use a limited number of pristine, commercially available particle types, which are inconsistent with those encountered in the environment. Furthermore, chemical contamination of these test particles cannot always be excluded. Similar to the effects observed in ambient particle exposure studies, epidemiological studies have reported lung injuries, including inflammation, fibrosis, and allergy, among workers in the plastic and textile industry who are exposed to high amounts of plastic fibrous dust (4).

Chemical toxicity may be caused by microplastics acting as vectors to transfer exogenous hazardous chemicals, proteins, and toxins present in or on the particles into the body (1, 5, 6). However, this “Trojan horse” effect is understudied with little knowledge of the role of nanosized microplastics, which are more effective at crossing biological membranes and have increased surface area for chemical reactivity than larger-sized microplastics. Some studies suggest that aquatic microplastics may act as vectors of microbiological toxicity, carrying biofilm-associated opportunistic bacterial pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes that may interact with gut microbiota (15). In-depth research on the stability of microbial contaminants within the human body is required to further clarify this. The possibility that microplastics act as carriers of other potential pathogens, such as fungi and viruses, also deserves attention. More research is urgently needed to fully understand the potential toxicity, underlying mechanisms, and long-term effects of microplastics under real life conditions.

An additional intriguing, yet understudied, but potentially hazardous property of microplastics is the presence of an eco- or biocorona, i.e., biomolecules and other substances on the surface of the plastic particle, which may influence particle uptake, fate, and effects (7, 13). The heterogeneous composition of the eco- or biocorona is determined by the physicochemical properties of the microplastic and complex particle interactions with both the environment (comprising natural matter, biomolecules, chemical contaminants, and microorganisms) and the human body (adsorbed lipid and proteins) (6, 7, 13). Before crossing the epithelial barriers in the lung and intestine, microplastics are trapped in the mucus layer covering the cells, whereas ingested particles have to pass through acidic conditions in the stomach and intestinal lumen. The role of the changing composition of the eco- or biocorona acquired by microparticles, from the outside to the inside of the body, across tissue barriers, and the underlying mechanisms in mediating uptake and toxicity are poorly understood and deserve more study.   

Microplastics and human health

• A. Dick Vethaak1,2,  • Juliette Legler3



Science  12 Feb 2021:
Vol. 371, Issue 6530, pp. 672-674

loony yankees save the universe...

Pop culture’s silliest superhero, Plastic Man is as much a humor icon as a heroic one.  During a heist gone wrong, petty crook Patrick “Eel” O’Brian was doused in chemicals, allowing him to stretch his body into any shape he desires. Nursed back to health by altruistic monks, he was inspired to embrace life’s brighter side.

 

https://www.dccomics.com/characters/plastic-man

 

---------------

 

Comics have shaped the psyche of Americans, as much as religion and politics. Comics are the modern technological fairy tales that are designed to make young Yankees swallow the ordinary hardships through distractions in which a justicerer — formerly Jesus Christ — with superior skills, ability and gnostic grasp of good and evil, can solve petty daily problems, including the invented "original sin" or the robbery of a bank (!)... Sciences of course have a lot to answer for: "science fiction"... It may have started with frankenstein. Don't you love the bit about the "altruistic monks"?

 

 

The delusions are our saviours?...

 

 

Rod Dreher has read Coyote Fork, by James Wilson — and because Wilson indulges the reader in exploring Gnosticism, as well as good and evil, Rod is in raptures upto the seventh heaven… Here he inflates his dissertation:



“The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.” — St. Jerome.

Now the whole world groans, and is astonished to find itself Gnostic.

The philosophical heart of the book [Coyote Fork] is its discussion of Gnosticism as the foundation of techno-utopianism. It comes up in Lovelace’s association with Ruth Halassian, a philosophy professor who knew Evan Bone at Stanford. Ruth is being harassed by woke students at her small Ohio liberal arts college because she challenges their wokeness on philosophical grounds. They call her a hater and a bigot, and are trying to run her out of town.

 

------------------


At this stage, we might have to worry about plastic in our veins more than philosophy in our brains...


The whole world being Gnostic? You’re kidding Rod, aren’t you? Too many people in Yankeeland believe in a superior being acting like a Jesus or a Plastic Man — a redeemed crook now destined to do good — or Captain America to save us from the bad deeds we do to each others… Ridiculous but this powerful concept of superhero comes to mind because we’re too stupid to manage ourselves or/and cook a scrambled egg without making a mess in the kitchen.

I wont torture your brave hearts with more from Rod Dreher but "you can read the whole thing” as he often says at https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/our-gnostic-world/




Let’s go to a commercial beak…

Coyote Fork
   James Wilson
   266 pages
   September 1, 2020

British journalist Robert Lovelace travels to California to report on the social media giant Global Village. He’s horrified by what he finds: a company—guided by the ruthless vision of its founder, Evan Bone—that seems to be making journalism itself redundant. Appalled, he decides to abandon the project and return home.

But as he leaves he has a disconcerting encounter that sends him off in a totally different direction. Soon he finds himself embarked on an increasingly fraught and dangerous mission. The aim: to uncover the murky truth about Evan Bone’s past and his pathological disregard for the human cost of the behemoth he has created.

Robert’s quest takes him from San Francisco to a small college town in the Midwest, to the site of a former hippie commune in northern California, introducing us to a range of vivid characters, and confronting us with the price we pay—online trolling; the loss of privacy; professional ruin—for living in an “interconnected” world. Finally, he makes a startling discovery—and is thrown into a completely unforeseen existential dilemma.

A timely, stylishly written, and brilliantly conceived metaphysical thriller, Coyote Fork carries us on an unforgettable journey, before bringing us face to face with the darkness at the heart of Silicon Valley itself.

Read more:
https://slantbooks.com/books/coyote-fork/

—————————— 
The important word at the top, ABOVE the self-brilliant blurb is FICTION. YES Fiction…! Comics? F-I-C-T-I-O-N !... The philosophical content of this adventure is childish, nothing that we have not seen in the DCs with Superman — or now SiliCON-man of the valley, where plots to turn us into zombies and hippies (1960 chapter) are being secretly fermented in electronic beer vats… I can see why Rod and his naive dog love this sort of story: James Wilson mentioned Gnosticism as if it was the Holy Grail to reality... Here is Rod again (I think/):


In Coyote Fork, Wilson shows why these communes failed: they were all founded on some form of the belief that man is born good, but society makes him evil. If they can recreate society to get rid of the things that make people bad, they will have regenerated paradise. In Wilson’s view, the techno-utopians are making the same mistakes, but this time, the entire world has to pay the price. For example, tech brought into existence social media mobs who drive cancel culture, and surveillance technology that makes it very hard to escape that mob. This plays a key role in Coyote Fork.



One can write anything under the cover of fiction, by candlelight in a garret. So what was the point of Rod’s tirade/article/blurt? I have no idea but it's possible that Rod assumes failure of communes is inevitable, because that's the subject of Coyote Fork. Yep, the failure of empire is inevitable. The failure of communism happened a tad earlier than capitalism's failure that is happening now — as we try to rescue the bits in bitcoins and gold bullions.

We live in the human complex space of stylistic choices. I know some communes that have been successful and still are. To some extend, the failure of communes isn’t due to the communes themselves, but often due to officialdom trying to shut them down, because they don’t contribute to the taxation honeypot that feeds the politics… And there is little plastic rubbish in communes, except that that flies in from our plastic societies...

Please! Stop giving the kids tools to write the same crap we have written about 100 years ago. We had to be a bit more organised in our thoughts because we did not have the cut and paste app...

 

Plastic in humans is a serious business... gnostic plastic is rubbish.

 

 

 

our daily plastics...

 

Twenty companies are responsible for producing more than half of all the single-use plastic waste in the world, fuelling the climate crisis and creating an environmental catastrophe, new research reveals.

Among the global businesses responsible for 55% of the world’s plastic packaging waste are both state-owned and multinational corporations, including oil and gas giants and chemical companies, according to a comprehensive new analysis.

 

The Plastic Waste Makers index reveals for the first time the companies who produce the polymers that become throwaway plastic items, from face masks to plastic bags and bottles, which at the end of their short life pollute the oceans or are burned or thrown into landfill.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/twenty-firms-produce-55-of-worlds-plastic-waste-report-reveals

 

Read from top

 

SEE ALSO: 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!

recycling plastics...

Baltimore burns more than 20 times the plastic it recycles, according to a new report by Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). Using publicly available data, researchers found the city recycles just 2.1% of plastic waste and incinerates nearly 50%, while the rest is landfilled. 

 

The oil industry scammed and misled the public into believing more plastic can be recycled than is actually possible, but the rate at which Baltimore is able to recycle its plastics is far lower than the national average or the four other cities researchers surveyed: Detroit, MI; Long Beach, CA; Minneapolis, MN; and Newark, NJ. The #BreakFreeFromPlastic campaign has launched a petition that calls for non-recyclable plastic to be banned, the banning of waste incineration, and for plastic manufacturers to be held responsible for disposing of their products. 

 

“While residents’ and workers’ call for Zero Waste has never been louder, we also face an unprecedented challenge in the plastics production boom that imposes toxics into our daily lives from the moment we are born,” Shashawnda Campbell of the South Baltimore Community Land Trust (SBCLT), which help release the report, told Battleground Baltimore.

SBCLT tweeted “Look forward to reviewing the findings of the new report on plastic waste pollution with @BaltimoreDPW, @MayorBMScott and City Council. Burning and burying 96% of plastics in Baltimore is a major problem for all of us. #ZeroWaste.”

In response to a request for comment, the city shared the overall recycling rate, but did not respond directly to the findings of the report. 

 

Read more:

https://therealnews.com/dumpster-fire-baltimore-burns-20-times-the-plastic-it-recycles

 

--------------

If this only happened in Baltimore!... Read from top.

 

freefree

phthalates & bisphenols....

This article was originally published by Lance D. Johnson at Natural News under the title: Phthalates and Bisphenols Now “Widespread” in Common Food Items, Silently Driving the Chronic Disease Epidemic

The chronic disease epidemic in America can be traced back to specific contaminants in the food supply. These contaminants negatively impact hormone signaling, cellular energy production, sexual development, neurodevelopment, and genetic expression. Some of the most damaging contaminants in the food and water supply include various types of plasticizer chemicals. These chemicals, namely phthalates and bisphenols, are used to strengthen the durability of plastics, but they also pose a silent danger to human health.

A report from the nonprofit group Consumer Reports found these plasticizer chemicals in 84 out of 85 tested food items. These plasticizer chemicals are linked to Type-2 diabetes, infertility, immunosuppression, cancer, and cardiovascular disorders, among many other chronic illnesses and conditions.

Plasticizer chemicals are silently driving the chronic disease epidemic

Consumer Reports tested 85 common food items from 11 categories that included beverages, condiments, grains, dairy, meats, canned beans, packaged fruits and vegetables, seafood, fast food, prepared meals, and infant food. Of the samples tested, 79 percent contained concerning levels of bisphenols and 98 percent of the samples contained phthalates.

Both phthalates and bisphenols are endocrine disruptors. Once inside the bloodstream, these chemicals interfere with healthy hormone production, signaling, and regulation. In males, phthalates directly harm sperm motility and concentration. In females, the chemicals cause early puberty, ovarian dysfunction, and cancers of the reproductive system. In children, bisphenol A (BPA) damages the brain and prostate glands, while altering human behavior. In one study, the kids whose bodies could not detoxify BPA were more likely to suffer from autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Human health advocacy groups have done a great job at bringing awareness to the harmful effects of BPA over the past decade, and plastic manufacturers have increasingly moved away from using this chemical. However, plastic manufacturers use similar plasticizer substitutes (like BPS) that cause similar health problems as BPA. Consumer Reports noticed that the level of bisphenols was “notably lower” compared to lab tests for BPA taken back in 2009, so there has been progress on mitigating this chemical. However, this is just one plasticizer chemical, and there are many equally toxic substitutes and phthalates that permeate the food, beverage, and cosmetic supply.

Consumer Reports finds phthalates “widespread” across many consumer categories

From the Consumer Report, beverage products with the highest level of phthalates include Brisk Iced Tea Lemon, Coco-Cola Original, Lipton Diet Green Tea Citrus, and Poland Spring 100% natural spring water.

In the canned beans category, the products with the highest level of phthalates include Hormel Chili with Beans, Bush’s Chili Red Beans Mild Chili Sauce, and Great Value (Walmart) Baked Beans Original.

Contaminated condiments include Mrs. Butterworth’s Syrup Original and Hunt’s Tomato Ketchup. In the dairy category, the most contaminated products were Fairlife Core Power High Protein Milk Shake Chocolate, SlimFast High Protein Meal Replacement Shake Creamy Chocolate, Yoplait Original Low-Fat Yogurt, and Tuscan Dairy Farms Whole Milk.

Fast Food products that contain phthalates include Wendy’s Crispy Chicken Nuggets, Moe’s Southwest Grill Chicken Burrito, Chipotle Chicken Burrito, Burger King Whopper with Cheese, Burger King Chicken Nuggets, and Wendy’s Dave’s Single with Cheese. For grains, the contaminated products included General Mills Cheerios Original and Success 10 Minute Boil-in-Bag White Rice.

For infant food, it was Gerber Mealtime for Baby Harvest Turkey Dinner, Similac Advance Infant Milk-Based Powder Formula, Beech-Nut Fruities Pouch Pear, Banana & Raspberries, and Gerber Cereal for Baby Rice.

In the meat and poultry category, phthalates abounded in Perdue Ground Chicken Breast, Trader Joe’s Ground Pork 80% Lean 20% Fat, Premio Foods Sweet Italian Sausage, and Libby’s Corned Beef.

Prepared meals with phthalates include Annie’s Organic Cheesy Ravioli, Chef Boyardee Beefaroni Pasta in Tomato and Meat Sauce, Banquet Chicken Pot Pie, Campbell’s Chunky Classic Chicken Noodle Soup and Chef Boyardee Big Bowl Beefaroni Pasta in Meat Sauce.

In the seafood category, contaminated products include Chicken of the Sea Pink Salmon in Water Skinless Boneless, King Oscar Wild Caught Sardines in Extra Virgin Olive Oil, and Snow’s Chopped Clams.

Finally, packaged fruits and vegetable products with phthalates include Del Monte Sliced Peaches in 100% Fruit Juice, Green Giant Cream Style Sweet Corn, and Del Monte Fresh Cut Italian Green Beans.

Combating the chronic disease epidemic will require an overhaul of good manufacturing practices in the US and around the world, including improvements in food, beverage, and cosmetic testing systems for well-known endocrine disruptors. The changes should implement more rigorous chemical concentration thresholds to keep up with the latest science, and regulatory agencies should support industry efforts in cleaning up the food supply for the betterment of the population.

 

https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/phthalates-bisphenols-now-widespread-in-food-items-driving-the-chronic-disease-epidemic

 

READ. FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.............