What does it mean that scientists found 240,000 nanoparticles of plastic in a typical bottle of water? The number is big and sounds alarming, but it is not very informative. How many particles are needed to cause disease? What kinds of ailments are likely to result? Are there people who are dead now who would be alive if they had avoided bottled water?
These questions need to be addressed to before we can make informed decisions at the individual and societal level. Should we ban plastic bottles for water and other drinks? Require health warnings? Would doing so save lives — or would it only take attention and money from more pressing health problems?
Nanoplastics are smaller than a wavelength of light — too small to see with an optical microscope. Previous studies showed they were there, including one published in Scientific Reports in 2021, demonstrating how to detect them in bottled water.
To detect these nanoparticles, scientists can take advantage of a phenomenon called Rayleigh scattering. Shine a laser through pure water and you will not see the beam. Add enough tiny particles, even nanoparticles, and the beam becomes visible. This also works in air — add nanoparticles in the form of smoke and scattering makes the beam visible. More particles mean brighter scattering.
The new study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, used a different laser technique. It revealed more particles per bottle than the 2021 study, though it was not clear why the two methods got such different results.
What consumers need to know is how much plastic is in a glass of tap water versus bottled water, and whether reusable bottles — which are often made of harder plastics — face the same problems as cheaper plastic bottles. Do home filtering systems add or remove plastic nanoparticles?
Questions about the health impacts of nanoparticles getting into the body are hardly new, retired industrial chemist Mark Jones said. Health implications of inhaled and ingested nanoparticles from gas stoves, wood fires, candles, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, diesel engines and more are well studied. We are all exposed, in many cases to far more nanoparticles than are present in bottled water. Airborne nanoparticle concentration is most commonly reported in weight per volume of air and exposure tracked by mass. However, is it the total amount of plastic or the number of pieces that matter most?
We do not ingest quite as much plastic as the media have widely reported. In the past several years news organizations have been repeating we eat about a credit card’s equivalent in plastic every week. That figure, 5g, is dubious. Other scientists have found major errors in that analysis and subsequent studies give estimates a million times lower.
And most of the plastic we consume comes from the larger particles. The smaller nanoparticles, identified in the new study, do not make a significant change in the total mass ingested. Even 240,000 nanoparticles weigh only trillions of a gram. The study suggests, however, that it is their small size that might pose the danger. Nanoparticles can slip into the bloodstream, get into organs and sneak into cells where they might cause harm.
A paper published in The Lancet last month goes through models and animal studies showing that plastic likely goes into most of our major organs and even affect the good bacteria that makes up our microbiome. That is not proof of harm, just reason for concern. It also points to more research being needed.
It is hard to do direct human studies on long-term effects, but a small study showed there was more plastic in people with liver disease than those with healthy livers, and another small study found plastic particles in human blood clots. Animal studies suggest that plastic particles can cause male infertility and can cross into a fetus during pregnancy.
Some studies suggest that not all plastic particles are equally dangerous. Some studies showed noticeable health effects only from plastics with certain additives not found in water bottles.
The plastic problem can seem overwhelming when particles get inside our bodies from the air we breathe, the food we eat and the beverages we drink. It is not just bottled water but likely all those popular sodas, juices, sports drinks and other beverages sold in plastic bottles. Many reusable bottles are plastic or have plastic lids. Tackling the problem requires more information about sizes and kinds of particles that are most dangerous and where they come from.
Cutting back on water is not the answer — hydration is vital for health. Not to mention that exercise is good for us, and it is much easier and more fun to be active when you are not dehydrated.
So perhaps as a first step we could demand more drinking fountains, more water coolers and studies that vouch for the safety of reusable bottles. Maybe there is a technology fix, something that can be done to reduce the production of the particles. There could be demand for new forms of packaging. There could be a new demand for water and other drinks sold in glass bottles.
However, enough alarming data have now amassed that it is time to move from fear and outrage to action.
F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the Follow the Science podcast. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s