you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

It's about 2.5x more than the surrounding non-cancerous prostate tissue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    My complaint was more about the baity title. Nevertheless cancer tissues generate more blood vessels around them to transport more resources to the tissue. A better metric would likely be something that normalizes the amount of microplastics by inflow of total particles. Even other tissue resource densities might serve the purpose. But anything else is either bad science communication or bad science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    It's definitely not establishing causation, I agree. But showing a correlation isn't bad science. It could just be that because tumors are more resource intensive they accumulate more plastics. But at the very least they should have identified the specific plastics they found.

  • source
  • parent