Thanks boomers!

You greatly underestimate the pervasiveness of microplastics.

The article states that cancerous areas had ~2.5x more microplastics than the surrounding non-cancerous areas. It could be a chicken and egg/correlation≠causation situation, (is cancer caused by microplastics, or do cancerous cells attract microplastics?) but the article does outline that cancer cells clearly had more microplastics.

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

I agree with you, but with the carcinogenic nature of aryl compounds used in, and as by-products of, the polymerization and hardening/softening of plastics, the incidence of plastics in cells could in turn turn them cancerous, and thus increase the rate at which they draw nutrients and microplastics from the vascular system.

One may not necessarily cause the other, but they are overwhelmingly correlated - beyond the point of suspicion.

It would be interesting to see a study comparing other types of cancers, their microplastic levels, and the microplastic levels of other cells in progressively radiating distances from the cancerous cells.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12505851/ (October, 2025)

Microplastics as emerging carcinogens: from environmental pollutants to oncogenic drivers

ABSTRACT: The widespread environmental pollution of microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) has become a major public health issue, with increasing evidence associating their bioaccumulation with cancer onset. This review offers a thorough examination of the etiological contributions of MPs/NPs in carcinogenesis, clarifying their mechanistic roles in in vitro, in vivo, and patient-derived evidences. Relevant studies were systematically identified and screened following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines to ensure methodological transparency and quality. We highlighted recent discoveries that emphasize the varied accumulation of MPs in several human cancer tissues, including lung, colorectal, gastric, cervical, breast, pancreatic, prostate and penile malignancies. These particles induce harmful biological effects by chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, genotoxicity, disturbance of lipid metabolism, and alteration of the tumor immunological microenvironment. Significantly, MPs/NPs disrupt various oncogenic signaling pathways, particularly NF-κB, PI3K/Akt/mTOR, Wnt/β-catenin, and p53, therefore facilitating tumor initiation, development, and metastasis. In vitro and in vivo studies have corroborated the carcinogenic potential of MPs/NPs, illustrating their capacity to cause cellular transformation, augment metastatic characteristics, and modify drug resistance pathways in cancer cells. Furthermore, the detection of MPs in human biological matrices, including blood, placenta, and tumor tissues, highlights direct human exposure and potential systemic effects. This review emphasizes the mechanistic insights with therapeutic significance, addressing current knowledge gaps in the field. Future research must prioritize biomarker identification, patient-centered investigations, therapeutic targeting, and the formulation of regulatory policies to alleviate the health hazards linked to microplastic exposure. Understanding the intricate relationship between MPs/NPs and cancer biology could facilitate the development of novel cancer prevention and management strategies related to environmental contamination.

Take that, tumor!

IIRC, there's a harder, trusted process for measurement. But an easier method that has gained widespread adoption, and that method is what has been called into question.

This is a hit piece, echoes of big oil & tobacco. It's picking studies that have (debatable) issues, then is casting a wide net that is encouraging doubt of all microplastics in the body studies. They take the time to explain why these can be ignored, but depend on you to go read the counter-counterarguments made by the original researchers of each study yourself.

Rauert says there are absolutely nanoplastics in our bodies, but micro plastics are unlikely due to their size.

It doesn't do a meta-analysis of all MNP studies and doesn't disregard bad criticisms or biased voices (Kuhlman). It's also sensationalised.

Pulled from a chat about this when this was released

When you lack a control, though you should still be able to compare those with tumours and those without. One treatment (no tumour) to the other.

Controls answer: what if we did nothing? And how big are the effects vs doing nothing?

E: they can't get accurate measurements themselves that's the issue, not the lack of uncontaminated controls

Agreed. The technology is still new, evolving, or not there yet. I was at an aquarium only last month. They were showing me a machine where there are only 7 available in the US so far. The scientist only got it like 3 days before I spoke to her so she hadnt used it yet but it measures concentration of microplastics in the ocean and is specific enough to tell you what different microplastics are there and their likely sources. Really cool but this science is super new and in its infancy.

can I get a eli5 for this? it sounds scary but I'm also not sure what you meant. 

It’s also worth noting that microplastics appear in basically all body tissue, including the brain, when looking at samples from cadavers in recent years. I don’t remember the name offhand but one study found enough microplastics in the average brain to make a plastic spoon.

So this might be more of a correlative thing, hopefully. Because the world ain’t stopping with plastic everything

This needs to be the top comment, the headline is extremely misleading

Dash is all you need.

I am worry about the systematic error treatment of this data, cancer is per se very abnormal in growing parameters....

I think that it'll be the final nail in humanity's coffin.

Climate Change is really bad, but humans are going to survive it, although in greatly reduced numbers for a long time.

But plastics currently have a measured negative impact on fertility rates. Can't survive as a species if you can't reproduce.

So is lab techique that allows microparticle contamination, leading to over-measurement of microplastics.

That's.....how you check for prostate cancer

Whew good thing I only have dildos and not disldos

/j

i read glass diodes and imagined a cyberpunk future lol

Notably, tumor tissue contained significantly more plastic. On average, cancerous samples had about 2.5 times the concentration found in healthy prostate tissue (about 40 micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue compared with 16 micrograms per gram).

Sure, though it's to be expected that everything contains water in the body. To expect microplastics, however, is kind of different -- leaving aside their showing a legitimate difference in microplastic quantity between healthy and unhealthy prostates.

You know, I've never understood why there are no warning labels on the bottles of the stuff.

Or maybe people that have unhealthy lifestyles that generally might include more ultra-processed foods or living conditions more susceptible to microplastics intake. IOW more plastics packaged foods and drinks, living near roadways where tire particles and exhaust both add to poor health and stress, etc.