That Reusable Water Bottle Might Be Killing You (Slowly)

A bit hyperbolic, I grant, but the truth might surprise you.

medium.com

You’re Drinking Plastic: How Tea Bags Are Harming Your Gut

I love tea.

medium.com

It’s a topic that keeps becoming more alarming, and a new study has added to the confusion.

We already know these tiny plastic particles, manufactured or broken down from larger plastics, damage our environment.

Past research has linked microplastics to a higher risk of serious illnesses like heart disease, lung disease, and even cancer.

The average person ingests tens of thousands of these particles yearly through the water, food, and air we drink.

New Research on Microplastics and Dementia

And now, this latest research has me even more concerned.

A team led by Dr. Matthew Campen at the University of New Mexico has discovered something disturbing:

Microplastic levels in the brain are significantly higher than in other organs like the liver and kidneys.

This finding, published this month in Nature Medicine, raises serious questions about what these particles do to our brains.

I will explore what this could mean for our health, particularly concerning conditions like dementia.

Polyethylene — Most Common Brain Microplastic

Researchers analyzed brain tissue samples from the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator collected between 2016 and 2024.

The study examined human brain microplastic concentrations.

Could these tiny particles pose a threat to our neurological health?

The investigators developed a technique that allowed them to identify 12 polymer types in the brain.

Polyethylene — a plastic widely used in bags, packaging, water pipes, and insulation — was the most common polymer in the brain.

Upon analysis of the study’s findings, researchers found this:

Microplastic concentrations were much greater in the brain than in other body areas, including the liver, kidneys, placenta, and testes.

High Brain Microplastics Linked to Dementia

The association does not imply a causal relationship, but this finding particularly struck me:

Brain tissue from individuals diagnosed with dementia had up to 10 times more microplastics than those without the disease.

Their study showed brain tissue to have a high concentration of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs).

Their study revealed a high concentration of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in these areas.

This finding raises crucial questions about the mechanisms by which MNPs reach brain tissue, the processes involved, and how they might contribute to nerve degeneration.

Further research is needed to understand these pathways and their potential impact on neurological health.

Protecting Your Brain From Microplastics

Here are some ways you might protect your body (including your brain) from microplastics:

• Use reusable containers, avoiding plastics where possible
• Minimize single-use plastic use (and certainly do not use it over and over)
• Choose foods (including seafood) that are from sources with fewer microplastics

• Minimize ultra-processed food consumption

Potential risk of microplastics in processed foods: Preliminary risk assessment.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

• Don’t heat plastic food packaging.
• Avoid bottled water. I prefer filtered tap water.
• Vacuum your home frequently. Invest in a HEPA vacuum device.
• Have a good ventilation system at home (and ideally at work, too)
• Wear natural clothing (such as organic cotton or hemp instead of synthetic fibers)
• Avoid air pollution if possible

Remember: Much global plastic production is used to package food and beverages.

However, this plastic is susceptible to wear and tear during use, which fragments the material into tiny particles known as microplastics.

What are your thoughts? Am I overly concerned about microplastics? It is a de minimus risk?

The post Dementia’s Silent Thief: Could Microplastics Be the Culprit? appeared first on Medika Life.

The world has long been dependent on petroleum-based plastics. They are cheap, durable, and versatile, finding applications from healthcare to consumer goods. Plastic has historically been an affordable material to produce and use, largely due to the relatively low cost of oil. However, the environmental toll is immense, and with rising oil prices approaching US $100 per barrel for Kuwait Export Blend on 15th September 2023, The economics behind plastics are being reevaluated. This brings us to a crucial comparison: petroleum-based plastics vs. bioplastics.

A crude oil component called ‘naphtha’ is at the core of plastic production. The proportion of naphtha (from naphthenes) in crude oil can vary based on the specific type of oil, but it generally constitutes between 15% and 30% of the crude oil by weight. Consequently, even if there is a decline in the demand for oil for heating and powering internal combustion engine vehicles, our existing or increasing need for petroleum-based plastics necessitates continued oil extraction at current levels.

The True Cost of Petroleum-Based Plastics

Petroleum-based plastics generally range from US $1 to US $5 per kilogram. However, these prices are influenced by fluctuating oil prices. When oil exceeds US $100 a barrel, the cost of producing petroleum-based plastics can increase significantly, possibly reaching upwards of US $6 or US $7 per kilogram. For context, 1.9 kilograms of crude oil is required for 1 kilogram of plastic.

What often goes unmentioned are the hidden environmental and public health costs. From carbon emissions during production to microplastics contaminating water bodies, the externalities are far-reaching. In the context of global public health, the long-term impact could be costly treatments for diseases triggered by environmental degradation. Considering these hidden costs, it’s clear that we need to reevaluate our reliance on petroleum-based plastics. Enter the promising alternative: bioplastics.

Consider the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This floating “island” of plastic debris in the Pacific Ocean spans an area twice the size of Texas. It consists primarily of microplastics — tiny particles that fish often mistake for food. Not only does this harm marine life, but these plastics also enter the food chain, ultimately consumed by humans. Studies have shown that microplastics can carry harmful pathogens and toxic chemicals, which raise serious concerns for global public health.

The Cost of Bioplastics: More Than Just Numbers

As we look for ways to mitigate the environmental impact of our consumption habits, a crucial question arises: are people willing to pay a little more for bioplastics to promote sustainability? Bioplastics are usually more expensive, ranging from around US $2.5 to US $15 per kilogram. This is partly due to less mature production processes and smaller economies of scale. Bioplastic prices are expected to drop as production and distribution processes become more streamlined. For example, the price of Polylactic acid (PLA) has fallen by 50 percent since its introduction in 2007, with an average drop of 9 percent annually.

Bioplastics are a revolutionary subset of plastics that have piqued interest for their environmentally friendly pedigree. Unlike traditional plastics, predominantly synthesised from fossil fuels like petroleum, bioplastics are crafted from renewable biological resources. These can range from corn starch and sugarcane to more avant-garde materials like algae. This shift in raw materials has profound implications for sustainability. Among these next-gen materials, PLA bioplastic is a prime example of how far we’ve come in creating eco-friendly alternatives.

PLA bioplastic is a versatile material with a wide range of applications. It’s commonly used in food packaging, including containers, cups, trays, and packaging films and wraps. Beyond packaging, PLA is ideal for creating utensils, shopping bags, and rubbish (or trash) bags. It’s also used in plant pots, textiles and fabrics. For the tech-savvy, PLA is a popular filament in most 3D printers, prized for its detailed printing capabilities. In the medical field, PLA is highly valued for implants and sutures, as it breaks down harmlessly in the body over time. Additionally, it’s a material found in various consumer goods, from toys and cellphone cases to sunglasses frames.

However, bioplastics often boast a reduced carbon footprint and lesser environmental impact, aligning more closely with sustainability objectives. This is a crucial consideration when integrating public health goals and environmental responsibility. In particular, bioplastics offer a reduction in carbon emissions from fossil fuel-based materials. The production of bio-based plastics requires up to 90 percent less energy than traditional plastics and has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 80 percent.

One such example is the case of NatureWorks LLC, a leading company in producing Ingeo biopolymer, which is made from plants like sugarcane. According to studies and life cycle assessments conducted on their bioplastics, NatureWorks found that their Ingeo biopolymer could produce up to 60–80% less greenhouse gases and consume approximately 50% less non-renewable energy during production than traditional plastics like PET and PS.

Are all bioplastics sustainable?

It’s essential to note that not all bioplastics are equally sustainable. The source of the biological material, the agricultural practices involved, and the biodegradability of the final product are all factors that need to be scrutinised. For instance, corn is a monoculture crop, often grown in vast fields requiring significant synthetic fertiliser and pesticide inputs. These chemicals can run off into waterways, leading to nutrient pollution and other environmental issues. The energy used for planting, cultivating, and harvesting the corn also contributes to its environmental footprint. And let’s remember the ethical concerns related to using food-grade corn for plastic production while food insecurity remains a problem in many parts of the world.

Theoretically, bioplastics made from agricultural byproducts, such as corn or sugarcane, are more sustainable than those derived from food crops. But it’s important to note that food crops can be grown on land suitable for other purposes, such as grazing pastures and forests. Thus, if we were to use these crops for bio-based plastics instead of human consumption, we would need additional land to meet global demand.

Bioplastics often have a lower carbon footprint during production compared to petroleum-based plastics. Plants absorb CO2 as they grow, offsetting some emissions generated during production. However, it’s essential to consider agricultural practices, such as pesticide use and land conversion, which can add to the environmental impact.

However, curbside recycling is increasingly a common practice. You can typically dispose of bioplastics in your curbside recycling bin. Many communities have separate bins for plastic and paper collected weekly in a local curbside recycling program.

Bioplastics can require significant amounts of water and energy during production. In some cases, energy might come from non-renewable sources, negating some environmental benefits. However, a 2009 study found that one type of corn-based bioplastic requires significantly less energy than traditional plastics made from petroleum.

Companies might market bioplastics as “green” or “eco-friendly,” but the environmental benefits vary widely. This can mislead consumers and stakeholders, especially those keen on making sustainable choices.

Carbon sequestration — another perspective

While bioplastics have been spotlighted for their potential to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and lower carbon footprints, it’s crucial to recognise other innovative strategies to mitigate environmental impact. One such promising avenue explores the possibilities of Carbon Sequestration — a concept that goes beyond mere storage of CO2 to its productive utilisation.

CO2 from carbon sequestration or carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be turned into plastic. There are several different ways to do this, but they all involve using catalysts to convert the CO2 into other chemicals that can then be used to make plastic. This process is called carbon capture and utilisation (CCU). Plastic is just one product; others include synthetic fuels, building materials and fertiliser.

While still an emerging area, companies like Newlight Technologies are pioneering this space. Newlight uses carbon capture technology to convert greenhouse gases like methane and CO2 into a bioplastic material called AirCarbon. This material is then used in everything from furniture to packaging, effectively sequestering the carbon and reducing the product’s overall carbon footprint

Alternatively, using a catalyst to convert CO2 into ethylene a basic building block for many plastics. This can be done using various catalysts, such as nickel and cobalt. Once the CO2 has been converted into ethylene, it can be used to make a variety of plastics, such as polyethylene and polypropylene.

Another approach is to use a catalyst to convert CO2 into propylene, another basic plastic building block. This can also be done using a variety of different catalysts. Once the CO2 has been converted into propylene, it can be used to make a variety of plastics, such as polypropylene and polystyrene. Given that propylene is one of the most widely used plastic materials globally, even a small percentage shift to a more sustainable production method could have significant global implications.

When Oil Prices Skyrocket: A Comparative Analysis

As oil prices continue their unpredictable dance, close to hitting the US $100 mark or more, the financial landscape for plastics is dramatically shifting. The spike in oil prices directly affects the cost of production for petroleum-based plastics, making them less economically appealing. On the flip side, this creates a golden opportunity for bioplastics to become not just an environmentally responsible choice but a financially prudent one.

High oil prices can serve as a catalyst for change, forcing industries to reevaluate their material choices. In sectors like healthcare, where both plastics are widely used, this reevaluation could lead to more sustainable practices that resonate with broader public health and climate goals.

While petroleum-based plastics have long been the default choice due to their affordability and versatility, the changing landscape of oil economics and the urgent need to tackle climate change make it imperative to consider bioplastics an increasingly viable alternative. As we evaluate these options, understanding the nuanced monetary and environmental costs is crucial for making decisions that align with economic sustainability and ethical responsibility. The time for reevaluation is now; the choices we make today will sculpt the future we will live in. What kind of plastic will shape your future? The answer to this question can propel us all towards a more sustainable, healthier planet.

The post When Oil Hits $100: The Cost Dynamics of Petroleum-Based Plastics vs Bioplastics Shifts — What Kind of Plastic Will Shape Your Future? appeared first on Medika Life.

Elected officials quickly point fingers and prefer debating settled science for fear of antagonizing their base.  All in the interest of self-preservation or self-interest.  When it comes to public health, we need a bolus dose of radical purpose and a stiff shot of courage. We seem overwhelmed by health and ecohealth problems.  Yes, engaging and solving the endless list of issues appears impossible.  However, avoiding these “big three” – obesity, mental health, and plastics – only compounds the significant societal and business woes we’re already facing.

“Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start…” as Julie Andrews sang Rodgers and Hammerstein’s uplifting Do-Re-Mi in The Sound of Music. It’s time we begin to rally to the beat of three public health priorities where investment of time and money will deliver outcomes:

Weight

1. America’s Expanding Waistline:  Some 40% of American adults aged 20 and older are considered obese. The domino effect of obesity-related conditions includes heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers. These are leading non-communicable causes of costly, premature death. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the estimated medical cost of obesity in the US reached $173 billion in 2019. Medical expenses for obese adults annually are almost $2,000 higher than medical costs for people with a healthy weight.

It’s simple to point the finger at the fast-food industry as a leading cause of the nation’s obesity problem. It’s also popular to blame overweight people for inflicting the problem upon themselves.  That’s not a good use of time or effort. It’s not even accurate,  Five contributors tip the scales: 

• Caloric intake
• Poor diet
• Lack of exercise
• Stigma
• Access to expert care

Social determinants of health influence obesity rates among adults and children. Poverty, racism, geography, and lack of access to preventive and expert medical care contribute to our ever-expanding waistlines.  Structural racism is baked into our institutions, policies and practices—from defining where people (are often forced to) live to how food is produced and priced. 

We also need to take obesity seriously as a medical condition.  Physicians such as Katherine Saunders, MD, and Louis Aronne, MD, at Weil Cornell are at the forefront of this emerging discipline. But fewer than 6,000 physicians like Saunders and Aronne are certified in Obesity Medicine.  The millions of people confronting obesity need continued medical intervention and support beyond losing pounds.

Marshaling public health and medical expertise to address obesity – access to care, greater public education, access to healthier, affordable food options and reinvestment in primary and secondary school physical exercise programs will produce results that slow the obesity-related non-communicable disease cascade, sustain lives and reduce costs.

Mental Health

• Mental Health is Health:  We must stop ignoring the realities and stressors of life that contribute to other health problems.  “You’ll get over it,” is not a curative response. There is universal acceptance that the pandemic unleashed the mental health problem. It merely made mental health an inescapable issue.  Removed from distractions and living, learning, and working in isolation from others, what was beneath the surface quickly bubbled up to the visible top.

It’s time we face the music and accept that depression and other mental illnesses are manageable medical conditions when diagnosed promptly and treated. Likely the biggest obstacle to care is societal bias and stigma.  In recent years, rates have shown a marked increase in reported cases.  Young adults aged 18-25 years have the highest prevalence of serious mental illness (9.7%) compared to adults aged 26-49 years (6.9%) and aged 50 and older (3.4%).

“As more of us share our experiences, then the stigma starts to reduce, as we understand that this is a shared experience, and this is what is part of being human,” said John McPhee, CEO of the JED Foundation.

Worse than the statistics around mental health-related conditions are deaths by suicide and the endless trauma survivors – parents, partners and children endure.  Globally, one person every 40 seconds takes their life. The World Health Organization and the Global Burden of Disease study estimate that almost 800,000 people die from suicide annually. With timely, proven intervention, many suicides can be prevented.

According to the JED Foundation, mental health in teens and young adults is pressing. More than half of college students will go through a period of high anxiety and one-third of college students will experience some level of depression. The data are frightening.  Suicide ranks the second leading cause of death among ages 15 to 24.

Public and self-stigma is the primary disease we must overcome to set the groundwork to better assist people with mental health needs.  Along with expected basic vitals tracked during a primary-care check-up, health professionals can make a difference by conducting mental health screens and conversations.  Remove the embarrassing obstacles to diagnosis and treatment so that more people step forward to ask for and receive care.  It’s a start that likely will save lives.

Plastics

• Plastics – Reduce Use in Healthcare Settings:  Microplastics have been detected in human breast milk for the first time, according to a new study published in Polymers and shared in WebMD. The researchers shared that they are worried about the potential health effects on babies. Shouldn’t elected officials share that concern? Shouldn’t the global medical community? Most definitely expectant parents!

US hospitals produce more than 5.9 million tons of waste yearly.  There is no escaping the reality that the planet’s health and our own are joined, and the medical community must work closely with environmental affairs experts on what must be done to keep the planet sustainable.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Ph.D., wrote in the Healthcare Without Harm report, “Places of healing should be leading the way, not contribute to the burden of disease.”  The health industry can start by using alternative plant-based packaging and products whenever possible rather than plastics. It’s an essential start to supporting clean innovation.

Is this even possible?  Absolutely! There are market leaders that are role models and sharing sustainability data. Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s most extensive integrated, nonprofit health system, reports its efforts to prioritize environmental health and patient care have enabled it to become the first health system in the US to achieve carbon-neutral status. Mega not-for-profit health systems such as CommonSpirit are partnering with vendors to reduce the use of plastics in operating rooms. These efforts must become a social impact metric that defines the business sector that commands almost 20% of the national GDP and is dedicated to sustaining our health. 

Health standard bearers such as Kaiser and CommonSpirit have proven that change is possible.  These centers of healthcare excellence – caring for people and the planet – lay the groundwork for Federal and state policies that can protect our short- and long-term well-being.

The clock is ticking.  These problems cannot be wished away.  Weight, mental health and plastics are three priority health concerns contributing to a deadly domino effect where one crisis leads to another.  Of course, these are not the only public health issues of import we face.  At the foundation of these problems are poverty, racism and economic systems rooted in an unsustainable status quo.  Eventually, there will be no choice but to engage and change.  By then, what will the state of people’s health be?  I’d prefer we commit to taking the necessary action sooner to spare us from having to face that bleak future.

The post Let’s Kick the Can Down the Road Again. Or Not! appeared first on Medika Life.

Now our world, and our bodies, even our blood, are carrying an unholy load of this material, and many will go to our graves with plastic as part of our remains. The price to be paid for plastics that pollute on the micro-level is becoming apparent, but what can we do, and how much damage will it cause every living thing on Earth?

Prior research on the ocean floor had discovered that microplastics and nanoplastics had settled and become a part of the aquatic environment. Once there, they were incorporated into both bacteria and filter-feeding phytoplankton, which were then ingested by filter-feeding sea creatures.✓

Seagrass meadows in the Mediterranean have been doing their best in the war against plastic ocean pollution. Mysterious orbs, named “Neptune balls,” appearing on beaches along the Spanish coast have revealed their true intent — survival of the oceans.

The oceans themselves have a solution that has been working against the hidden toxicity escaping our peering eyes. Now the ocean’s answer is becoming apparent. Seagrass meadows not only protect delicate beaches but the sea as well.

The removal of microplastic accumulation in the marine environment is facilitated by the development of microbial biofilms that form on the microplastic surface. The production of these biofilms is through colonization by microorganisms. This film then provides a sticky matrix, perfect for adhesion to ocean vegetation.

But the meadows themselves may be under attack by another force — urbanization. The decline of these meadows has been noted, and some recovery is shown, but only by decreasing urbanization nearby.

The advent of synthetic fibers to make fabric for clothing in the 1930s was the dawn of the microplastic pollution era. Cleaning clothing in washing machines or any vigorous movement to launder them, especially polyester, polyester-cotton blends, and acrylic fibers, releases microplastic into the wash water.

Natural fibers have contributed their share of pollution in the environment. Research “studies on the transport of hazardous chemicals by natural fibers in aquatic environments are rare….” However, they are still pollutants through the chemicals they may contain or the cleaning processes.

When you eat any foods caught from the seas, farmed in ocean bays or inland tanks, or in feedlot operations, the danger still lurks, safe from the naked eye as it enters the food chain. 

When plastic ends up in the environment, it tends to bind with environmental pollutants. With plastic that moves through the food chain, the attached toxins can also move and accumulate in animal fat and tissue through a process called bio-accumulation.

Whether you eat fruits or fish, you may still not be safe from plastic consumption because it’s used everywhere. The plasticizers and pesticides (PE and PP) are being ingested with every bite. You are then giving those toxic products access to every square inch of your body, and they will deposit or transform in you. How can they harm you?

The harm included cell death and allergic reactions, and the research is the first to show this happens at levels relevant to human exposure. However, the health impact to the human body is uncertain because it is not known how long microplastics remain in the body before being excreted.

Estimates are that 50K particles a year are consumed by humans, and they are found in everything from drinking water to beer, sugar, salt, and shellfish. Ever wonder if that luscious fresh mussel was safe? Maybe not.

According to the study, the authors of the study found the microplastics found in the mussels were from single-use plastic products, fabrics, and ropes from the fishing industry. The findings were published online recently in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

Is pollution a problem for the third-world or each one of us? If you eat, it’s a problem for you, and I don’t know that organic products might not contain some form of plastic pollution. Are you sure that olive oil is safe?

The post Eating Plastic in Every Bite We Take and Never Knowing the Effect on Our Health appeared first on Medika Life.