But you do agree that it would be better if we got some studies that went beyond "particles have been observed in tissue" to something like "This is the dose-to-morbidity curve for this group of nanoparticles"?My issue is that we have been stuck with hundreds, if not thousands, of research papers of the first type, and I haven't found any of the latter type.
With regard to your last point, I kind of agree, but there has to be a balance between two extremes. You can't assume something is safe just because you don't have a smoking gun. On the other hand, the "you can't prove it's 100% safe for everybody at all times throughout the universe, so we must assume it's dangerous" position can also be very dangerous. To me, the anti-GMO movement makes this mistake in a serio
us way, hurting actual people in deprived parts of the world. I fear that the microplastic scare is overblown and takes focus away from much more important issues.
With regard to your last point, I kind of agree, but there has to be a balance between two extremes. You can't assume something is safe just because you don't have a smoking gun. On the other hand, the "you can't prove it's 100% safe for everybody at all times throughout the universe, so we must assume it's dangerous" position can also be very dangerous. To me, the anti-GMO movement makes this mistake in a serio
us way, hurting actual people in deprived parts of the world. I fear that the microplastic scare is overblown and takes focus away from much more important issues.