Comment by techdragon

Yeah, I’ve started to get a bit cautious about the quality control in these papers too… not because I doubt there’s a problem, but that I suspect it’s all too easy to ignore the quality control necessary to ensure lack of contamination when the researchers go in looking for a positive result… it’s a “cheap win” and I don’t like it…

I’d like to see some reproduction research on the more wild microplastics results akin to the level of diligence put in when Clair Cameron Patterson was developing Uranium Lead dating and discovered that due to lead added to petroleum based fuels the whole fucking planet was tainted with a level of background lead … he had to go a long way, basically building a clean room before such rooms were considered a normal part of precision research… to get a clean environment with no contamination and get accurate results.

It doesn’t have to be quite that bad for a modern researcher, but I’d like to see a lot more of these microplastics papers where they document that they used no or as close to no plastic at any point in sample handling… if a liquid sample has gone from a plastic sample jar and a plastic lid to a plastic pippet to a plastic ampoule with a plastic lid into a machine that agitated it and so on… well of course there’s a damn chance the sample has more plastic in it! I’m not even going to suggest that all the plastic came from the containers that would be stupid… but when I start seeing results like microplastic found in human testicular tissue… I want to know how careful they were with sample contamination because it’s important that we know how bad the problem is getting, is it “1000” or “1002” on whatever scale is being used may not seem like much when the error bars might be +/- 10… but it does matter when this result gets aggregated into meta analysis and other modern “re-processing” that helps us understand the world at the larger scale where studies of aggregate data are the only practical way to approach the problems.