• Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    correlation doesnt equal causation. CANCER cell in general have higher metabolic energy requirements, so they intake more(pump) in the surrouding environment to fuel thier uncontrolled cell division, so naturally microplastics on the outside of the cell would be pumped into the cell along with nutrients it stealing at higher than normal tissue to fuel its growth.

    • Insekticus@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        Lymph nodes with cancer also contain dust and plant fibers. Mouse studies use stupid amounts of select plastic injected into susceptible strains.

        This is junk until we see mechanism. Remember the BPA will give you tits scare? Shit science.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      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.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Biased review written out of regional universities in India. These places crank out AI slop every week. All implications, no mechanism.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Tbh this comment sounds like biased AI slop. Especially when they detail the mechanisms literally in the abstract.

          Everyone take note their Genetic Fallacy.