Researchers make disturbing discovery after examining human reproductive fluid: 'This is not an isolated finding'
Scientists have detected microplastics in human semen and follicular fluid, the liquid that surrounds an egg in an ovarian follicle.
"This is not an isolated finding –– it appears to be quite common," lead research author Dr. Emilio Gómez-Sánchez told CNN Health.
These tiny particles are the remnants that persist in the environment when plastics break down. They are sometimes so small that they are not visible to the naked eye, and they have been found in the ocean, drinking water, food, and in the living tissue of wild animals and humans.
What's happening?
The study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, has not yet been peer reviewed. It sampled 25 women and 18 men, with microplastics found in 69% of follicular fluid and 55% of seminal fluid.
Gómez-Sánchez was not surprised that microplastics were present, as that outcome had been suggested by previous research, but he was surprised by how common it was.
Microplastics enter the body through ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact. They can enter the bloodstream and be distributed throughout the body and have been detected in various other organs.
The study found nine different types of microplastics in the reproductive fluids studied.
Why is the presence of microplastics in the human reproductive system concerning?
The chemicals used in the plastic production process present a threat. When those chemicals leach from microplastics into the body, they can cause health risks.
Multiple types of plastic were present in reproductive fluids at varying levels, with polyamide, polyurethane, and polyethylene found in over 50% of follicular fluid samples, and polytetrafluoroethylene and polyethylene terephthalate found in over 30% of follicular fluid samples.
Gómez-Sánchez said, "We don't know if they have a direct effect on the capacity of a couple to conceive and carry a baby to term."
Most research on microplastic exposure to date has been conducted on animals, so there is not a lot of direct evidence regarding their effects on humans.
What can be done about microplastics in the human reproductive system?
This study will hopefully lead to more funding and focus on further research on how microplastics affect the human reproductive systems of women and men, as well as how they affect other aspects of human health.
Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home?
Majorly
Sometimes
Not really
I don't know enough about them
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
While we don't know everything about the long-term effects of microplastic exposure, we can do our best to reduce our use of plastics, particularly in food containers and cookware. Using reusable glass, metal, or bamboo food and water containers is a fairly simple place to start.
Gómez-Sánchez said, "Reproduction is a complex equation, and microplastics are a variable in this equation."
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
12 minutes ago
- WIRED
Google's Newest AI Model Acts like a Satellite to Track Climate Change
AlphaEarth Foundations is a chip off Google DeepMind block—and it's here to help save the world. Images: Alpha Earth Foundation Google's newest AI model is going to scour the Earth and, ideally, help it out. That's the plan, anyway. The mission is to find out once and for all, in fine detail, what we are doing to our planet. Crucially, once the model has supposedly done this it will also, apparently, explain where we might be able to best put things in place to help our world. AlphaEarth Foundations, an offshoot of Google's DeepMind AI model, aims to leverage machine learning and all the gobs and gobs of data that Google has absorbed about our planet over the last two decades, in order to understand how specific areas are changing over time. The model uses a system called 'embeddings' that takes terabytes of data collected from satellites every day, analyzes it, and compresses it down to save storage space. The result is a model of different filters overlaid over maps that are color coded to indicate material properties, vegetation types, groundwater sources, and human constructions such as buildings and farms. Google says the system will act as a sort of 'virtual satellite,' letting users call up on demand detailed information about any given spot on the planet. The goal, Google says, is for users of the service to be able to better understand how specific ecosystems on the planet work, including how air quality, sunlight, groundwater, and even human construction projects vary and change across a landscape. Ultimately, the company wants the model to help answer questions from paying governments and corporations that wish to know, for example, which ecosystems may have more access to sunlight or groundwater that can help determine the best spots to grow a certain crop. Alternatively, it may aid in identifying areas to plop down solar panels with maximum payoff, or build structures in more climate resilient locations. Google's new model has already mapped a complex surface in Antarctica—an area notoriously difficult to capture due to irregular satellite imaging—in clear detail. It has also supposedly outlined variations in Canadian agricultural land use that are invisible to the naked eye. Google's new model assigns colors to AlphaEarth Foundations' embedding fields. In Ecuador, the model sees through persistent cloud cover to detail agricultural plots in various stages of development. Photograph: Alpha Earth Foundation Chris Brown, a research engineer at Google DeepMind, says that historically, there have been two main problems for making reliable information about the planet more accessible: Getting overloaded with too much data; and that information being inconsistent. 'Before, the challenge was getting a look at it all,' Brown said in a press briefing. 'Now, the challenge is to unify all the ways that we have to observe and model our planet and get a complete picture.' Google, of course, has been at this for a while. While AlphaEarth isn't a broader consumer-facing application, Google Earth has had its own similar timelapse feature since 2021 that shows how global geography has changed over decades—largely due to climate change. Google has also gotten into the game of putting more specific types of satellites into orbit, such as ones that are designed to spot wildfires from space. The models aren't perfect. Google, in its frenzied push to build robust AI models, has hit a few snags with the accuracy of its AI generations, mostly when its AI overviews in Search have gone off the rails. But sucking up petabytes of satellite images and finding the trends is, weirdly, a more straightforward task for AI. Google says the models can generate accurate enough data about an ecosystem down to an area of 10 meters—and while it may get some things wrong, it is apparently 23.9 percent more accurate than similar AI models. (Goggle didn't name which ones it was talking about, but companies such as Privateer have been at this for years.) How AlphaEarth Foundations works: by taking non-uniformly sampled frames from a video sequence to index any position in time, the model creates a continuous view of the location while outlining measurements. Video: Alpha Earth Foundation Google has worked with partners to test the new system, such as MayBiomas in Brazil and the Global Ecosystems Atlas, which aim to better classify undermapped ecosystems including dense rainforests, deserts, and wetlands. 'It's very difficult to compress all the information available for a piece of land in a traditional way, which is spent literally hours and hours and hours of preparing,' said Tasso Azeved, founder of MayBiomas. After working with Google to test AlphaEarth for the past 18 months or so, Azeved says the software has made it easier to analyze great swathes of rainforest yet keep that data from overwhelming their storage capabilities. 'We were not even scratching everything that would be possible,' Azeved says. AlphaEarth is also being added in a more limited capacity into Google Earth Engine, the cloud-based platform that first launched in 2010 and is used for mapping by agencies and companies such as NASA, Unilever, and the Forest Service. It's worth noting here that this is separate from the more consumer-friendly Google Earth. Previously, Google's Earth Engine processes and analyzes satellite data that has then been used to create interactive, high-resolution maps of deforestation across the world and compile detailed views of bodies of water—rivers, lakes, oceans, and seas—and how these had changed over time. Now, annual snapshots of AlphaEarth's embeddings will be available as a dataset to track long-term trends, which a company rep says can be used to do more advanced custom mapping if users have a 'light coding background.' No stranger to privacy concerns, Google is eager to wave off any worries people might have about this new system scouring pictures from the sky. The company says the AlphaEarth dataset cannot capture individual objects, people, or faces.
Gizmodo
42 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Men Born in the Summer Are More Likely to Be Depressed, Study Finds
There really might be something to the idea of summertime sadness, at least for boys. A study finds that men born in the summer are more vulnerable to developing depression than men born at other times of the year. Researchers at the Kwantlen Polytechnic University in British Columbia, Canada, conducted the study, an international survey of adults. They found that men, but not women, were more likely to experience depression symptoms later in life if their birth occurred in the summer compared to other seasons. The findings suggest that mothers are exposed to important environmental risk factors that vary throughout the calendar year, the authors say, including levels of sunshine. Study author Mika Mokkonen was inspired to look into this topic by the kind of question you'd get making small talk at a party. 'The initial spark of the idea for this research arose when someone asked me if I believed in horoscopes. It got me wondering if there could potentially be a biological basis for them, in terms of how a person's birthday could be associated with physiological or mental features,' he told Gizmodo. Doctors have long known that seasonality can affect our current mental health—the clearest example being seasonal affective disorder, a type of depression that typically emerges during the winter months (summer SAD does exist, though). But there's only been limited research looking at a possible link between birth timing and mental health, according to Mokkonen. Mokkonen and his team conducted an online survey of 303 adults. Participants provided basic demographic information like age and answered two questionnaires commonly used to assess a person's level of anxiety and depression. After controlling for factors like age and income, the researchers found that summer-born men (specifically people whose biological sex was male) were noticeably more likely to report depression symptoms than men born anytime else. The team's findings were published Wednesday in the journal PLOS Mental Health. These sorts of studies can only show a correlation between any two things (seasonality at birth and depression in this case) and not decidedly prove that being born in the summer can shape men's mental health. The researchers also admit they only collected survey responses over a brief two-month period in early 2024, meaning they might not have been able to capture people's 'variations in depression and anxiety scores.' And while some of the participants did come from different countries, a substantial proportion were college students. It's fair to say this is far from a thorough or complete study. So clearly more research is needed to replicate and expand on this preliminary finding. There's also the unanswered and likely complex question of why being born in the summer could be specifically worse for men but not women. Seasonality has long played a role in affecting the survival of most species, Mokkonen noted. And while people today are generally more sheltered from the harshest elements of the outside world than our hunter-gatherer ancestors were, the changing aspects of the seasons might still be enough to subtly influence us as we're developing in the womb. 'I would say it is possibly related to the environmental conditions of the mother during pregnancy,' Mokkonen said. 'Consider conditions like temperature and sunlight—how do those conditions vary across the year?' The researchers plan to continue investigating how other maternal factors, including the mother's diet and circulating hormone levels, can affect the later health of their children. Mokkonen also points out that regardless of the season they were born in, a majority of the people in their study reported having at least some symptoms of anxiety (66%) and depression (84%). In other words, while the seasons may hold some sway over us, some things are unfortunately common across the board.
Fast Company
42 minutes ago
- Fast Company
No, you don't need to get 10,000 steps per day
The gospel according to fitness influencers: drink three liters of water per day, get a minimum of eight hours of sleep, and walk at least 10,000 steps per day. From the hot girl walk, to wearing weighted vests and arm weights on said walk, to those taking it one—or 5,000—steps further and marching up to 15,000 or even 25,000 steps a day, these once-simple strolls have morphed into full-blown social media trends. When did something as basic as going for a walk become so intimidating? While mostly sage advice, if you've been struggling to hit the gold standard of 10,000 steps a day (which roughly equates to five miles) or found yourself doing laps around the block to get those final few hundred under your belt, just know that unofficial target isn't actually based in science. The 10,000 steps-a-day walking target originated as a 1960s marketing slogan by Japanese company Yamasa to sell pedometers. It has since become accepted wisdom, promoted heavily by the online fitness community. That is until new scientific analysis in The Lancet Public Health officially confirmed that this aspirational goal, while by no means harmful, isn't the magic number it's promoted to be, and even thousands fewer steps a day could still yield big health rewards. The researchers analyzed data from more than 160,000 adults to examine how step counts were linked with the risk of developing a number of health conditions. They discovered the overall mortality for people walking 7,000 steps was 47% lower than for those who walked only 2,000. Walking this amount daily also reduced the risk of health problems including death from cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well as incidence of type 2 diabetes and dementia. But after 7,000 steps, as the step count increased, the payoff rate slowed. The overall mortality for people notching 10,000 steps was 48%—just a 1% increase from 7,000—compared with 2,000. Now, that's not to say you should give up on your 10,000-step goal, or worse, cut back on the steps you are already doing. Hitting 10,000 steps was found to be better than 7,000 for some health conditions, such as reducing the risk of depression. Also, those clocking in 12,000 steps a day saw their overall mortality drop 55% compared with 2,000. But pushing for a minimum of 5,000 to 7,000—a more practical target for those who are currently inactive—will make the biggest difference for the least amount of effort. While 10,000 may still be the gold standard, just know that you are still reaping the health benefits if you only make it to 9,999.
