Microplastics found in artery plaque linked with higher risk of heart attack, stroke and death
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Microplastics and nanoplastics are everywhere in our environment – including in our oceans and lakes, farmland, and even Arctic ice algae.
Microplastics have also been found inside of us – with studies detecting them in various tissues including in the lungs, blood, heart and placenta. Understandably, concern is rising about the potential risks of microplastics on our health.
However, while a growing body of research has focused on microplastics and nanoplastics, there’s still a lack of direct evidence that their presence in human tissues is harmful to our health – and it’s uncertain if they are related to particular diseases.
A new study has uncovered a correlation between microplastics and heart health, though. The researchers found that people who had detectable microplastics and nanoplastics in the plaque in their arteries had a higher risk of heart attack, stroke and death.
Heart health
The researchers looked at 257 people altogether. All of the patients were already undergoing preventative surgery to remove plaque from their carotid arteries (the main arteries that supply the brain with blood). This allowed the researchers to collect plaque samples and perform a chemical analysis. They then followed up with participants 34 months later.
Of the 257 participants, 150 were found to have the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in their arterial plaque – mainly fragments of two of the most commonly used plastics in the world, polyethylene (used in grocery bags, bottles and food packaging) and polyvinyl chloride (used in flooring, cladding and pipes).
A statistical analysis of this data found that patients with microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque had a higher risk of suffering a heart attack, stroke or death from any cause, compared with those who had no microplastics or nanoplastics in their plaque.
The researchers also analysed the macrophages (a type of immune cell that helps remove pathogens from the body) in the patients’ arteries. They found that participants who’d had microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque also had evidence of plastic fragments in their macrophages.
They also looked at whether certain genes associated with inflammation (which can be a sign of disease) were switched on in the participants. They found that the participants who’d had microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque also had signs of inflammation in their genes.
These results may suggest an accumulation of nanoplastics and microplastics in carotid plaque could partly trigger inflammation. This inflammation may subsequently change the way plaque behaves in the body, making it less stable and triggering it to form a blood clot – which can eventually block blood flow, leading to heart attacks and strokes.
Interestingly, the researchers also found the presence of nanoplastics and microplastics was more common in participants who had diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This raises a lot of questions which have yet to be answered – such as why microplastics were more common in these participants, and if there may be a correlation between other diseases and the presence of microplastics in the body.
Other health risks
This study only focused on patients who had carotid artery disease and were already having surgery to remove the build-up of plaque. As such, it’s unclear whether the findings of this study can be applied to a larger population of people.
However, it isn’t the first study to show a link between microplastics and nanoplastics with poor health. Research suggests some of this harm may be due to the way microplastics and nanoplastics interact with proteins in the body.
For example, some human proteins adhere to the surface of polystyrene nanoplastics, forming a layer surrounding the nanoparticle. The formation of this layer may influence the activity and transfer of nanoplastics in human organs.
Another study suggested that nanoplastics can interact with a protein called alpha-synuclein, which in mouse studies has been shown to play a crucial role in facilitating communication between nerve cells. These clumps of nanoplastics and protein may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease.
My published PhD research in chicken embryos found that nanoplastics may cause congenital malformations due to the way they interact with a protein called cadherin6B. Based on the interactions myself and fellow researchers saw, these malformations may affect the embryo’s eyes and neural tube, as well as the heart’s development and function.
Given the fact that nanoplastics and microplastics are found in carotid plaque, we now need to investigate how these plastics got into such tissues.
In mice, it has been demonstrated that gut macrophages (a type of white blood cell) can absorb microplastics and nanoplastics into their cell membrane. Perhaps a similar mechanism is taking place in the arteries, since nanoplastics have been identified in samples of carotid plaque macrophages.
The findings from this latest study add to a growing body of evidence showing a link between plastic products and our health. It is important now for researchers to investigate the specific mechanisms by which microplastics and nanoplastics cause harm in the body.
Meiru Wang, Postdoctoral Researcher, Molecular Biology and Nanotoxicology, Leiden University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Inheritance – by Dr. Sharon Moalem
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We know genes make a big difference to a lot about us, but how much? And, the genes we have, we’re stuck with, right?
Dr. Sharon Moalem shines a bright light into some of the often-shadowier nooks and crannies of our genetics, covering such topics as:
- How much can (and can’t) be predicted from our parents’ genes—even when it comes to genetic traits that both parents have, and Gregor Mendel himself would (incorrectly) think obvious
- How even something so seemingly simple and clear as genetic sex, very definitely isn’t
- How traumatic life events can cause epigenetic changes that will scar us for generations to come
- How we can use our genetic information to look after our health much better
- How our life choices can work with, or overcome, the hand we got dealt in terms of genes
The style of the book is conversational, down to how there’s a lot of “I” and “you” in here, and the casual style belies the heavy, sharp, up-to-date science contained within.
Bottom line: if you’d like insight into the weird and wonderful nuances of genetics as found in this real, messy, perfectly chaotic world, this book is an excellent choice.
Click here to check out Inheritance, and learn more about yours!
Share This Post
Boundary-Setting Beyond “No”
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
More Than A “No”
A lot of people struggle with boundary-setting, and it’s not always the way you might think.
The person who “can’t say no” to people probably comes to mind, but the problem is more far-reaching than that, and it’s rooted in not being clear over what a boundary actually is.
For example: “Don’t bring him here again!”
Pretty clear, right?
And while it is indeed clear, it’s not a boundary; it’s a command. Which may or may not be obeyed, and at the end of the day, what right have we to command people in general?
Same goes for less dramatic things like “Don’t talk to me about xyz”, which can still be important or trivial, depending on whether the topic of xyz is deeply traumatizing for you, or mildly annoying, or something else entirely.
Why this becomes a problem
It becomes a problem not because of any lack of clarity about your wishes, but rather, because it opens the floor for a debate. The listener may be given to wonder whether your right to not experience xyz is greater or lesser than their right to do/say/etc xyz.
“My right to swing my fist ends where someone else’s nose begins”
…does not help here, firstly because both sides will believe themself (or nobody) to be the injured party; for the fist-swinger, the other person’s nose made a vicious assault on their freedom. Or secondly, maybe there was some higher principle at stake; a reason why violence was justified. And then ten levels of philosophical debate. We see this a lot when it comes to freedom of expression, and vigorous debate over whether this entails freedom from social consequences of one’s words/actions.
How a good boundary-setting works (if this, then that)
Consider two signs:
- No trespassing!
- Trespassers will be shot!
Superficially, the second just seems like a more violent rendition of the first. But in fact, the second is more informationally useful: it explains what will happen if the boundary is not respected, and allows the reader to make their own informed decision with regard to what to do with that information.
We can employ this method (and can even do so gently, if we so wish and hopefully we mostly do wish to be gentle) when it comes to social and interpersonal boundary-setting:
- If you bring him here again, I will refuse you entrance
- If you bring up that topic again, I will ask you to leave
- If you do that, I will never speak to you again
- If you don’t stop drinking, I will divorce you
This “if-this-then-that” model does the very first thing that any good boundary does: make itself clear.
It doesn’t rely on moral arguments; it doesn’t invite debate. For example in that last case, it doesn’t argue that the partner doesn’t have the right to drink—it simply expresses what the speaker will exercise their own right to do, in that eventuality.
(as an aside, the situation that occurs when one is enmeshed with someone who is dependent on a substance is a complex topic, and if you’re interested in that, check out: Codependency Isn’t What Most People Think)
Back on track: boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that.
We can also, in particularly personal boundary-setting (such as with sexual boundaries’ oft-claimed “gray areas”), fix an improperly-set boundary that forgot to do the above, e.g:
“How about [proposition]?”
“No thank you” ← casually worded answer; contextually reasonable, and yet not a clear boundary per what we discussed above
“Come on, I think you’d like it”
“I said no. No means no. Ask me again and I will [consequences that are appropriate and actionable]”What’s “appropriate and actionable” may vary a lot from one situation to another, but it’s important that it’s something you can do and are prepared to do and will do if the condition for doing it is met.
Anything less than that is not a boundary—it’s just a request.
Note: this does not require that we have power, by the way. If we have zero power in a situation, well, that definitely sucks, but even then we can still express what is actionable, e.g. “I will never trust you again”.
“Price of entry”
You may have wondered, upon reading “boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that”, can’t that be used to control and manipulate people, essentially coercing them to do or not do things with the threat of consequences (specifically: bad ones)?
And the answer is: yes, yes it can.
But that’s where the flipside comes into play—the other person gets to set their boundaries, too.
For all of us, if we have any boundaries at all, there is a “price of entry” and all who want to be in our lives, or be close to us, have to decide for themselves whether that price of entry is worth it.
- If a person says “do not talk about topic xyz to me or I will leave”, that is a price of entry for being close to them.
- If you are passionate about talking about topic xyz to the point that you are unwilling to shelve it when in their presence, then that is the price of entry for being close to you.
- If one or more of you is not willing to pay the price of entry, then guess what, you’re just not going to be close.
In cases of forced proximity (e.g. workplaces or families) this is likely to get resolved by the workplace’s own rules (i.e. the price of entry that you agreed to when signing a contract to work there), and if something like that doesn’t exist (such as in families), well, that forced proximity is going to reach a breaking point, and somebody may discover it wasn’t enforceable after all.
See also: Family Estrangement: More Common Than Most People Think
…which also details how to fix it, where possible.
Take care!
Share This Post
The Mental Health Dangers Of Oversharing
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Oversharers can be fun and amiable; the life of the party. In and of itself, this something that can be considered “pro-social” and thus healthy.
But the problem for one’s mental health in the long-run lies in the “over” part of oversharing. Sometimes, if not checking in with the other person’s comfort, oversharing can be “trauma-dumping”, and push people away. Alternatively, if the oversharing exposes an unmet need, it can make the other person feel obliged to try to help in some fashion, which in the long run may also cause awkwardness and withdrawal.
Some potential problems are purely internal, such the feelings of shame or anxiety that can come afterwards; “I should not have been so vulnerable”, “What if my friends think badly of me now?”, etc.
And of course, sometimes those fears are then validated by reality, if “friends” indeed take advantage of that, or withdraw their friendship. That’s a minority occurrence, but it doesn’t make it any less of a crushing thing if it happens.
Sometimes people overshare because of being a bad judge of what’s a socially-approved appropriate amount of sharing; sometimes people overshare out of a need for closeness, and perhaps the hope of hearing what one needed to hear previously.
The dangers of oversharing don’t mean that we should never speak about our experiences and feelings; in fact sometimes, it is the most healthy thing to do—be it because it’s something that needs communicating to a specific person, or because it’s something we just need to “get off our chest”.
In short, it can be good to share! It can also be good to do so judiciously, by conscious decision and not in response to a spur-of-the-moment impulse, and remember to prioritize our own safety.
Below, Alain de Botton explains more of the psychodynamics of this:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
10almonds tip, not included in the video: unsure whether your urge to share is too impulsive or not? Write a letter/email, and wait until the next day to decide whether or not to send it.
Want to read more?
Check out:
Breathe; Don’t Vent (At Least In The Moment)
Take care!
Share This Post
Non-Alcohol Mouthwash vs Alcohol Mouthwash – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing non-alcohol mouthwash to alcohol mouthwash, we picked the alcohol.
Why?
Note: this is a contingent choice and is applicable to most, but not all, people.
In short, there has been some concern about alcohol mouthwashes increasing cancer risk, but research has shown this is only the case if you already have an increased risk of oral cancer (for example if you smoke, and/or have had an oral cancer before).
For those for whom this is not the case (for example, if you don’t smoke, and/or have no such cancer history), then best science currently shows that alcohol mouthwash does not cause any increased risk.
What about non-alcohol mouthwashes? Well, they have a different problem; they usually use chlorine-based chemicals like chlorhexidine or cetylpyridinium chloride, which are (exactly as the label promises) exceptionally good at killing oral bacteria.
(They’d kill us too, at higher doses, hence: swill and spit)
Unfortunately, much like the rest of our body, our mouth is supposed to have bacteria there and bad things happen when it doesn’t. In the case of our oral microbiome, cleaning it with such powerful antibacterial agents can kill our “good” bacteria along with the bad, which lowers the pH of our saliva (that’s bad; it means it is more acidic), and thus indirectly erodes tooth enamel.
You can read more about the science of all of the above (with references), here:
Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?
Summary:
For most people, alcohol mouthwashes are a good way to avoid the damage that can be done by chlorhexidine in non-alcohol mouthwashes.
Here are some examples, but there will be plenty in your local supermarket:
Non-Alcohol, by Colgate | Alcohol, by Listerine
If you have had oral cancer, or if you smoke, then you may want to seek a third alternative (and also, please, stop smoking if you can).
Or, really, most people could probably skip mouthwashes, if you’ve good oral care already by other means. See also:
Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?
(yes, it’s the same link as before, but we’re now drawing your attention to the fact it has information about toothpastes too)
If you do want other options though, might want to check out:
Less Common Oral Hygiene Options ← miswak sticks are especially effective
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Managing Chronic Pain (Realistically!)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Realistic chronic pain management
We’ve had a number of requests to do a main feature on managing chronic pain, so here it is!
A quick (but important) note before we begin:
Obviously, not all chronic pain is created equal. Furthermore, we know that you, dear reader with chronic pain, have been managing yours for however long you have, learning as you go. You also doubtlessly know your individual condition inside out.
We also know that people with chronic health conditions in general are constantly beset by well-meaning unsolicited advice from friends and family, asking if you’ve heard about [thing you heard about 20 years ago] that will surely change your life and cure you overnight.
It’s frustrating, and we’re going to try to avoid doing that here, while still offering the advice that was asked for. We ask you, therefore, to kindly overlook whatever you already knew, and if you already knew it all, well, we salute you and will not be surprised if that’s the case for at least some readers. Chronic pain’s a… Well, it’s a chronic pain.
All that said, let’s dive in…
How are you treating your body right now?
Are you hydrated; have you eaten; are you standing/sitting/lying in a position that at least should be comfortable for you in principle?
The first two things affect pain perception; the latter can throw a spanner in the works if something’s not quite right.
Move your body (gently!)
You know your abilities, so think about the range of motion that you have, especially in the parts of your body that hurt (if that’s “everywhere”, then, our sympathies, and we hope you find the same advice applies). Think about your specific muscles and joints as applicable, and what the range of motion is “supposed” to be for each. Exercise your range of motion as best you can (gently!) to the point of its limit(s) and/or pain.
- If you take it past that limit, there is a good chance you will make it worse. You don’t want that.
- If you don’t take it to the limit, there is a good chance your range of movement will deteriorate, and your “safe zone” (i.e., body positions that are relatively free from pain) will diminish. You definitely don’t want that, either.
Again, moderation is key. Yes, annoying as the suggestion may be, such things as yoga etc can help, if done carefully and gently. You know your limits; work with those, get rest between, and do what you can.
For most people this will at least help keep the pain from getting worse.
Hot & Cold
Both of these things could ease your pain… Or make it worse. There is an element of “try it and see”, but here’s a good general guide:
Here’s How to Choose Between Using Ice or Heat for Pain
Meditation… Or Distraction
Meditating really does help a lot of people. In the case of pain, it can be counterintuitively helpful to focus for a while on the sensation of the pain… But in a calm, detached fashion. Without judgement.
“Yes, I am experiencing pain. Yes, it feels like I’m being stabbed with hot knives. Yes, this is tortuous; wow, I feel miserable. This truly sucks.”
…it doesn’t sound like a good experience, does it? And it’s not, but paying it attention this way can paradoxically help ease things. Pain is, after all, a messenger. And in the case of chronic pain, it’s in some ways a broken messenger, but what a messenger most needs is to be heard.
The above approach a) is good b) may have a limit in how long you can sustain it at a time, though. So…
The opposite is a can be a good (again, short-term) approach too. Call a friend, watch your favorite movie, play a video game if that’s your thing. It won’t cure anything, but it can give you a little respite.
Massage
Unless you already know this makes your pain worse, this is a good thing to try. It doesn’t have to be a fancy spa; if the nature of your pain and condition permits, you can do self-massage. If you have a partner or close friend who can commit to helping, it can be very worth them learning to give a good massage. There are often local courses available, and failing that, there is also YouTube.
Here’s an example of a good video for myofascial release massage, which can ease a lot of common kinds of chronic pain:
Some quick final things to remember:
- If you find something helps, then it helps, do that.
- That goes for mobility aids and other disability aids too, even if it was designed for a different disability. If it helps, it helps. You’re not stealing anyone’s thunder (or resources) by using something that makes your life easier. We’re not in this life to suffer!
- There is no such thing as “this pain is not too much”. The correct amount of pain is zero. Maybe your body won’t let you reach zero, but more than that is “too much” already.
- You don’t have to be suffering off the scale to deserve relief from pain
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
If I’m diagnosed with one cancer, am I likely to get another?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Receiving a cancer diagnosis is life-changing and can cause a range of concerns about ongoing health.
Fear of cancer returning is one of the top health concerns. And managing this fear is an important part of cancer treatment.
But how likely is it to get cancer for a second time?
Why can cancer return?
While initial cancer treatment may seem successful, sometimes a few cancer cells remain dormant. Over time, these cancer cells can grow again and may start to cause symptoms.
This is known as cancer recurrence: when a cancer returns after a period of remission. This period could be days, months or even years. The new cancer is the same type as the original cancer, but can sometimes grow in a new location through a process called metastasis.
Actor Hugh Jackman has gone public about his multiple diagnoses of basal cell carcinoma (a type of skin cancer) over the past decade.
The exact reason why cancer returns differs depending on the cancer type and the treatment received. Research is ongoing to identify genes associated with cancers returning. This may eventually allow doctors to tailor treatments for high-risk people.
What are the chances of cancer returning?
The risk of cancer returning differs between cancers, and between sub-types of the same cancer.
New screening and treatment options have seen reductions in recurrence rates for many types of cancer. For example, between 2004 and 2019, the risk of colon cancer recurring dropped by 31-68%. It is important to remember that only someone’s treatment team can assess an individual’s personal risk of cancer returning.
For most types of cancer, the highest risk of cancer returning is within the first three years after entering remission. This is because any leftover cancer cells not killed by treatment are likely to start growing again sooner rather than later. Three years after entering remission, recurrence rates for most cancers decrease, meaning that every day that passes lowers the risk of the cancer returning.
Every day that passes also increases the numbers of new discoveries, and cancer drugs being developed.
What about second, unrelated cancers?
Earlier this year, we learned Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, had been diagnosed with malignant melanoma (a type of skin cancer) shortly after being treated for breast cancer.
Although details have not been confirmed, this is likely a new cancer that isn’t a recurrence or metastasis of the first one.
Australian research from Queensland and Tasmania shows adults who have had cancer have around a 6-36% higher risk of developing a second primary cancer compared to the risk of cancer in the general population.
Who’s at risk of another, unrelated cancer?
With improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment, people diagnosed with cancer are living longer than ever. This means they need to consider their long-term health, including their risk of developing another unrelated cancer.
Reasons for such cancers include different types of cancers sharing the same kind of lifestyle, environmental and genetic risk factors.
The increased risk is also likely partly due to the effects that some cancer treatments and imaging procedures have on the body. However, this increased risk is relatively small when compared with the (sometimes lifesaving) benefits of these treatment and procedures.
While a 6-36% greater chance of getting a second, unrelated cancer may seem large, only around 10-12% of participants developed a second cancer in the Australian studies we mentioned. Both had a median follow-up time of around five years.
Similarly, in a large US study only about one in 12 adult cancer patients developed a second type of cancer in the follow-up period (an average of seven years).
The kind of first cancer you had also affects your risk of a second, unrelated cancer, as well as the type of second cancer you are at risk of. For example, in the two Australian studies we mentioned, the risk of a second cancer was greater for people with an initial diagnosis of head and neck cancer, or a haematological (blood) cancer.
People diagnosed with cancer as a child, adolescent or young adult also have a greater risk of a second, unrelated cancer.
What can I do to lower my risk?
Regular follow-up examinations can give peace of mind, and ensure any subsequent cancer is caught early, when there’s the best chance of successful treatment.
Maintenance therapy may be used to reduce the risk of some types of cancer returning. However, despite ongoing research, there are no specific treatments against cancer recurrence or developing a second, unrelated cancer.
But there are things you can do to help lower your general risk of cancer – not smoking, being physically active, eating well, maintaining a healthy body weight, limiting alcohol intake and being sun safe. These all reduce the chance of cancer returning and getting a second cancer.
Sarah Diepstraten, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and Terry Boyle, Senior Lecturer in Cancer Epidemiology, University of South Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
