Comments
It's been well known for a while that car tires are the biggest single source of microplastics, but it's nice to have more numbers backing this up.
This is one of multiple reasons why Electric cars are much closer to ICE cars in the overall combination of sustainability and societal effects than they are to trains and subways. It's like
[ICE cars---Elec Cars---------------------------Trains/Subways]
yet even on the relatively informed HN I often see people pretend it's more like
[ICE cars-----------------------Elec cars-------Trains/Subways]
I think it's most of it is because EVs are shiny and cool and represent technological progress and people feel attached to certain brands. That, along with personal convenience/privilege.
By adampunk 2026-03-0518:09 I think we're closer to the 2nd than the 1st example, at least outside of the united states.
The issue isn't just tire abrasion (which will be much higher w/ EVs), but local emissions, which are *really* bad. Like we're all fucked due to CO2, but the kids getting messed up before adulthood due to chemical/particulate damage to their lungs are getting it from ICE vehicles.
We could argue that personal electric vehicles allow for ICE cars to have a graceful transition rather than the shock changeover that's needed or that the use of either crowds out mass transit, but that's just to say that if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass hopping.
By persumentor 2026-03-0510:45 One interesting implication of this is that most discussions about microplastics focus on food or ocean pollution, but urban air exposure might actually be much more constant.
Tire abrasion is happening everywhere there is traffic, so people in cities are probably inhaling these particles daily without noticing it.
It raises question about particle size distribution. Nanoplastics behave very differently from larger particles and may interact with biological tissues in ways that are still poorly understood...
Urban environments might therefore be an important long-term exposure pathway that hasn’t been studied as much as water or seafood contamination
By ectospheno 2026-03-0516:381 reply https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9851491/
There is no safe level of air pollution. If you haven’t invested in a home air filtration system then you might want to consider it.
Even with no permanent install there are lots of good options out there, especially the new PC fan air purifiers. If you're just starting out check out HouseFresh for their excellent air purifier reviews.[0]
If you don't mind a slightly nerdy appearance and just want the "Engineer's Filter," Airfanta has a PC fan cube with a good cost-performance ratio. Tl;dr coverage per device is 300-400 square feet = 28-37 square meters or one room, whichever is smaller. Just run it 24/7 on 50-70% depending on noise comfort. Power draw is 9 watts.
That's sized based on ASHRAE's 5 air changes per hour guideline, which is intended to quickly filter pollution as it leaks through cracks in a building.
Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1]
By resoluteteeth 2026-03-0616:361 reply > Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1]
While I think that the things the person lists on that site are good precautions (although I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers), I think that saying that doing these things is "is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health" is too strong, because while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.
That's a common misconception. They still atomize bacteria from the tank because nobody ever cleans & sterilizes their dehumidifier tank often enough. Distilled water users still report high indoor particle counts when it runs, which is how you know it's an ineffective prevention.>I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiersThe cost of distilled water every year (even making it at home) means ultrasonic humidifiers are the most expensive option too.
Just use an evaporative pad humidifier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHeehYYgl28
Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health.>while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
By resoluteteeth 2026-03-1215:201 reply > Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health.
> This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
A proposed intervention like air purifiers that have no direct evidence but are plausible because they reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes is the opposite of something like parachutes that we directly know work.
This is a completely bizarre comparison and it's like saying that skepticism of an Alzheimer's drug targeting amyloid plaques is like doubting parachutes work because we know that amyloid plaques are correlated with Alzheimer's.
By schiffern 2026-03-1312:57
Are you suggesting the link isn't causal? Because your argument only makes sense if you think air pollution particles aren't actually the cause of lung damage, which is the opposite of the scientific consensus.> reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomesThe fact that you have to bring up amyloid plaques is especially a red flag, since this is famously a rare example of the failure of scientific consensus.
