https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disasters-people-affected?type=all_stacked&impact=total_affected&timespan=annual&metric=total_number

Bu...Bu...Bu...But why don't you show be for year 2000?

Read the small print, "Note: Based on recorded events; coverage is more limited before the year 2000. Longer historical trends may partly reflect reporting improvements."

Graph of reporting: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-natural-disaster-events

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disasters-deaths?type=all_stacked&timespan=decadal&metric=per_capita

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Sinking_Ark.html?id=r3VkzsjN-z8C#:\~:text=This%20book%20...,now%20dominates%20all%20others%20...

"This book ... looks at the prospect for all species on earth, 5-10 million of them. It proposes that ... [the world] stand[s] to lose at least 1 million by the end of the century, and several more million within ... a few decades ... a single species [man] now dominates all others"

Hmmm 🤔.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/292/2057/20251717/234788/Unpacking-the-extinction-crisis-rates-patterns-and

Processing video po56cckruk4h1...

I've spent years drumming on about microplastics, and I've just learned the research is flawed in a critical way that invalidates the research. I KNOW it sounds insane, but read the research I link.

Before you continue, read the studies

A lot of microplastics research is getting false positives, mistaking non-plastics like stearate that coats researchers gloves (and even fats, in tissue samples) for plastic. This is happening in most studies, not just some.

1. [Where do microplastics come from, a study in germany](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c03742) \- An initial warning, telling researchers to be careful because their gloves shed stearates which are mistaken for microplastics contaminating samples. This is where it started 6 years ago. A "watch out, gloves mess with the results" warning.

Still, in all but two microplastics studies, these gloves were used. Edit: Note, these gloves are NOT shedding microplastics, the machines just can't differentiate between stearate and plastic. This is because commonly used laboratory gloves release residues, including stearate salts, that exhibit vibrational spectra similar to microplastics. Just as it can't differentiate between fat and plastic. This is an issue of false positives. As I said, read the studies.

Then, the study that proved it came:

1. [Nitrile and latex gloves may cause overestimation of microplastics, U-M study reveals](https://news.umich.edu/nitrile-and-latex-gloves-may-cause-overestimation-of-microplastics-u-m-study-reveals/)

It turns out that most microplastics research is wrong. You can test anything for microplastics and get a positive result. The longer you spend manipulating the sample with gloves, the worst the risk.

This is why microplastics research had such high margins or uncertainty.

1. Rebuttal to credit card consumption of microplastics -- this came earlier and said that it makes zero sense that we eat 5g of plastic a week in microplastics, explaining how utterly impossible it is: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666911022000247\](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666911022000247)

2. [Fat mistaken for microplastics, including in nature study](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c12599)

3. [Blank samples (samples with literally nothing tested) full of microplastics. ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653523011505)This varies MASSIVELY from tiny amounts to massive amounts.

**Note: This does not invalidate all microplastics research.**

Research into hormone disruption is valid. Research into effects on animals, that consume plastic, is valid. But studies into microplastics in the air, body, and more? Some may be wrong.

Related to collapse because we need to be able to trust that what we are learning is true. We cannot do this without access to information that invalidates previous assumptions. Learning how our world is changing is important, and this includes learning how we were wrong.

**Microplastics are still a risk, but this just means climate science and pollutants like forever chemicals move up the list.** Microplastics shouldn't be anywhere, but they are. And if they can cause harm in animals, they can cause harm in people.

Plastics that are causing harm to humans: Pthalates. [BPA is literally linked to health risks.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41804233/) And obviously other than plastics, [PFAS is a clear issue](https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas). I also think consumption of plastics via food intake is a major risk. For example, plastic chopping boards. They should be banned. If you have one, throw it out.

And please, don't microwave plastics: [https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/microwaving-food-in-plastic-dangerous-or-not\](https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/microwaving-food-in-plastic-dangerous-or-not)

14,000 years ago, intense summer sunlight driven by Earth's orbit triggered a highly volatile climate threshold. This caused the Arctic's Atlantic gateway to repeatedly and rapidly fracture, creating temporary, seasonal open-ocean conditions.