The great microplastic panic — the lessons we can learn from the mass paranoia

Relax — but learn: Turns out all those peer-reviewed studies warning that micro- and nanoplastics infest your brain, blood and gonads . . . don’t hold up.

New analysis finds that all those feats of science “face methodological challenges” — something the journals that published them really should’ve noticed before granting them their imprimatur.

Seems the hunt for tiny bits of plastic in the human body is marred by false positives and lab contamination; notably, good old fat is known to return false positives for polyethylene, the ubiquitous plastic found in virtually all packaging and containers.

This explains the alarming studies finding especially high concentrations of microplastics in the brain: That particular organ is 60% fat.

Other details lost in the endless mainstream-media reports on the microplastic menace: Many microparticles are too big to enter the bloodstream, and tinier nanoparticles are too small to be detected using available technology.

Scientists developed complex workarounds to investigate their theories, such as vaporizing tissue samples into fumes they can easily analyze — except these tests get done in labs loaded with plastics, which easily contaminate the samples.

Between false positives and cross-contamination, the hunt for microplastics is like a detective seeing his own fingerprint on the magnifying glass and declaring himself the culprit.

The health and wellness industrial-complex has stoked plenty of paranoia; let’s hope the truth about the microplastics menace inspires suspicion about similar “science,” from gluten to seed oils to blue light and fluoride.

Or maybe you just want to feel safe in drinking bottled water again?