There's a huge increase in the amount of literature that comes out every year. We're learning a lot more every year about the risk of microplastics to [Technical difficulty—Editor] comes to seafood, which is, I think, what you are asking me about.
We know these microplastics can get into the fillet or the parts of the fish we eat. We have numbers even for Lake Simcoe in terms of how much we see in the fillet and how that may matter in terms of exposure. Right now, as I said, there is some literature.
You mentioned before that certain plastics may be more harmful than others. I'm working right now on a risk assessment for the State of California for both humans and wildlife. Even though I think that as we learn more, we might change our minds, for the purpose of this risk assessment we are saying that microplastic is microplastic is microplastic. We're not differentiating between the different types. We're saying that what matters is the concentration and the volume. It has to do with the size of the particles and the number of particles.
For that matter, there are lots of different sources of microplastics coming into the environment. I can't tell you which one is the most important in terms of which type is the most toxic. I can tell you that I recognize that seafood is really important. I think the amount humans are exposed to from seafood is probably much smaller than from drinking water or dust. We don't have enough evidence right now to tell people how or what to consume based on what we know about human health and exposure from seafood. Right now places are trying to start to do that for drinking water first.