12 ms·

It took almost 50 years to starting to debunk health issues created by Sugar. It took decades to accept the health issues created by Lead and Asbestos. Sometim

It took almost 50 years to starting to debunk health issues created by Sugar. It took decades to accept the health issues created by Lead and Asbestos. Sometime I wonder if chemicals from bottled water, radiation from Cellular/Wifi/Bluetooth pose health risks and we will find it out decades later.

oxryly1 10y ago
True. And until then if you resist such things you're labelled as a crank, luddite, anti-science, etc. etc.
- timewarrior 10y ago
  Completely agreed. I have been avoiding using anti-bacterial soaps for years, because something didn't add up. I am perfectly happy washing my hands with water before meal. Sometimes if I feel that my hands are really greasy/dirty I would use a natural ingredient based soap. I have friends who would chide me for that. And now FDA bans sale of many anti-bacterial soaps: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/science/fda-bans-sale-of-many-antibacterial-soaps-saying-risks-outweigh-benefits.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/science/fda-bans-sale-of-m... I just went to gym and someone who used the treadmill just before me doused the treadmill with 10-12 pieces of anti-bacterial wipes. The treadmill was wet when I started and was giving out fumes for almost 10 minutes while I was running. I am wondering what is worse for me: potentially germs from a reasonably healthy and hygienic person vs vast array of chemicals from this cheap anti-bacterial wipe.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    "didn't add up" is a very different reason than the FDA reasoning. Indeed, it's not that anti bacterial is directly bad, but the second order effects of weakened immunity and "superbugs". It's not being correct if you act suspicious about everything, then something has a negative effect you weren't aware of.
    - timewarrior 10y ago
      Sorry, didn't go in details of why it didn't add up for me. Agree with your point. I was reading sometime back that our gut has good bacteria and initially when people didn't understand them there was a phase when some people were using antibiotics to kill their gut bacteria. Today, Most people agree on the benefits of good bacteria in our gut. Around 2010 I was reading an article about other good bacteria which also resides on our skin and then I decided to stop using anti-bacterial. I make sure that I was my hands thoroughly with water and use soap if required.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    I never understood the point of wiping a treadmill. I only ever come in contact with it via 2 buttons (start/stop & increase speed). If I followed that logic, I would have to wipe literally every object that my fingers touched in the gym. It would be akin to touching a door knob to the bathroom, and then wiping the entire door.
Retric 10y ago
There are a lot of unknowns. Chances are it's not going to be Bluetooth, but some toothpaste additive, cellphone case sealant, or something else nobody really thought about that we are going to look back and cringe.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
  For instance, For a long time diesel has promoted in Europe as greener than petrol. This is soon to change, because: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fumes-worse-petrol https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fum...
  - hx87 10y ago
    Diesel /is/ greener when you consider only CO2 emissions and energy efficiency, although turbocharged direct injection engines narrow that gap significantly. If this were the '70s though, I'd much rather have a fleet of diesel cars running around than ones with cabureted gasoline engines.
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      What about all the people who die from diesel particulates? Failing to consider that is exactly the mistake Europe is still making.
      - hx87 10y ago
        Particulates are easy to deal with using current technology--burn lean, burn hot (and inject lots of urea to get rid of all the NOx that this regime creates), and stick on a filter on the tailpipe to get rid of the stuff that does get created. The main problem is that diesel engines last forever, and a lot of old engines that don't meet requirements are still on the road.
        greglindahl 10y ago
        This is partly true: You can reduce particulates, but they're still bad in areas with a lot of less-emitting vehicles. Also, the technology that reduces particulates needs to be carefully maintained to continue working as well as it did the day the vehicle left the factory... and there's plenty of incentive to cheat, in order to save money.
hammock 10y ago
You can count flurochemicals as one. Ubiquitous in the water supply. No good way for water treatment nor the human body to remove them. Proven harm. Not much discussion today. Also re toothpaste additive: Colgate Total still uses triclosan, which has been removed from pretty much every other product already and declared harmful by the FDA.
- biot 10y ago
  Your comment sounds like the FDA declared triclosan in Colgate Total to be harmful. That is not true: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm205999.htm#3 http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm205999.ht... "For some consumer products, there is evidence that triclosan provides a benefit. In 1997, FDA reviewed extensive effectiveness data on triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste. The evidence showed that triclosan in that product was effective in preventing gingivitis."
  - tlb 10y ago
    "Effective in preventing X" doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm Y.
    - biot 10y ago
      Sure, but if that were the case one should provide evidence of these harms instead of making statements that contradict what the FDA's own site claims.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Or you could just avoid it on the basis that possible, minimal benefits that can be gotten through proper dental care aren't worth any potential risks at all.
  - hammock 10y ago
    The FDA proposed as early as 1978 to ban triclosan in consumer products.[1] The proposal was updated in 1994 but never finalized. "At each stage of the proposed and tentative rulemaking process, the FDA has acknowledged that based on available scientific evidence, triclosan and triclocarban are not safe and effective, or there are insufficient data to evaluate safety and effectiveness."[2] (There are a number of studies you may find that show triclosan causing harm) [1]https://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/131122 https://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/131122 [2]http://www.hpm.com/pdf/Triclosan%20-%20NRDC%20MSJ.pdf http://www.hpm.com/pdf/Triclosan%20-%20NRDC%20MSJ.pdf
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I think it's more likely that the behavioral patterns created by our constant engagement to mobile devices will carry more adverse effects to our mental and physical health than any mobile device radiation.
molloy 10y ago
Not to mention the health issues caused by meat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ
poopsintub 10y ago
Radar in the near future from every self driving car on the road concerns me more than the wifi.
ashark 10y ago
If the past is any indiction, we probably interact with several things on a daily basis that people 100 years from now wouldn't go near for anything short of crazy amounts of money, or with protective gear.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk. You can stand inside the path of a microwave communication dish and receive many orders of magnitude more radiation, and what it'll do is make you warm. That's it. Soviet soldiers used to do that in Siberia to keep themselves warm, and the only risk is the dish outputting too much power and cooking you instead.
- zepto 10y ago
  Didn't those Soviet soldiers have a greater incidence of cancer later in life?
- Retric 10y ago
  I mostly agree with you. There are edge cases with microwave towers that can lead to vision loss as your eyes heat up, but don't dump heat very well. Further, modern cellphones don't operate in the same bands as old radio-waves. However, this stuff is very likely to be safe at cellphone usage levels.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Some people wonder if one of our cells have a process to check the DNA runs an electric current through the molecule. There is a possibility that electromagnetic fields could distrupt this. This might obviously be bollocks but to say it's only heat output is also wrong...
- grecy 10y ago
  >Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk Your confidence and shortsightedness are astounding. Do you not see that ~40 years ago scientists were saying exactly the same thing, with exactly the same conviction about Asbestos, Lead, DDT, etc. We don't know what we don't know, but at least we should admit it.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    All of those compounds interact via chemical pathways, and our knowledge of biochemistry is undoubtedly incomplete. However, we know the effect that EM spectrum has on molecules. At the wavelengths in question, it is not possible to break bonds. Thus the only plausible effects would be a result of different vibrational modes or the indirect effect of localized heating. That makes any risk from those technologies very low.
pharrington 10y ago
Fortunately we completely understand light; if you actually wonder about radio and want to bring it out of the realm of mystery potentially hiding dark magic, learn some basic quantum mechanics. As to what you ingest, learn how its made and understand the basic chemistry of the end product. No label gives insight into that, its just alot of research. Sure, systematic disinformation campaigns are real, but in 2016 those don't eliminate the also very real and verifiable scientific knowledge.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  The most believable claim I've seen so far is that DNA might be very slightly conductive. Just barely enough to slightly increase replication errors. I discount it without further evidence, but sounds plausible.
- grecy 10y ago
  > Fortunately we completely understand light So is it a wave, or a particle?
  - pharrington 10y ago
    Neither: it's a packet of information that has properties of both. I'm sure you've already heard that the subatomic world completely defies the expectations developed from having evolved to comprehend the macroscopic world. A large part of this, which is assumed but I believe needs to be explicitly mentioned in this context, is that mammal brains are shit garbage at intuiting probabilities.
    - mxfh 10y ago
      Pilot waves get some backing again, so I wouldn't be surprised if another common theory changes again: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
- thedaemon 10y ago
javajosh 10y ago
It's going to be smartphone usage itself, especially among children. We are going to look back and cringe at kids screen-holing (this is the term me and my girlfriend use to describe it, similar to k-holing, and in social settings, assholing) at will. A whole generation's minds unprotected from the screen! It's gross.
bvinc 10y ago
There are so many things that we already have fairly strong evidence to worry about in our foods alone: Trans fats in all of our food (finally will be banned in a couple years), BPA all over our food containers, BPA-like mystery substances in all the BPA-free food containers, BPA gets absorbed in our skin when we touch receipts, constant listeria outbreaks, constant e coli found in factory farmed beef, homogenized milk damages the fat molecules, fracking chemicals in our drinking water, artificial sweeteners and their effects on our gut bacteria, preservatives and their effect on our gut bacteria, dyes like caramel coloring, glyphosate all over our fruits and vegetables. That's just off the top of my head.

oxryly1 10y ago

True. And until then if you resist such things you're labelled as a crank, luddite, anti-science, etc. etc.

timewarrior 10y ago
Completely agreed. I have been avoiding using anti-bacterial soaps for years, because something didn't add up. I am perfectly happy washing my hands with water before meal. Sometimes if I feel that my hands are really greasy/dirty I would use a natural ingredient based soap. I have friends who would chide me for that. And now FDA bans sale of many anti-bacterial soaps: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/science/fda-bans-sale-of-many-antibacterial-soaps-saying-risks-outweigh-benefits.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/science/fda-bans-sale-of-m... I just went to gym and someone who used the treadmill just before me doused the treadmill with 10-12 pieces of anti-bacterial wipes. The treadmill was wet when I started and was giving out fumes for almost 10 minutes while I was running. I am wondering what is worse for me: potentially germs from a reasonably healthy and hygienic person vs vast array of chemicals from this cheap anti-bacterial wipe.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  "didn't add up" is a very different reason than the FDA reasoning. Indeed, it's not that anti bacterial is directly bad, but the second order effects of weakened immunity and "superbugs". It's not being correct if you act suspicious about everything, then something has a negative effect you weren't aware of.
  - timewarrior 10y ago
    Sorry, didn't go in details of why it didn't add up for me. Agree with your point. I was reading sometime back that our gut has good bacteria and initially when people didn't understand them there was a phase when some people were using antibiotics to kill their gut bacteria. Today, Most people agree on the benefits of good bacteria in our gut. Around 2010 I was reading an article about other good bacteria which also resides on our skin and then I decided to stop using anti-bacterial. I make sure that I was my hands thoroughly with water and use soap if required.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  I never understood the point of wiping a treadmill. I only ever come in contact with it via 2 buttons (start/stop & increase speed). If I followed that logic, I would have to wipe literally every object that my fingers touched in the gym. It would be akin to touching a door knob to the bathroom, and then wiping the entire door.

Retric 10y ago

There are a lot of unknowns. Chances are it's not going to be Bluetooth, but some toothpaste additive, cellphone case sealant, or something else nobody really thought about that we are going to look back and cringe.

SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
For instance, For a long time diesel has promoted in Europe as greener than petrol. This is soon to change, because: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fumes-worse-petrol https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fum...
- hx87 10y ago
  Diesel /is/ greener when you consider only CO2 emissions and energy efficiency, although turbocharged direct injection engines narrow that gap significantly. If this were the '70s though, I'd much rather have a fleet of diesel cars running around than ones with cabureted gasoline engines.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    What about all the people who die from diesel particulates? Failing to consider that is exactly the mistake Europe is still making.
    - hx87 10y ago
      Particulates are easy to deal with using current technology--burn lean, burn hot (and inject lots of urea to get rid of all the NOx that this regime creates), and stick on a filter on the tailpipe to get rid of the stuff that does get created. The main problem is that diesel engines last forever, and a lot of old engines that don't meet requirements are still on the road.
      - greglindahl 10y ago
        This is partly true: You can reduce particulates, but they're still bad in areas with a lot of less-emitting vehicles. Also, the technology that reduces particulates needs to be carefully maintained to continue working as well as it did the day the vehicle left the factory... and there's plenty of incentive to cheat, in order to save money.

hammock 10y ago

You can count flurochemicals as one. Ubiquitous in the water supply. No good way for water treatment nor the human body to remove them. Proven harm. Not much discussion today. Also re toothpaste additive: Colgate Total still uses triclosan, which has been removed from pretty much every other product already and declared harmful by the FDA.

biot 10y ago
Your comment sounds like the FDA declared triclosan in Colgate Total to be harmful. That is not true: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm205999.htm#3 http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm205999.ht... "For some consumer products, there is evidence that triclosan provides a benefit. In 1997, FDA reviewed extensive effectiveness data on triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste. The evidence showed that triclosan in that product was effective in preventing gingivitis."
- tlb 10y ago
  "Effective in preventing X" doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm Y.
  - biot 10y ago
    Sure, but if that were the case one should provide evidence of these harms instead of making statements that contradict what the FDA's own site claims.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Or you could just avoid it on the basis that possible, minimal benefits that can be gotten through proper dental care aren't worth any potential risks at all.
- hammock 10y ago
  The FDA proposed as early as 1978 to ban triclosan in consumer products.[1] The proposal was updated in 1994 but never finalized. "At each stage of the proposed and tentative rulemaking process, the FDA has acknowledged that based on available scientific evidence, triclosan and triclocarban are not safe and effective, or there are insufficient data to evaluate safety and effectiveness."[2] (There are a number of studies you may find that show triclosan causing harm) [1]https://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/131122 https://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/131122 [2]http://www.hpm.com/pdf/Triclosan%20-%20NRDC%20MSJ.pdf http://www.hpm.com/pdf/Triclosan%20-%20NRDC%20MSJ.pdf

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

I think it's more likely that the behavioral patterns created by our constant engagement to mobile devices will carry more adverse effects to our mental and physical health than any mobile device radiation.

molloy 10y ago

Not to mention the health issues caused by meat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ

poopsintub 10y ago

Radar in the near future from every self driving car on the road concerns me more than the wifi.

ashark 10y ago

If the past is any indiction, we probably interact with several things on a daily basis that people 100 years from now wouldn't go near for anything short of crazy amounts of money, or with protective gear.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk. You can stand inside the path of a microwave communication dish and receive many orders of magnitude more radiation, and what it'll do is make you warm. That's it. Soviet soldiers used to do that in Siberia to keep themselves warm, and the only risk is the dish outputting too much power and cooking you instead.

zepto 10y ago
Didn't those Soviet soldiers have a greater incidence of cancer later in life?
Retric 10y ago
I mostly agree with you. There are edge cases with microwave towers that can lead to vision loss as your eyes heat up, but don't dump heat very well. Further, modern cellphones don't operate in the same bands as old radio-waves. However, this stuff is very likely to be safe at cellphone usage levels.
andy_ppp 10y ago
Some people wonder if one of our cells have a process to check the DNA runs an electric current through the molecule. There is a possibility that electromagnetic fields could distrupt this. This might obviously be bollocks but to say it's only heat output is also wrong...
grecy 10y ago
>Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk Your confidence and shortsightedness are astounding. Do you not see that ~40 years ago scientists were saying exactly the same thing, with exactly the same conviction about Asbestos, Lead, DDT, etc. We don't know what we don't know, but at least we should admit it.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  All of those compounds interact via chemical pathways, and our knowledge of biochemistry is undoubtedly incomplete. However, we know the effect that EM spectrum has on molecules. At the wavelengths in question, it is not possible to break bonds. Thus the only plausible effects would be a result of different vibrational modes or the indirect effect of localized heating. That makes any risk from those technologies very low.

pharrington 10y ago

Fortunately we completely understand light; if you actually wonder about radio and want to bring it out of the realm of mystery potentially hiding dark magic, learn some basic quantum mechanics. As to what you ingest, learn how its made and understand the basic chemistry of the end product. No label gives insight into that, its just alot of research. Sure, systematic disinformation campaigns are real, but in 2016 those don't eliminate the also very real and verifiable scientific knowledge.

merpnderp 10y ago
The most believable claim I've seen so far is that DNA might be very slightly conductive. Just barely enough to slightly increase replication errors. I discount it without further evidence, but sounds plausible.
grecy 10y ago
> Fortunately we completely understand light So is it a wave, or a particle?
- pharrington 10y ago
  Neither: it's a packet of information that has properties of both. I'm sure you've already heard that the subatomic world completely defies the expectations developed from having evolved to comprehend the macroscopic world. A large part of this, which is assumed but I believe needs to be explicitly mentioned in this context, is that mammal brains are shit garbage at intuiting probabilities.
  - mxfh 10y ago
    Pilot waves get some backing again, so I wouldn't be surprised if another common theory changes again: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
thedaemon 10y ago

javajosh 10y ago

It's going to be smartphone usage itself, especially among children. We are going to look back and cringe at kids screen-holing (this is the term me and my girlfriend use to describe it, similar to k-holing, and in social settings, assholing) at will. A whole generation's minds unprotected from the screen! It's gross.

bvinc 10y ago

There are so many things that we already have fairly strong evidence to worry about in our foods alone: Trans fats in all of our food (finally will be banned in a couple years), BPA all over our food containers, BPA-like mystery substances in all the BPA-free food containers, BPA gets absorbed in our skin when we touch receipts, constant listeria outbreaks, constant e coli found in factory farmed beef, homogenized milk damages the fat molecules, fracking chemicals in our drinking water, artificial sweeteners and their effects on our gut bacteria, preservatives and their effect on our gut bacteria, dyes like caramel coloring, glyphosate all over our fruits and vegetables. That's just off the top of my head.