5 ms·

Make one wonder if some things we use are the 'radium' of the future, and we don't think of it as harmful now. Recalled products and bans are just the tip of t

Make one wonder if some things we use are the 'radium' of the future, and we don't think of it as harmful now. Recalled products and bans are just the tip of the icebergs: what if something harms us in non-"cancer in 4 years if you drink radium" way, but alters the genes or reduce our health in other ways(think xenoestrogens)? What if the harm isn't realized in everyone(e.g. only 4% of people)? Its not profitable for radiumCo to be preemptively pro-consumer, their only consumer-centric concern is PR/reputation after the fact, so until they get publicly shamed they won't stop selling their radium. If they have no competition eager to take them down, they have even less concern of what consumers think since radiumCo has stable market.

InclinedPlane 10y ago
Not really a mystery. The anti-dietary-fat trend resulted in lots of "low fat" high carb foods that were, and still are, much less healthy for people. We're still slowly crawling out of that hole.
soperj 10y ago
I think all of the nano stuff will be in this bubble. Just thinking about disposing of stuff that has graphene and carbon nano tubes in it. There's no regulation at the current time, and this is definitely something that we can ingest, how will our body(or any animal body) deal with it? Could be fine, but do we really know?
- jwdunne 10y ago
  If you look up how asbestos damages the lungs, perhaps carbon nanotubes are something we wouldn't want to ingest. I can't say the effects would be remotely similar but: - asbestos was considered safe (or some type of it). Used in pretty much everything. - broken / agitated asbestos releases microscopic fibres into the air - those fibres pierce the lining of the lungs leading to asbestosis and eventually a mesothelioma, a cancer with 0% chance of survival. This takes some time to present. - took decades to realise what was going on and decades more to eliminate the problem, with many lives lost in the process. I wonder if carbon nanotubes could damage in a similar damage over such a long timespan such that it takes decades to fully realise, regulate and eventually fix. After all, my garage roof is asbestos. Coincidentally, my grandfather died before I was born due to long term asbestos exposure.
  - tossa 10y ago
    The occupational hazards of working with carbon composites are already known to closely resemble those of asbestos. This is especially true for smaller scale operations utilizing hand layup and generally requiring more raw material handling and abrasive finishing steps.
  - soperj 10y ago
    I think that's a great parallel. I didn't even think about inhaling them. I was thinking more about just the breakdown of the product they're in, and it eventually ending up in the water system.
mmjaa 10y ago
Aspartame?
twic 10y ago
> Make one wonder if some things we use are the 'radium' of the future Microchips which want to connect to the internet.
SilasX 10y ago
Yep, probably environmental xenoestrogens, sugar in food (at current levels), and probably office chair/desk setups.
Qantourisc 10y ago
That's why I like the EU model more (but it also has it's downsides): you have to proof it's not harmful.
- jk2323 10y ago
  Wow. Now we have both in Science. Proof and Proof of a negative. Impressive.
  - szemet 10y ago
    I not understand what you mean by this. We always had those. Do you believe in the existence of: - computers solving the generic halting problem - perpetual motion devices - faster than light communication I guess no, because based upon our current knowledge of physical/logical laws these are nonexistent (impossible) things. And there are many existence proof with the same confidence level. So science have both positive and negative proofs (actually verification is a better term) with similar confidence.
arnon 10y ago
I have a feeling cellphones, smartwatches and other radiating devices will come back and bite us in the not too distant future
- type0 9y ago
  If your smart watch bites you, you need to take it off immediately. > and other radiating devices what radiating devices?

InclinedPlane 10y ago

Not really a mystery. The anti-dietary-fat trend resulted in lots of "low fat" high carb foods that were, and still are, much less healthy for people. We're still slowly crawling out of that hole.

soperj 10y ago

I think all of the nano stuff will be in this bubble. Just thinking about disposing of stuff that has graphene and carbon nano tubes in it. There's no regulation at the current time, and this is definitely something that we can ingest, how will our body(or any animal body) deal with it? Could be fine, but do we really know?

jwdunne 10y ago
If you look up how asbestos damages the lungs, perhaps carbon nanotubes are something we wouldn't want to ingest. I can't say the effects would be remotely similar but: - asbestos was considered safe (or some type of it). Used in pretty much everything. - broken / agitated asbestos releases microscopic fibres into the air - those fibres pierce the lining of the lungs leading to asbestosis and eventually a mesothelioma, a cancer with 0% chance of survival. This takes some time to present. - took decades to realise what was going on and decades more to eliminate the problem, with many lives lost in the process. I wonder if carbon nanotubes could damage in a similar damage over such a long timespan such that it takes decades to fully realise, regulate and eventually fix. After all, my garage roof is asbestos. Coincidentally, my grandfather died before I was born due to long term asbestos exposure.
- tossa 10y ago
  The occupational hazards of working with carbon composites are already known to closely resemble those of asbestos. This is especially true for smaller scale operations utilizing hand layup and generally requiring more raw material handling and abrasive finishing steps.
- soperj 10y ago
  I think that's a great parallel. I didn't even think about inhaling them. I was thinking more about just the breakdown of the product they're in, and it eventually ending up in the water system.

mmjaa 10y ago

Aspartame?

twic 10y ago

> Make one wonder if some things we use are the 'radium' of the future Microchips which want to connect to the internet.

SilasX 10y ago

Yep, probably environmental xenoestrogens, sugar in food (at current levels), and probably office chair/desk setups.

Qantourisc 10y ago

That's why I like the EU model more (but it also has it's downsides): you have to proof it's not harmful.

jk2323 10y ago
Wow. Now we have both in Science. Proof and Proof of a negative. Impressive.
- szemet 10y ago
  I not understand what you mean by this. We always had those. Do you believe in the existence of: - computers solving the generic halting problem - perpetual motion devices - faster than light communication I guess no, because based upon our current knowledge of physical/logical laws these are nonexistent (impossible) things. And there are many existence proof with the same confidence level. So science have both positive and negative proofs (actually verification is a better term) with similar confidence.

arnon 10y ago

I have a feeling cellphones, smartwatches and other radiating devices will come back and bite us in the not too distant future

type0 9y ago
If your smart watch bites you, you need to take it off immediately. > and other radiating devices what radiating devices?