3 ms·
What's the basis for that presumption? Are you arguing humans evolved during that period to be less affected by the natural chemicals? Are you invoking some kin
by technotony 9y ago
What's the basis for that presumption? Are you arguing humans evolved during that period to be less affected by the natural chemicals? Are you invoking some kind of gaia hypothesis? A chemical is a chemical whether it's natural or synthetic, there are plenty of natural chemicals which will easily kill you. If anything novel synthetics that have been through a rigorous regulatory review process should seem safer than natural chemicals whose toxicity has been less well studied.
- cwkoss 9y agoThe basis of the presumption is that if humans have been to exposed to something for 1000 years and we haven't noticed an effect yet, its less likely that we'll notice an effect in the future vs a substance for which we have no data about human exposure. Certainly many 'all-natural' chemicals can be highly toxic, but because we have a history of interacting with the plants that produce them, most of these harmful chemicals we already have some idea that they may be dangerous.