3 ms·

Measurement techniques are getting better and better and we'll find more and more articles finding x in y. I have not analyzed this case but did just finish rea

Measurement techniques are getting better and better and we'll find more and more articles finding x in y. I have not analyzed this case but did just finish reading a highly relevant piece on measures of toxicity that included glyphosate. Highly recommended for your mental models. https://thoughtscapism.com/2018/05/07/measures-of-toxicity/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2018/05/07/measures-of-toxicity/

pmoriarty 9y ago
That's a very interesting and informative article. However, after reading it I came away more confused than I was before -- especially when looking at their "Acute toxicity" and "Chronic toxicity" tables. According to the acute toxicity tables, caffeine is only slightly more toxic than lead, and Vitamin D3 is 5 more times toxic. According to the chronic toxicity tables, both caffeine and Vitamin D3 are about 3 times more toxic than lead. The dangers of lead exposure are widely appreciated, so I suppose the main difference must be that lead accumulates in body tissue while caffeine and D3 don't, and that's what makes lead so much more dangerous? I wish there were some more tables that showed us the more relevant dangers of these substances, with issues such as accumulation in body tissue, route of administration, and other relevant factors taken in to account.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  LD50 is a crude measure of toxicity. Salt has a very high LD50--about 3.3 g/kg. Vitamin D is less than 1% that LD50, about 33 mg/kg. However, the loads you're going to see in food are very different: you accumulate vitamin D on the order of 10 µg or so a day, but salt around 5g or so a day. As a consequence, it takes only around 40× normal salt consumption to kill you, but around 200,000× normal vitamin D consumption. Killing yourself by eating too much salt is ridiculously easy (drink a jug of soy sauce), killing yourself with vitamin D is much harder.
- macawfish 9y ago
  Don't forget that lead is quite a dense material.
  - ianai 8y ago
    Lead also never leaves your system - caffeine does.

pmoriarty 9y ago

That's a very interesting and informative article. However, after reading it I came away more confused than I was before -- especially when looking at their "Acute toxicity" and "Chronic toxicity" tables. According to the acute toxicity tables, caffeine is only slightly more toxic than lead, and Vitamin D3 is 5 more times toxic. According to the chronic toxicity tables, both caffeine and Vitamin D3 are about 3 times more toxic than lead. The dangers of lead exposure are widely appreciated, so I suppose the main difference must be that lead accumulates in body tissue while caffeine and D3 don't, and that's what makes lead so much more dangerous? I wish there were some more tables that showed us the more relevant dangers of these substances, with issues such as accumulation in body tissue, route of administration, and other relevant factors taken in to account.

jcranmer 9y ago
LD50 is a crude measure of toxicity. Salt has a very high LD50--about 3.3 g/kg. Vitamin D is less than 1% that LD50, about 33 mg/kg. However, the loads you're going to see in food are very different: you accumulate vitamin D on the order of 10 µg or so a day, but salt around 5g or so a day. As a consequence, it takes only around 40× normal salt consumption to kill you, but around 200,000× normal vitamin D consumption. Killing yourself by eating too much salt is ridiculously easy (drink a jug of soy sauce), killing yourself with vitamin D is much harder.
macawfish 9y ago
Don't forget that lead is quite a dense material.
- ianai 8y ago
  Lead also never leaves your system - caffeine does.