6 ms·

There seems to be group think present even here on HN. I don't downvote comments if that at least attempt to make a coherent argument with supporting facts. Bu

There seems to be group think present even here on HN. I don't downvote comments if that at least attempt to make a coherent argument with supporting facts. But, when I got rid of asbestos insulation around some water pipes I followed every precaution. But many people seem to think chlorine isn't toxic because it's so common. Note: There is _no_ known antidote to chlorine poisoning. (an example of how there is a toxin around us everyday, in our drinking water, in our pools, on our clothes, cleaning products, etc...) Why is there no outrage over this? https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/chlorine/basics/facts.asp https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/chlorine/basics/facts.asp More on asbestos many people may not know that I got from the same wikipedia entry. "Portions of El Dorado County, California are known to contain natural amphibole asbestos formations at the surface. The USGS studied amphiboles in rock and soil in the area in response to an EPA sampling study and subsequent criticism of the EPA study. The EPA study was refuted by its own peer reviewers and never completed or published." "Globally, samples collected from Antarctic ice indicate chrysotile asbestos has been a ubiquitous contaminant of the environment for at least 10,000 years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Environmental_asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Envi...

mikeash 8y ago
Does persistent low-level exposure to chlorine cause health problems?
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  That's a good question, does it? I know that there was a time when not a single doctor in the world believed there was such a thing as latex allergy. My family is in the chemical business and my father (chemist) won't put chlorine in his pool, he uses a bromide of some kind. But, if something is popular (asbestos was at one point) it must be just fine.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    This is argument based on a counter-factual though. Chlorine as used for keeping our water supply safe does appear to be warranted (i.e. the benefits outweigh the costs), whereas the use of asbestos is the other way around; the health effects clearly outweigh the benefits. Public policy should be based around what we know, not what you wish to be true but isn't.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      >"...the benefits outweigh the costs.." I agree with this sentiment, but it seems the costs are only considered after public outcry, not from scientific understanding or economics. It's often cheaper to let people get hurt.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    If something is popular, problems tend to become apparent. It can be an unknown with a new chemical, but for something like chlorine which has had massive public exposure for a very long time, it’s fairly safe to say that it doesn’t have much in the way of negative effects at low levels of exposure.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      What about cigarettes, lead pipes, lead paint? There's quite a few chemicals/toxins that were in use for thousands of years before any did anything about them. Even something as simple as hygiene is new to doctors as of the 18th century.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        You can’t look before the modern era, as the tools and techniques for discovering this sort of long-term damage didn’t exist. Are there any examples of things that were in pervasive use around, say, 1970 but didn’t get recognized as dangerous until recently? I think there are examples in nutrition, but I don’t know about environmental toxins.
        RobertRoberts 8y ago
        Every era is the modern era, until it isn't anymore. Are you claiming that people could spend decades counting the average movement of the moon around the earth, accurate to the fraction of a second, thousands of years ago, but couldn't understand long term health effects until just recently?
        mikeash 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure you know that I was referring to the period of time from a couple hundred years ago until now, 2018, when I said "the modern era." Let's not delve into semantic fuckery. And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Figuring out the motion of the moon can be done by a single person using nothing but dedicated observation and arithmetic. Figuring out the public health effects of chronic low-level exposure to toxins requires statistical techniques and data-gathering infrastructure that didn't exist until at least the 18th century, and wasn't commonly applied until the 20th century. The concept of long-term health effects due to exposure to stuff has been around forever, but the ability to conclusively prove it is a lot more recent.
amluto 8y ago
> But many people seem to think chlorine isn't toxic because it's so common. > Note: There is _no_ known antidote to chlorine poisoning. (an example of how there is a toxin around us everyday, in our drinking water, in our pools, on our clothes, cleaning products, etc...) Why is there no outrage over this? There’s probably no credible outrage for two major reasons: - Chlorine in water is not actually a meaningful problem. Unlike, say, asbestos, there are many, many chemicals that are problematic in high concentrations and very safe in low concentrations. As extreme examples, water and sodium chloride will both kill you if taken in excess. Chlorine at ~4 ppm in tap water is a bit stinky but won’t hurt you even after a lifetime of exposure. And Chlorine at ~3 ppm in a swimming pool with an appropriate level of cyanuric acid added is barely perceptible. - There aren’t credible alternatives. We can chlorinate our water, or we can add monochloramine, or we could let pathogens grow in our municipal plumbing. The latter will sicken people on a large scale.
- yorwba 8y ago
  > There aren’t credible alternatives. Other countries (e.g. Germany) do not routinely chlorinate their drinking water and seem to do fine.
  - amluto 8y ago
    After a bit of reading, it seems that this is mainly achieved by having a much newer and better maintained water distribution system. It would be great to have that in the USA.
    - kaybe 8y ago
      The local US army bases in Germany actually chlorinate their perfectly fine tap water. What a waste! But it is probably the perception of unchlorinated water as not safe, and you will probably have a similar problem in the US itself if you switched the water system..
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  >"Chlorine in water is not actually a meaningful problem." There's the crux of the argument define "meaningful", because I think that is what everyone is arguing over in regards to asbestos. There are no levels of radioactive alpha particles that are safe to ingest (surface contact, they can apparently be washed off), yet in Desert Storm our troops stomped right through the stuff regularly with no warning or protections. Go look up photos of troops near/on destroyed Iraqi tanks, the white powder is depleted uranium rounds. The wind blows it into the air and the troops breathed that stuff in. Cancer in Iraqi civilians skyrocketed after that war, and US troops got the mysterious "gulf war syndrome"... (but no one official knows where that came from...) Do you think the Army/government didn't know the area was radioactively polluted? While I don't have the chemistry degree to argue with you about the dangers of chlorine, my dad (who is a chemist) can. He won't put chlorine in his pool, he uses a bromide of some kind. Also, there are tons of other toxins dumped into our food supply, including additives to the containers that don't need to be reported as ingredients, but are in the food none the less. While I don't disagree that pathogens need to be killed in the pipes, and chlorine works pretty well for that, this isn't proof that it's safe to ingest. And considering the massive quantities in many peoples lives, comparing it on a minute level is disingenuous, as it's not just 4ppm if you encounter all day long, it can be dramatically higher than that. And if anyone doesn't know, chlorine gas, a similar gas to mustard gas (used to kill many in World War 1) can be made by accidentally combining chlorine and another common house cleaner. And these people didn't die right away, in fact most didn't. The effects were longer term. So to claim since there are no immediate health effects from exposure to chlorine is to dismiss the long term affects, of which, who knows what they are? Seems odd this isn't common knowledge since we know so much about asbestos which somehow one tiny speck of it will give you cancer? I am not foolish enough to test if asbestos is dangerous, but the sheer willingness to ignore common sense and trust "ppm" and "safe in low concentrations" is likely why we have so much cancer and other diseases these days.
zaarn 8y ago
Well, for one, there isn't any chlorine in my water. None. 0. The last time we had chlorine in the water was after a farmer overfertilized and the ancient water system took on some pathogens. After cleaning out the pipes the water system was chlorinated lightly for a week. Low doses of chlorine aren't deadly, there is such a thing as a LD50 for chlorine. In low doses, chlorine and asbestos aren't harmful in a significant manner but it should be added that chlorine has much more direct effects than asbestos and asbestos to my knowledge has much lower limits at which prolonged exposure will cause negative medical effects. Asbestos in nature is not different to background radiation. The obvious conclusion isn't "radiation isn't harmful" or "getting hit with a car is more dangerous than radiation".

mikeash 8y ago

Does persistent low-level exposure to chlorine cause health problems?

RobertRoberts 8y ago
That's a good question, does it? I know that there was a time when not a single doctor in the world believed there was such a thing as latex allergy. My family is in the chemical business and my father (chemist) won't put chlorine in his pool, he uses a bromide of some kind. But, if something is popular (asbestos was at one point) it must be just fine.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  This is argument based on a counter-factual though. Chlorine as used for keeping our water supply safe does appear to be warranted (i.e. the benefits outweigh the costs), whereas the use of asbestos is the other way around; the health effects clearly outweigh the benefits. Public policy should be based around what we know, not what you wish to be true but isn't.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    >"...the benefits outweigh the costs.." I agree with this sentiment, but it seems the costs are only considered after public outcry, not from scientific understanding or economics. It's often cheaper to let people get hurt.
- mikeash 8y ago
  If something is popular, problems tend to become apparent. It can be an unknown with a new chemical, but for something like chlorine which has had massive public exposure for a very long time, it’s fairly safe to say that it doesn’t have much in the way of negative effects at low levels of exposure.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    What about cigarettes, lead pipes, lead paint? There's quite a few chemicals/toxins that were in use for thousands of years before any did anything about them. Even something as simple as hygiene is new to doctors as of the 18th century.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      You can’t look before the modern era, as the tools and techniques for discovering this sort of long-term damage didn’t exist. Are there any examples of things that were in pervasive use around, say, 1970 but didn’t get recognized as dangerous until recently? I think there are examples in nutrition, but I don’t know about environmental toxins.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        Every era is the modern era, until it isn't anymore. Are you claiming that people could spend decades counting the average movement of the moon around the earth, accurate to the fraction of a second, thousands of years ago, but couldn't understand long term health effects until just recently?
        mikeash 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure you know that I was referring to the period of time from a couple hundred years ago until now, 2018, when I said "the modern era." Let's not delve into semantic fuckery. And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Figuring out the motion of the moon can be done by a single person using nothing but dedicated observation and arithmetic. Figuring out the public health effects of chronic low-level exposure to toxins requires statistical techniques and data-gathering infrastructure that didn't exist until at least the 18th century, and wasn't commonly applied until the 20th century. The concept of long-term health effects due to exposure to stuff has been around forever, but the ability to conclusively prove it is a lot more recent.

amluto 8y ago

> But many people seem to think chlorine isn't toxic because it's so common. > Note: There is _no_ known antidote to chlorine poisoning. (an example of how there is a toxin around us everyday, in our drinking water, in our pools, on our clothes, cleaning products, etc...) Why is there no outrage over this? There’s probably no credible outrage for two major reasons: - Chlorine in water is not actually a meaningful problem. Unlike, say, asbestos, there are many, many chemicals that are problematic in high concentrations and very safe in low concentrations. As extreme examples, water and sodium chloride will both kill you if taken in excess. Chlorine at ~4 ppm in tap water is a bit stinky but won’t hurt you even after a lifetime of exposure. And Chlorine at ~3 ppm in a swimming pool with an appropriate level of cyanuric acid added is barely perceptible. - There aren’t credible alternatives. We can chlorinate our water, or we can add monochloramine, or we could let pathogens grow in our municipal plumbing. The latter will sicken people on a large scale.

yorwba 8y ago
> There aren’t credible alternatives. Other countries (e.g. Germany) do not routinely chlorinate their drinking water and seem to do fine.
- amluto 8y ago
  After a bit of reading, it seems that this is mainly achieved by having a much newer and better maintained water distribution system. It would be great to have that in the USA.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    The local US army bases in Germany actually chlorinate their perfectly fine tap water. What a waste! But it is probably the perception of unchlorinated water as not safe, and you will probably have a similar problem in the US itself if you switched the water system..
RobertRoberts 8y ago
>"Chlorine in water is not actually a meaningful problem." There's the crux of the argument define "meaningful", because I think that is what everyone is arguing over in regards to asbestos. There are no levels of radioactive alpha particles that are safe to ingest (surface contact, they can apparently be washed off), yet in Desert Storm our troops stomped right through the stuff regularly with no warning or protections. Go look up photos of troops near/on destroyed Iraqi tanks, the white powder is depleted uranium rounds. The wind blows it into the air and the troops breathed that stuff in. Cancer in Iraqi civilians skyrocketed after that war, and US troops got the mysterious "gulf war syndrome"... (but no one official knows where that came from...) Do you think the Army/government didn't know the area was radioactively polluted? While I don't have the chemistry degree to argue with you about the dangers of chlorine, my dad (who is a chemist) can. He won't put chlorine in his pool, he uses a bromide of some kind. Also, there are tons of other toxins dumped into our food supply, including additives to the containers that don't need to be reported as ingredients, but are in the food none the less. While I don't disagree that pathogens need to be killed in the pipes, and chlorine works pretty well for that, this isn't proof that it's safe to ingest. And considering the massive quantities in many peoples lives, comparing it on a minute level is disingenuous, as it's not just 4ppm if you encounter all day long, it can be dramatically higher than that. And if anyone doesn't know, chlorine gas, a similar gas to mustard gas (used to kill many in World War 1) can be made by accidentally combining chlorine and another common house cleaner. And these people didn't die right away, in fact most didn't. The effects were longer term. So to claim since there are no immediate health effects from exposure to chlorine is to dismiss the long term affects, of which, who knows what they are? Seems odd this isn't common knowledge since we know so much about asbestos which somehow one tiny speck of it will give you cancer? I am not foolish enough to test if asbestos is dangerous, but the sheer willingness to ignore common sense and trust "ppm" and "safe in low concentrations" is likely why we have so much cancer and other diseases these days.

zaarn 8y ago

Well, for one, there isn't any chlorine in my water. None. 0. The last time we had chlorine in the water was after a farmer overfertilized and the ancient water system took on some pathogens. After cleaning out the pipes the water system was chlorinated lightly for a week. Low doses of chlorine aren't deadly, there is such a thing as a LD50 for chlorine. In low doses, chlorine and asbestos aren't harmful in a significant manner but it should be added that chlorine has much more direct effects than asbestos and asbestos to my knowledge has much lower limits at which prolonged exposure will cause negative medical effects. Asbestos in nature is not different to background radiation. The obvious conclusion isn't "radiation isn't harmful" or "getting hit with a car is more dangerous than radiation".