5 ms·

Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemi

Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong? Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all? Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can even decide yet if coffee is good for me?

korethr 8y ago
> Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. I'm going to disagree with that. I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe, available to those who will look. I think it is a gross overstatement that nobody has any idea what's definitely safe. Is that data perfect? No. But the data I'm able to find seems to have been workable so far. > Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong? > Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all? Nope, I don't blindly trust the EPA, they've been wrong in the past, and they're going to be discovered to have been wrong here in the future, because like you and I, they are fallible humans, and sometimes shit slips through. However, I am willing to look at the data available and evaluate for myself whether the declaration of safe or not (and to what degree) is correct, and what to do about it. > Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can decided yet if coffee is good for me? I'm not necessarily, and I think you misrepresent my point above to insinuate that I do. My protest with the original article is that it is thin on data. That someone is worried about pesticide residues on food is not immediately actionable data for me absent other data which the article lacks. Absent said data, I'm going to stick to my currently successful MO of washing my produce before use, and not worrying about it until given a convincing reason to do so.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  >> I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe It's not like the EPA does no testing, but what about the unknowns? For example, men's sperm counts have gone down 50% over the last 30 years and scientists have no solid explanation (despite >1000 journal articles on the topic). Are you confident that pesticides play no role in this? Or autism? Or immune disorders? The EPA doesn't even try do testing on long-term exposure to a low-dose of substances, which is exactly what is described in the article. Calling the EPA "fallible humans" is laughable. The question is - is the EPA process systematically too trusting of new chemicals? I have my answer. I recommend you start your education on this topic with "The precautionary principle." http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E83079.pdf http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E8...
  - bigmit37 8y ago
    This was an enlightening article about how the standards set by the EPA don’t seem to be safe standard according to Harvard scientists: https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578745.html https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578... It seems there are different classes of pesticides: some really unsafe pesticides that should be banned but aren’t. What can we possibly do in this case? Grow our own food?
- bigmit37 8y ago
  Problem is as presidents change , the EPA staff changes as well. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/court-orders-ban-harmful-pesticide-says-epa-violated-law-n899331 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/court-orders-... And certain pesticides are unbanned. The EPA also isn’t listening to independent scientists who’s research is showing ill effects even within the current limits. https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578745.html https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578... The fact that farmers are getting sick from pesticides is what scares me. It’s another version of second hand smoke. Strokes, heart attack and cancer among young people seem to be on rise ,and doctors seem to be puzzled. Sperm count is getting lower and lower and we have no idea why. It’s not just pesticides, but we are getting exposed to other carcinogens, pollution, x-rays, contaminated water, Teflon that stays in your body etc etc and we have no studies determine the cumulative effects of everything. Body is very complex and it could be that this combination could result in a lot more genetic mutations and health problems. I wish we had something like community farming where one day a week (mandated day off from regular work)the community members help sustain their community farm, which is the farm that supplies food for the community. This way there is more autonomy and knowledge about which pesticides are used etc.
xyzzy123 8y ago
Right but chemists can detect things at vanishingly small concentrations so "detected" often provides almost no information without further context. If you look hard enough you're very often going to find the molecule you're looking for. Was it detected at 0.1%, 100% or 10000% of an arbitrary EPA limit? This provides at least some quantitative indication of what's going on.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  Unfortunately, some these chemicals can also have significant negative effects at vanishingly small doses, we're talking 1 part per billion. This is especially true for developing embryos (which share blood with the mother).

korethr 8y ago

> Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. I'm going to disagree with that. I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe, available to those who will look. I think it is a gross overstatement that nobody has any idea what's definitely safe. Is that data perfect? No. But the data I'm able to find seems to have been workable so far. > Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong? > Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all? Nope, I don't blindly trust the EPA, they've been wrong in the past, and they're going to be discovered to have been wrong here in the future, because like you and I, they are fallible humans, and sometimes shit slips through. However, I am willing to look at the data available and evaluate for myself whether the declaration of safe or not (and to what degree) is correct, and what to do about it. > Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can decided yet if coffee is good for me? I'm not necessarily, and I think you misrepresent my point above to insinuate that I do. My protest with the original article is that it is thin on data. That someone is worried about pesticide residues on food is not immediately actionable data for me absent other data which the article lacks. Absent said data, I'm going to stick to my currently successful MO of washing my produce before use, and not worrying about it until given a convincing reason to do so.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
alexandercrohde 8y ago
>> I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe It's not like the EPA does no testing, but what about the unknowns? For example, men's sperm counts have gone down 50% over the last 30 years and scientists have no solid explanation (despite >1000 journal articles on the topic). Are you confident that pesticides play no role in this? Or autism? Or immune disorders? The EPA doesn't even try do testing on long-term exposure to a low-dose of substances, which is exactly what is described in the article. Calling the EPA "fallible humans" is laughable. The question is - is the EPA process systematically too trusting of new chemicals? I have my answer. I recommend you start your education on this topic with "The precautionary principle." http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E83079.pdf http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E8...
- bigmit37 8y ago
  This was an enlightening article about how the standards set by the EPA don’t seem to be safe standard according to Harvard scientists: https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578745.html https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578... It seems there are different classes of pesticides: some really unsafe pesticides that should be banned but aren’t. What can we possibly do in this case? Grow our own food?
bigmit37 8y ago
Problem is as presidents change , the EPA staff changes as well. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/court-orders-ban-harmful-pesticide-says-epa-violated-law-n899331 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/court-orders-... And certain pesticides are unbanned. The EPA also isn’t listening to independent scientists who’s research is showing ill effects even within the current limits. https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578745.html https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578... The fact that farmers are getting sick from pesticides is what scares me. It’s another version of second hand smoke. Strokes, heart attack and cancer among young people seem to be on rise ,and doctors seem to be puzzled. Sperm count is getting lower and lower and we have no idea why. It’s not just pesticides, but we are getting exposed to other carcinogens, pollution, x-rays, contaminated water, Teflon that stays in your body etc etc and we have no studies determine the cumulative effects of everything. Body is very complex and it could be that this combination could result in a lot more genetic mutations and health problems. I wish we had something like community farming where one day a week (mandated day off from regular work)the community members help sustain their community farm, which is the farm that supplies food for the community. This way there is more autonomy and knowledge about which pesticides are used etc.

xyzzy123 8y ago

Right but chemists can detect things at vanishingly small concentrations so "detected" often provides almost no information without further context. If you look hard enough you're very often going to find the molecule you're looking for. Was it detected at 0.1%, 100% or 10000% of an arbitrary EPA limit? This provides at least some quantitative indication of what's going on.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
Unfortunately, some these chemicals can also have significant negative effects at vanishingly small doses, we're talking 1 part per billion. This is especially true for developing embryos (which share blood with the mother).