4 ms·
Great that they were able to identify a clear candidate. This type of testing of course can't be done on humans to eg identify hormone disruptors. Are there oth
by MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
Great that they were able to identify a clear candidate. This type of testing of course can't be done on humans to eg identify hormone disruptors. Are there other methods to verify such damaging chemicals, or are we condemned to live with permanent small-scale damage?
- im3w1l 6y agoBlack box modelling by trying different thing on humans is hopeless. We will have to figure out the mechanisms.
- londons_explore 6y agoBig datasets matching health outcomes to blood sample spectroscopy seems like a good candidate for identifying chemicals which detrimentally affect human health by small amounts. Obviously you won't be able to separate cause and effect, but in my view if "X chemical in people's blood leads to a higher likelihood of dropping out of school", thats a good enough reason to restrict the use of X, even if it sometimes turns out there is no causal effect.
- robocat 6y agoIt is a statistical nightmare to do what you suggest. 1. False correlations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging 2. True correlations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding 3. The number of normal compounds in our body from cell processes or digestion is large. Measuring tiny amounts of unknown compounds is extremely hard in that environment. A better way is to proscribe more in-depth testing of compounds on animals. Removing all other factors gives statistical power to observations.
- quotemstr 6y agoBut this type of testing can be done on near-human primates
- xiphias2 6y agoIt's just much more expensive to grow monkeys than growing fish.
- sjg007 6y agoWe could. I mean lead is commonly identified by blood test.