4 ms·

I guess my proposal is that new chemicals need to be tested at a 100x dose on 15 different species, up to primate. On lesser species, things such as number of o

I guess my proposal is that new chemicals need to be tested at a 100x dose on 15 different species, up to primate. On lesser species, things such as number of offspring need to be measured (reproductive health seems to be the first to go a lot of times). On primates, we'd look for sperm count relative to a control group (again the first thing to go). If any effect is seen at a 100x dose (of the amount expected to be ingested) the chemical would be dropped.

cogman10 6y ago
IDK, I think disposal and recycling is really where we need to focus. Some chemcials are damn useful while being toxic. I don't think the right thing to do is banning all toxic chemcials because they might cause environmental damage. Instead, let's focus on figuring out safe handling upfront. A good example of this is batteries. Super toxic, super useful.
- doitLP 6y ago
  Damn useful but at what cost? Unfortunately we often don’t know the cost until 10 to 50 years on. It’s impossible to close Pandora’s box once it’s open. Look at DDT https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground... and mercury in the food chain and and and and
  - DennisP 6y ago
    I think GPs point is to keep them contained while in use, with a plan to keep them out of the environment once you're done with them. Batteries are a great example. We really need good battery recycling. We also really need good batteries, since it looks like they'll play a major role in preventing catastrophic global warming.
uoaei 6y ago
Strong acute exposure and slow chronic exposure will show different effects overall. But yours sounds like a decent heuristic as a first pass.
kjs3 6y ago
No. First, what is a 'dose' for a new chemical? Second, there are all sorts of critical things that if you took 100x the recommended dose you would see a significant negative physiological effect. Like salt. Or water. This is a far more nuanced problem that "let's just shoot up some monkeys with a gallon of the stuff and see if their nuts shrivel up". In fact, that sort of reductionist approach is why we have this problem.
- zug_zug 6y ago
  > First, what is a 'dose' for a new chemical? The dose is the amount you expect an animal to ingest in its lifetime. > Second, there are all sorts of critical things that if you took 100x the recommended dose you would see a significant negative physiological effect. Like salt. Or water. Uh, lol, no. 100x and 1000x multiples are standard EPA testing procedure, so you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the EPA, and I'm gonna stick with the EPA on this one. [1] > This is a far more nuanced problem that "let's just shoot up some monkeys with a gallon of the stuff and see if their nuts shrivel up". In fact, that sort of reductionist approach is why we have this problem. That's a disingenuous reading. A 1000x dose of these chemicals would be less than a miligram, which is plenty to do harm. Even lead can do brain damage at the ppm level (some chemicals are even ppb). Don't be too embarrassed by your comment though, we all start somewhere. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_dose
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    Having a 100x multiples for clearance leaves a large safety margin but again take water, 0.5L per day is good, 1L won't kill you but above 8L people have known to die. That's only 16x. People also get get cyanide poisoning from raw almond smoothies, alcohol poisoning from binge drinking and caffeine poisoning at and also less than 100x regular portion. Radiation too, 2-30 is pretty typical and no statistically significant results but bring that to 300 and you get measurable increase in cancer rates.
  - kjs3 6y ago
    Definition of dose (Websters) (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : the measured quantity of a therapeutic agent to be taken at one time b : the quantity of radiation administered or absorbed 2 : a portion of a substance added during a process 3 : an amount of something likened to a prescribed or measured quantity of medicine a daily dose of hard work a dose of scandal 4 : a gonorrheal infection So the common definition isn't the one you are using. But if you pick your own definition, you get to be right. Being able to write with accuracy and precision is hard. Don't be too embarrassed by your comment though, we all start somewhere.

cogman10 6y ago

IDK, I think disposal and recycling is really where we need to focus. Some chemcials are damn useful while being toxic. I don't think the right thing to do is banning all toxic chemcials because they might cause environmental damage. Instead, let's focus on figuring out safe handling upfront. A good example of this is batteries. Super toxic, super useful.

doitLP 6y ago
Damn useful but at what cost? Unfortunately we often don’t know the cost until 10 to 50 years on. It’s impossible to close Pandora’s box once it’s open. Look at DDT https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground... and mercury in the food chain and and and and
- DennisP 6y ago
  I think GPs point is to keep them contained while in use, with a plan to keep them out of the environment once you're done with them. Batteries are a great example. We really need good battery recycling. We also really need good batteries, since it looks like they'll play a major role in preventing catastrophic global warming.

uoaei 6y ago

Strong acute exposure and slow chronic exposure will show different effects overall. But yours sounds like a decent heuristic as a first pass.

kjs3 6y ago

No. First, what is a 'dose' for a new chemical? Second, there are all sorts of critical things that if you took 100x the recommended dose you would see a significant negative physiological effect. Like salt. Or water. This is a far more nuanced problem that "let's just shoot up some monkeys with a gallon of the stuff and see if their nuts shrivel up". In fact, that sort of reductionist approach is why we have this problem.

zug_zug 6y ago
> First, what is a 'dose' for a new chemical? The dose is the amount you expect an animal to ingest in its lifetime. > Second, there are all sorts of critical things that if you took 100x the recommended dose you would see a significant negative physiological effect. Like salt. Or water. Uh, lol, no. 100x and 1000x multiples are standard EPA testing procedure, so you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the EPA, and I'm gonna stick with the EPA on this one. [1] > This is a far more nuanced problem that "let's just shoot up some monkeys with a gallon of the stuff and see if their nuts shrivel up". In fact, that sort of reductionist approach is why we have this problem. That's a disingenuous reading. A 1000x dose of these chemicals would be less than a miligram, which is plenty to do harm. Even lead can do brain damage at the ppm level (some chemicals are even ppb). Don't be too embarrassed by your comment though, we all start somewhere. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_dose
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Having a 100x multiples for clearance leaves a large safety margin but again take water, 0.5L per day is good, 1L won't kill you but above 8L people have known to die. That's only 16x. People also get get cyanide poisoning from raw almond smoothies, alcohol poisoning from binge drinking and caffeine poisoning at and also less than 100x regular portion. Radiation too, 2-30 is pretty typical and no statistically significant results but bring that to 300 and you get measurable increase in cancer rates.
- kjs3 6y ago
  Definition of dose (Websters) (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : the measured quantity of a therapeutic agent to be taken at one time b : the quantity of radiation administered or absorbed 2 : a portion of a substance added during a process 3 : an amount of something likened to a prescribed or measured quantity of medicine a daily dose of hard work a dose of scandal 4 : a gonorrheal infection So the common definition isn't the one you are using. But if you pick your own definition, you get to be right. Being able to write with accuracy and precision is hard. Don't be too embarrassed by your comment though, we all start somewhere.