4 ms·

I wouldn't call myself hopeful or optimistic in this regard. Quite the opposite, actually, I downright despair over the ways we've poisoned ourselves and our e

I wouldn't call myself hopeful or optimistic in this regard. Quite the opposite, actually, I downright despair over the ways we've poisoned ourselves and our environment-- for example, with lead, mercury, asbestos, air pollution, and now PFAS chemicals. However I'm also realistic about evaluating risk, and I have just enough familiarity with the chemistry of everyday life to recognize where there is none. > I choose to take to the overly cautious spectrum, because this is my body and the body of people close to me at stake, and I'd rather avoid unnecessary damage to them. That being the case, I assume you'll be taking some other sensible precautions, which will prevent exposure to substances that are at least as risky as dishwasher detergent: - Cut coffee out of your diet (due to acrylamide, a suspected carcinogen) - Cut all meat out of your diet (especially red meat) - Avoid citrus fruits, mints, and other herbs that contain limonene, which some researcher said causes cancer in rats. - Avoid bread, beer, dried fruits and nuts (acrylamide) - To avoid nitrates, you'll want to avoid high-nitrate foods such as arugula, beets, cabbage, celery, cilantro, endive, fennel, kale, lettuce, parsley, rhubarb, spinach, and many others. Actually, it's probably best to avoid vegetables altogether in the Spring and Summer when nitrate levels tend to be highest. - Avoid cell phones and wifi - And for god's sake, don't smoke anything! This is just the stuff I can think of right now. I'm sure there's a lot more.

forgotmypw17 5y ago
The way I look at it, chemicals which my ancestors have been exposed to for hundreds and thousands of years come with a lower risk than those which have just been synthesized and were not naturally occurring before the last century. And yes, based on watching closely for inflammation effects, I have mostly cut coffee, red meat, processed meat, bread, beer, dried fruit, synthetic nitrates, non-organic produce, cell phones (but not wifi). I do smoke weed occasionally, but I think I take in less smoke than someone living with a campfire, something my ancestors have dealt with on many occasions. I don't think fruits and veggies which have been consumed for centuries and millennia are that dangerous. Generally speaking, I think of bodies as "production environments" with "known good inputs" which have worked in the past, and everything else is basically "testing in production".
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  > The way I look at it, chemicals which my ancestors have been exposed to for hundreds and thousands of years come with a lower risk than those which have just been synthesized and were not naturally occurring before the last century. This clearly isn't true according to the EWG. They want you to believe that the tiny amount of zinc (which is an essential nutrient) that might be present in dishwasher detergent is poisonous enough to slap a big red warning on it. So which is it? > I do smoke weed occasionally... I'm all for cannabis, but I'm confused as to why someone who avoids household cleaning products is willing to put their lungs in such danger. It is well established that even occasional smoking increases your chances of lung and heart disease, and exposes you to a pantheon of toxins, including heavy metals and whatever pesticides are being used by growers in the still poorly regulated cannabis industry. Seriously, whether you smoke or use edibles, you should be growing your own. Pesticides are a problem. > but I think I take in less smoke than someone living with a campfire, something my ancestors have dealt with on many occasions. Yes, and it was killing our ancestors, just as it's killing people now. Smoke pollution is a leading cause of disease, disability, and mortality across the world. It's true that your occasional smoke is probably less damaging than living with an open indoor cooking fire, but it's still doing significant damage, and it's a lot worse for your health than proper use of any cleaning product will ever be. > I don't think fruits and veggies which have been consumed for centuries and millennia are that dangerous. Why not? Why would you discount the danger of highly carcinogenic mycotoxins that have historically contaminated nuts, grains, and dried fruits, especially in the old days before industrial food production, and which likely killed a lot of our ancestors? And more importantly, why would you give more credence to the EWG's idiotic flagging of zinc in a cleaning product? This is a failure of risk evaluation.
- mcswell 5y ago
  John Campbell, the (in)famous editor of Analog Science Fact/ Science Fiction mag in the 50s-60s (and probably some years before and after) had a theory about tobacco smoke and fires. He reasoned that for thousands of years, people had tried to avoid smoke: campfires, chimneys, and so forth. But suddenly they took to one kind of smoke, that from tobacco. Obviously--he reasoned--it must be good for you. I doubt he ever smoked weed.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

The way I look at it, chemicals which my ancestors have been exposed to for hundreds and thousands of years come with a lower risk than those which have just been synthesized and were not naturally occurring before the last century. And yes, based on watching closely for inflammation effects, I have mostly cut coffee, red meat, processed meat, bread, beer, dried fruit, synthetic nitrates, non-organic produce, cell phones (but not wifi). I do smoke weed occasionally, but I think I take in less smoke than someone living with a campfire, something my ancestors have dealt with on many occasions. I don't think fruits and veggies which have been consumed for centuries and millennia are that dangerous. Generally speaking, I think of bodies as "production environments" with "known good inputs" which have worked in the past, and everything else is basically "testing in production".

nate_meurer 5y ago
> The way I look at it, chemicals which my ancestors have been exposed to for hundreds and thousands of years come with a lower risk than those which have just been synthesized and were not naturally occurring before the last century. This clearly isn't true according to the EWG. They want you to believe that the tiny amount of zinc (which is an essential nutrient) that might be present in dishwasher detergent is poisonous enough to slap a big red warning on it. So which is it? > I do smoke weed occasionally... I'm all for cannabis, but I'm confused as to why someone who avoids household cleaning products is willing to put their lungs in such danger. It is well established that even occasional smoking increases your chances of lung and heart disease, and exposes you to a pantheon of toxins, including heavy metals and whatever pesticides are being used by growers in the still poorly regulated cannabis industry. Seriously, whether you smoke or use edibles, you should be growing your own. Pesticides are a problem. > but I think I take in less smoke than someone living with a campfire, something my ancestors have dealt with on many occasions. Yes, and it was killing our ancestors, just as it's killing people now. Smoke pollution is a leading cause of disease, disability, and mortality across the world. It's true that your occasional smoke is probably less damaging than living with an open indoor cooking fire, but it's still doing significant damage, and it's a lot worse for your health than proper use of any cleaning product will ever be. > I don't think fruits and veggies which have been consumed for centuries and millennia are that dangerous. Why not? Why would you discount the danger of highly carcinogenic mycotoxins that have historically contaminated nuts, grains, and dried fruits, especially in the old days before industrial food production, and which likely killed a lot of our ancestors? And more importantly, why would you give more credence to the EWG's idiotic flagging of zinc in a cleaning product? This is a failure of risk evaluation.
mcswell 5y ago
John Campbell, the (in)famous editor of Analog Science Fact/ Science Fiction mag in the 50s-60s (and probably some years before and after) had a theory about tobacco smoke and fires. He reasoned that for thousands of years, people had tried to avoid smoke: campfires, chimneys, and so forth. But suddenly they took to one kind of smoke, that from tobacco. Obviously--he reasoned--it must be good for you. I doubt he ever smoked weed.