4 ms·

The dose makes the poison[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

by User23 5y ago

hinkley 5y ago
That model is not accurate as BPA has illustrated.
- cybernautique 5y ago
  Is that in regards to this thread[1]? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500508
- User23 5y ago
  It’s true that sometimes the toxic dose is tiny, like for example dimethylmercury. I don’t see how that invalidates the principle though. As a precautionary measure though I do agree with avoiding BPA among other things.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
    I think the exceptions to the rule are substances that aren’t eliminated by the body: small, “harmless”, doses can then accumulate with chronic exposure into a dangerous dose.
    - AstralStorm 5y ago
      Not just that, but anything that is persistent in the environment and readily absorbable fits the bill. It so happens that BPA and pthalates as part of the plastics made with these substances are persistent - they contain a high total and release the dosage extremely slowly into the environment. A good example for that is also a slow toxic spill (of e.g. azo dyes) from a factory giving many bladder cancer. (See Pakistan.) The release is persistent due to persistent manufacture of clothing using the toxic substance. Chronic exposures have a way of overwhelming or slipping by our internal detoxification - even though single dosage may be low and substance might not bioaccumulate, the damage does or probabilities get skewed towards certainty.
      - dotancohen 5y ago
        > a slow toxic spill (of e.g. azo dyes) from a factory giving many bladder cancer. It should be noted in context that azo dyes are what the general public call "food colourings", at least the common, bright, inexpensive food colourings. And their accumulation in the body cause other types of damage as well, which is why there is no safe dose.
  - hinkley 5y ago
    I didn't say it invalidated the model. All models are wrong, some are useful. But what we've discovered is classes of chemicals that cause more damage at small doses, because they interfere with subtler communication pathways in the body such as hormones, and those effects diminish at higher accumulations. There are other categories, like 'no dose is safe', which GP is implying may be the case for this compound, in which case 'the dose is the poison' is a divide by zero error. You can't assume that the model works just because it worked (or we ignored the data that didn't fit the model) for 450 years. But the original quote is: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison." In the full quote it's clear we aren't talking about pesticides or arsenic. You can poison yourself with enough iron, or vitamin E. Somewhere along the way it became about how much perchlorate you can have in water before half the fish die.
    - User23 5y ago
      > But what we've discovered is classes of chemicals that cause more damage at small doses That's fascinating. Would you please give an example of a chemical whose toxicity decreases with increased dosage? > In the full quote it's clear we aren't talking about pesticides or arsenic. "All things" makes it pretty clear what we're talking about. I feel comfortable asserting that both pesticides and arsenic are members of the set of all things, along with vitamins, iron, and perchlorates. I think one might go so far as to say that an organism can be poisoned by any substance its body is capable of absorbing in sufficient quantity. Water poisoning is a fun example. Despite our bodies largely being composed of it, ingest too much and your cells swell up to the point it can cause brain failure. Even the non-reactive noble gasses can cause narcotic effects.

The dose makes the poison[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

by User23 5y ago

The dose makes the poison[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

hinkley 5y ago

That model is not accurate as BPA has illustrated.

cybernautique 5y ago
Is that in regards to this thread[1]? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500508
User23 5y ago
It’s true that sometimes the toxic dose is tiny, like for example dimethylmercury. I don’t see how that invalidates the principle though. As a precautionary measure though I do agree with avoiding BPA among other things.
- fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
  I think the exceptions to the rule are substances that aren’t eliminated by the body: small, “harmless”, doses can then accumulate with chronic exposure into a dangerous dose.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    Not just that, but anything that is persistent in the environment and readily absorbable fits the bill. It so happens that BPA and pthalates as part of the plastics made with these substances are persistent - they contain a high total and release the dosage extremely slowly into the environment. A good example for that is also a slow toxic spill (of e.g. azo dyes) from a factory giving many bladder cancer. (See Pakistan.) The release is persistent due to persistent manufacture of clothing using the toxic substance. Chronic exposures have a way of overwhelming or slipping by our internal detoxification - even though single dosage may be low and substance might not bioaccumulate, the damage does or probabilities get skewed towards certainty.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      > a slow toxic spill (of e.g. azo dyes) from a factory giving many bladder cancer. It should be noted in context that azo dyes are what the general public call "food colourings", at least the common, bright, inexpensive food colourings. And their accumulation in the body cause other types of damage as well, which is why there is no safe dose.
- hinkley 5y ago
  I didn't say it invalidated the model. All models are wrong, some are useful. But what we've discovered is classes of chemicals that cause more damage at small doses, because they interfere with subtler communication pathways in the body such as hormones, and those effects diminish at higher accumulations. There are other categories, like 'no dose is safe', which GP is implying may be the case for this compound, in which case 'the dose is the poison' is a divide by zero error. You can't assume that the model works just because it worked (or we ignored the data that didn't fit the model) for 450 years. But the original quote is: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison." In the full quote it's clear we aren't talking about pesticides or arsenic. You can poison yourself with enough iron, or vitamin E. Somewhere along the way it became about how much perchlorate you can have in water before half the fish die.
  - User23 5y ago
    > But what we've discovered is classes of chemicals that cause more damage at small doses That's fascinating. Would you please give an example of a chemical whose toxicity decreases with increased dosage? > In the full quote it's clear we aren't talking about pesticides or arsenic. "All things" makes it pretty clear what we're talking about. I feel comfortable asserting that both pesticides and arsenic are members of the set of all things, along with vitamins, iron, and perchlorates. I think one might go so far as to say that an organism can be poisoned by any substance its body is capable of absorbing in sufficient quantity. Water poisoning is a fun example. Despite our bodies largely being composed of it, ingest too much and your cells swell up to the point it can cause brain failure. Even the non-reactive noble gasses can cause narcotic effects.