4 ms·
A lot of the research is entirely unnecessary. We know cadmium is biologically unnecessary. While it is important to quantify safe doses to understand the impac
by CaptainNegative 4y ago
A lot of the research is entirely unnecessary. We know cadmium is biologically unnecessary. While it is important to quantify safe doses to understand the impact of pollution, getting the precise LD50 of it across various species does little to improve health outcomes.
We already know that dosages above 10 micrograms/kg of body weight is carcinogenic and should be avoided, so establishing where in the 100,000-300,000 microgram/kg range the LD50 resides does nothing for us.
- jmcmaster 4y agoThe best LD50 story I've heard was an Agriculture Canada scientist working on biocontrols for pests (think natural pathogenic organisms like fungi or bacteria to control weeds instead of chemical pesticide). Policy and commercialization required an LD50 for a bacterium they were working with. It is nontoxic; the lab calculated the volume of bacterial solution at commercial application strength that it would take for a rat to drown (but obviously did not harm any animals). Sometimes regulatory compliance needs creativity. Unfortunate that not all labs are able to work similarly, especially as you say for doses where we already know harmful levels and LD50 is a bureaucratic requirement or an easy paper.
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoI'm already imagining the vapid "400x the LD50" comments that the usual scumbags will be typing when someone somewhere falls into a tank of it and drowns...