3 ms·

“According to the study, average arsenic and cadmium concentrations were nearly twice as high in imported rice compared to Haitian-grown product, with some impo

“According to the study, average arsenic and cadmium concentrations were nearly twice as high in imported rice compared to Haitian-grown product, with some imported samples exceeding international limits.” I’m a biologist. I worry about these differences. Many things we measure in our bodies are reported in “fold change”, we plot things on logarithmic scales, things go 10x, 100x before we call them “active”. The same happened in my house, I had the lead contenting of the drinking water measured. It was 1.5 (something) - in the green. A fried does it: 2.7, orange. He is recommended to flush his pipes at the start of each day. I just can’t help but feel very weird about these very small differences between “safe” and “alarming”. How about you all?

bboygravity 3y ago
Depends on what the (something) is.
- teekert 3y ago
  I can look it up (ug/L or something). But my whole point is about the factors. Super low concentrations and then a factor 2 is from safe to alarming? I almost don’t buy it.
  - washadjeffmad 3y ago
    Just consider restricted media. Below a threshold, different things happen due to rates of metabolism, preferential uptake, etc. And this isn't to convince you that your water is "safe", but lead is excreted up to a threshold, and beyond that, it can begin to accumulate in bones and teeth, which is a rate. If yours is below the amount you're likely to consume over the given period that accumulation is likely to occur, then guidance says you should try to reduce it somehow to minimize the probability of long term health effects. I don't think either of you are at risk for acute toxicity from your water levels, so you could think of it like calories; you're fine with your current caloric intake, but should you double it? Diet lead, that classic taste.
refurb 3y ago
Well your a trained scientist (as am I) so you actually have an understanding of biological systems that other people don't. I agree that the EPA or FDA cutoffs give a false sense of risk. If an acceptable limit is set at 50 ppm, then 49 ppm will pass and 51 ppm will fail. The actual biological impact between the two? Impossible to measure. Hell, the instruments and sampling technique used in testing likely have an accuracy of +/- several ppm.

bboygravity 3y ago

Depends on what the (something) is.

teekert 3y ago
I can look it up (ug/L or something). But my whole point is about the factors. Super low concentrations and then a factor 2 is from safe to alarming? I almost don’t buy it.
- washadjeffmad 3y ago
  Just consider restricted media. Below a threshold, different things happen due to rates of metabolism, preferential uptake, etc. And this isn't to convince you that your water is "safe", but lead is excreted up to a threshold, and beyond that, it can begin to accumulate in bones and teeth, which is a rate. If yours is below the amount you're likely to consume over the given period that accumulation is likely to occur, then guidance says you should try to reduce it somehow to minimize the probability of long term health effects. I don't think either of you are at risk for acute toxicity from your water levels, so you could think of it like calories; you're fine with your current caloric intake, but should you double it? Diet lead, that classic taste.

refurb 3y ago

Well your a trained scientist (as am I) so you actually have an understanding of biological systems that other people don't. I agree that the EPA or FDA cutoffs give a false sense of risk. If an acceptable limit is set at 50 ppm, then 49 ppm will pass and 51 ppm will fail. The actual biological impact between the two? Impossible to measure. Hell, the instruments and sampling technique used in testing likely have an accuracy of +/- several ppm.