3 ms·

I am genuinely curious about such not-so-infrequent reports of finding metals like arsenic/lead etc in various commonly used items. Are these metals such essent

I am genuinely curious about such not-so-infrequent reports of finding metals like arsenic/lead etc in various commonly used items. Are these metals such essential/common part of modern industrial processing that chances of them being everywhere is inherently higher? If so, is it that much cost prohibitive to change the processing to remove them from the final product? Even if so, how come they haven't been removed due to the massive scaling/improvement of production process that we have witnessed in the last few decades?

ensignavenger 2y ago
I don't know that it is so much these metals being added as part of industrial processes as that these metals are found naturally in the environment in a wide array of common materials. As a result of using these materials in manufacturing, the metals end up in the final product. Test equipment is getting more and more sensitive, and cheaper, so it is getting easier to detect very small amounts of these metals. That doesn't mean they are "safe". It means the metals are pervasive on earth, and as we get better technology, hopefully we can do more to remove them from products where they are a danger.
defrost 2y ago
Finding them isn't the issue, relative levels are. When your instruments can almost count atoms you can find metals and radioisotopes in the purest mountain streams as these literally leach out from the very stuff of mountains.
jdietrich 2y ago
The mean concentration of metals found in this study was 120ng/g, or 0.000012%. That is a very small amount of anything. These metals occur naturally in the environment and are impossible to completely avoid. Organic cotton tampons didn't have significantly different overall levels of metals to non-organic or synthetic tampons, which corresponds with the findings of studies on clothing. Obviously as a society we should avoid releasing heavy metals into the environment, regulators should be vigilant about egregious levels of contamination in products (e.g. lead paint on toys), but as consumers I really don't think there's much point in worrying about it.
- toofy 2y ago
  > Obviously as a society we should avoid releasing heavy metals into the environment, regulators should be vigilant about egregious levels of contamination in products (e.g. lead paint on toys), but as consumers I really don't think there's much point in worrying about it. The catch here is that we know, as in we absolutely know that a non trivial number of manufacturers will definitely without question knowingly and happily release heavy metals and other dangerous substances into the environment and their products if it they get no pushback. The pushback comes directly from consumers actively worrying about it. I definitely agree (if your implication is) that we should not have to worry. I can think of an almost unlimited number of ways our energy could be better spent. But the sad reality is a non trivial number of companies will not do it in their own. We’ve seen this time and time again. Companies as a whole do not self regulate. I think most people here used to hope and argue industries would, but we know with certainty they don’t.

ensignavenger 2y ago

I don't know that it is so much these metals being added as part of industrial processes as that these metals are found naturally in the environment in a wide array of common materials. As a result of using these materials in manufacturing, the metals end up in the final product. Test equipment is getting more and more sensitive, and cheaper, so it is getting easier to detect very small amounts of these metals. That doesn't mean they are "safe". It means the metals are pervasive on earth, and as we get better technology, hopefully we can do more to remove them from products where they are a danger.

defrost 2y ago

Finding them isn't the issue, relative levels are. When your instruments can almost count atoms you can find metals and radioisotopes in the purest mountain streams as these literally leach out from the very stuff of mountains.

jdietrich 2y ago

The mean concentration of metals found in this study was 120ng/g, or 0.000012%. That is a very small amount of anything. These metals occur naturally in the environment and are impossible to completely avoid. Organic cotton tampons didn't have significantly different overall levels of metals to non-organic or synthetic tampons, which corresponds with the findings of studies on clothing. Obviously as a society we should avoid releasing heavy metals into the environment, regulators should be vigilant about egregious levels of contamination in products (e.g. lead paint on toys), but as consumers I really don't think there's much point in worrying about it.

toofy 2y ago
> Obviously as a society we should avoid releasing heavy metals into the environment, regulators should be vigilant about egregious levels of contamination in products (e.g. lead paint on toys), but as consumers I really don't think there's much point in worrying about it. The catch here is that we know, as in we absolutely know that a non trivial number of manufacturers will definitely without question knowingly and happily release heavy metals and other dangerous substances into the environment and their products if it they get no pushback. The pushback comes directly from consumers actively worrying about it. I definitely agree (if your implication is) that we should not have to worry. I can think of an almost unlimited number of ways our energy could be better spent. But the sad reality is a non trivial number of companies will not do it in their own. We’ve seen this time and time again. Companies as a whole do not self regulate. I think most people here used to hope and argue industries would, but we know with certainty they don’t.