6 ms·

Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure. Also EPA limits can often, due to industry pressure, be set way too high. So better be

Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure. Also EPA limits can often, due to industry pressure, be set way too high. So better be save and throw away that spatula, which actually this article also reiterates. ==== From the article: “However, it is important to note that this does not impact our results,” Liu told National Post. “The levels of flame retardants that we found in black plastic household items are still of high concern, and our recommendations remain the same.” So if you’re keen on eliminating these chemicals in any amount, chucking the black plastic kitchenware is a start, even if not as effective as the erroneous calculation suggests.

gruez 2y ago
>Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure. What's the basis for this conclusion, aside from taking the original study's author statements at face value? Someone else replied to the study[1] and characterized it as >Based on a worst-case scenario, you may be getting nanograms (billionths of a gram) of bromine or lead from your spatula, which is lower than the amount that you get from eating fresh fruit I did a quick skim of the atlantic article[2] and noticed that mentions of exposure thresholds were strangely absent, despite the pains they took to mention how those toxic substances were in the plastics, and how they caused harm. [1] https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl=en https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-plastic-spatula-flame-retardants/680452/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-pla...
- patrickhogan1 2y ago
  That’s if you limit the comparison to just Bromine. You are ingesting recycled plastic from TVs and Tires, which also contains; Phthalates, Bisphenols, Polyvinyl Chloride, Styrene, PFAS, and several other chemicals shown to cause cancer or have an unlinked but possible cause of cancer (we don’t know yet but there are alternative utensils not made of black plastic that we do know that don’t have the big ?)
  - gruez 2y ago
    >which also contains; Phthalates, Bisphenols, Polyvinyl Chloride, Styrene, PFAS, and several other chemicals shown to cause cancer or have an unlinked but possible cause of cancer (we don’t know yet but there are alternative utensils not made of black plastic that we do know that don’t have the big ?) You're probably ingesting all of that on a daily basis already, even without black utensils. Without a sense of scale, it's impossible to make a rational determination on what to do next. PFAS is in tap water as well. Should you stop drinking water?
    - patrickhogan1 2y ago
      You’re right that many of these chemicals are already present in our daily environment. But that doesn’t mean every source of exposure is equivalent or that we should stop caring about reducing it where we can. Think of it this way: if you know you’re going to be exposed to some harmful substances, it still makes sense to lower your overall intake whenever possible. It’s not about achieving total elimination, which might be impossible, but about minimizing unnecessary risks. Eliminating known sources of contamination by (1) using safer utensils or (2) using water filters are straightforward steps that decrease the amount of these harmful chemicals you consume. Even if we can’t quantify the exact benefit to the last decimal place, making such changes generally comes at low cost and might offer meaningful advantages over time. Why not err on the side of caution when the trade-offs are so small and the potential health benefits may be substantial?
      - tedunangst 2y ago
        Because there are literally thousands of risk reducing actions I can take, and I'd like to have something of a life in between taking them.
        patrickhogan1 2y ago
        That makes complete sense. For me, the time investment is totally neutral. I would buy a water filter anyway to mitigate other harms. Using stainless steel utensils vs plastic ones doesn't cost me any time at all. So I have risk reduced with 0 time investment.
burnte 2y ago
> Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure. Source, please. Drinking one gallon of water a day is perfectly safe. Drinking 10 is not. 500 mg of acetaminophen is fine, 5 grams is not. 2 beers is reasonable, 20 is not. Factors of ten are pretty large safety margins.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  The thing off by a factor of 10 here was not the level of the chemical, it was the calculation of the recommended safety level. Also, different substances follow different safety curves. A 10x difference in acetaminophen takes you from very safe to very dangerous. A 10x difference in lead takes you from less dangerous to more dangerous; there isn't a "safe" dosage of lead.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    How do we know for certain that acetamminophen in even a tiny dosage is ‘very safe’? e.g. There could be some effect via a delayed chain reaction process that takes decade to accumulate to be noticeable...
    - margalabargala 2y ago
      Compared to lead? Decades and decades of extensive, high quality research. Low quantities of lead have exactly the long term low-dose exposure effects you describe. They have been identified.
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Yes, so how is the same for acetamminophen known to be roughly zero?
        margalabargala 2y ago
        Via extensive research and double-blind studies. There are thousands of articles showing levels of acetaminophen that do, and do not, cause hepatotoxicity. Here are all of them: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=acetaminophen https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=ace... This isn't new, here's an article from a half century ago discussing exactly this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry-Rumack/publication/22020528_Acetaminophen_Poisoning_and_Toxicity/links/0deec526ed7ec38793000000/Acetaminophen-Poisoning-and-Toxicity.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry-Rumack/publicatio...
causi 2y ago
"The fuckup in the paper doesn't mean the paper is wrong, according to the person who fucked up the paper."
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Agree. Why take on Decabromodiphenyl ether at all? If a black spatula puts me at 12% of the EPA's reference dose I'd rather not.
ncr100 2y ago
Boiling your plastic in oil for 15 minutes is a required step to extract the 10x less amount, from contaminated plastics.

gruez 2y ago

>Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure. What's the basis for this conclusion, aside from taking the original study's author statements at face value? Someone else replied to the study[1] and characterized it as >Based on a worst-case scenario, you may be getting nanograms (billionths of a gram) of bromine or lead from your spatula, which is lower than the amount that you get from eating fresh fruit I did a quick skim of the atlantic article[2] and noticed that mentions of exposure thresholds were strangely absent, despite the pains they took to mention how those toxic substances were in the plastics, and how they caused harm. [1] https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl=en https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-plastic-spatula-flame-retardants/680452/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-pla...

patrickhogan1 2y ago
That’s if you limit the comparison to just Bromine. You are ingesting recycled plastic from TVs and Tires, which also contains; Phthalates, Bisphenols, Polyvinyl Chloride, Styrene, PFAS, and several other chemicals shown to cause cancer or have an unlinked but possible cause of cancer (we don’t know yet but there are alternative utensils not made of black plastic that we do know that don’t have the big ?)
- gruez 2y ago
  >which also contains; Phthalates, Bisphenols, Polyvinyl Chloride, Styrene, PFAS, and several other chemicals shown to cause cancer or have an unlinked but possible cause of cancer (we don’t know yet but there are alternative utensils not made of black plastic that we do know that don’t have the big ?) You're probably ingesting all of that on a daily basis already, even without black utensils. Without a sense of scale, it's impossible to make a rational determination on what to do next. PFAS is in tap water as well. Should you stop drinking water?
  - patrickhogan1 2y ago
    You’re right that many of these chemicals are already present in our daily environment. But that doesn’t mean every source of exposure is equivalent or that we should stop caring about reducing it where we can. Think of it this way: if you know you’re going to be exposed to some harmful substances, it still makes sense to lower your overall intake whenever possible. It’s not about achieving total elimination, which might be impossible, but about minimizing unnecessary risks. Eliminating known sources of contamination by (1) using safer utensils or (2) using water filters are straightforward steps that decrease the amount of these harmful chemicals you consume. Even if we can’t quantify the exact benefit to the last decimal place, making such changes generally comes at low cost and might offer meaningful advantages over time. Why not err on the side of caution when the trade-offs are so small and the potential health benefits may be substantial?
    - tedunangst 2y ago
      Because there are literally thousands of risk reducing actions I can take, and I'd like to have something of a life in between taking them.
      - patrickhogan1 2y ago
        That makes complete sense. For me, the time investment is totally neutral. I would buy a water filter anyway to mitigate other harms. Using stainless steel utensils vs plastic ones doesn't cost me any time at all. So I have risk reduced with 0 time investment.

burnte 2y ago

> Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure. Source, please. Drinking one gallon of water a day is perfectly safe. Drinking 10 is not. 500 mg of acetaminophen is fine, 5 grams is not. 2 beers is reasonable, 20 is not. Factors of ten are pretty large safety margins.

margalabargala 2y ago
The thing off by a factor of 10 here was not the level of the chemical, it was the calculation of the recommended safety level. Also, different substances follow different safety curves. A 10x difference in acetaminophen takes you from very safe to very dangerous. A 10x difference in lead takes you from less dangerous to more dangerous; there isn't a "safe" dosage of lead.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  How do we know for certain that acetamminophen in even a tiny dosage is ‘very safe’? e.g. There could be some effect via a delayed chain reaction process that takes decade to accumulate to be noticeable...
  - margalabargala 2y ago
    Compared to lead? Decades and decades of extensive, high quality research. Low quantities of lead have exactly the long term low-dose exposure effects you describe. They have been identified.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Yes, so how is the same for acetamminophen known to be roughly zero?
      - margalabargala 2y ago
        Via extensive research and double-blind studies. There are thousands of articles showing levels of acetaminophen that do, and do not, cause hepatotoxicity. Here are all of them: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=acetaminophen https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=ace... This isn't new, here's an article from a half century ago discussing exactly this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry-Rumack/publication/22020528_Acetaminophen_Poisoning_and_Toxicity/links/0deec526ed7ec38793000000/Acetaminophen-Poisoning-and-Toxicity.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry-Rumack/publicatio...

causi 2y ago

"The fuckup in the paper doesn't mean the paper is wrong, according to the person who fucked up the paper."

JKCalhoun 2y ago

Agree. Why take on Decabromodiphenyl ether at all? If a black spatula puts me at 12% of the EPA's reference dose I'd rather not.

ncr100 2y ago

Boiling your plastic in oil for 15 minutes is a required step to extract the 10x less amount, from contaminated plastics.