4 ms·
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
by 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 agoBecause 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 agoThat 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.
- lazide 2y agoStainless steel, aluminum, and brass includes lead, chromium, nickel, etc. at far higher concentrations. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00686-7#ref-CR1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00686-7#ref-CR1] At least most stainless steel has low leachate levels, it seems like cheap/scrap stainless steel is the biggest offender.
- autoexec 2y agoIn terms of cooking utensils silicone or bamboo might be a better choice than stainless steel. I don't think I've ever seen brass cooking stuff. I've often seen brass bowls with stickers warning that they aren't food safe.
- throwup238 2y ago> I've often seen brass bowls with stickers warning that they aren't food safe. That’s mostly because acidic foods will accelerate corrosion and the patina forms a bunch of tough to clean nooks and crannies for bacteria to fester. It’s more about the risk of food poisoning than anything leaching into food (although zinc can leach into food from brass).
- lazide 2y agoMost brass has lead in it to aid machining, forming, and casting. Even ‘low’ or ‘no’ lead brass has some usually.
- patrickhogan1 2y agoThank you for sharing that information about aluminum and brass cookware; I wasn’t aware of those details before. The study you referenced does confirm the findings for aluminum and brass, but it also notes that no stainless steel cookware tested released enough lead to exceed childhood or adult Interim Reference Levels (IRLs). The testing involved placing vinegar—an acidic substance—and leaving it there for 24 hours, yet even under these conditions, stainless steel did not surpass IRL thresholds for lead. I think what you are saying here is that avoidance of lead even below threshold is important and that plastic or silicone could have even lower amounts of lead in it. Which is fair and I think important to realize there is no perfect answer here.