5 ms·

It's not a hoax, though. Vaccines causing autism was. While the level of the carcinogen wasn't what they thought it was, it's still significantly higher than th

It's not a hoax, though. Vaccines causing autism was. While the level of the carcinogen wasn't what they thought it was, it's still significantly higher than the 0 that it should be, because the only reason it's there at all is because the companies are recycling plastic from electronics. I think that the researchers saying it doesn't change their conclusion is reasonable. If you had told me that Cocoa Krispies were 50% rat feces, but then came back and said you'd made a mistake and was off by an order of magnitude, it's only 5%, I think it would be pretty reasonable to not update your conclusion that Cocoa Krispies were significantly contaminated with rat feces.

pfdietz 2y ago
> the carcinogen I love how threat inflation turns chemicals from innocuous to deadly in the absence of any strong evidence. No, we cannot say this chemical is a carcinogen. Read the wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether > In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. DecaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."
- zug_zug 2y ago
  EPA safe guidelines are changed all the time often by much more than 1 order of magnitude. E.G. lead has gone from .5ppm being safe (1995) to 20 ppb (2023). If you adopted a life strategy of "only avoid things after scientists have conclusive evidence it's dangerous for you" then you'd have unnecessarily ingested hundreds of various poisons over the last 100 years.
  - 6510 2y ago
    That people with Alzheimer's cook in aluminum doesn't prove causation. 2024 https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzheimers/ https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzh... > This research has shown higher aluminium levels in the brain and the fluids that bathe the brain in people with Alzheimer’s when compared to healthy individuals. But just spotting higher levels doesn’t mean they are a cause of the disease. > [...] most scientists think that aluminium build-up in the brain is more likely to be a consequence of Alzheimer’s disease rather than a cause. Ah yes, the "most scientists" card. "more likely" is also hilarious! Most doctors are more likely to smoke camel. 2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/ > The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD. The science folk need an entirely different level of evidence than I do.
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    Sure, you can avoid it if you don't trust it. But you can't claim that it is something that it has not been proven to be. Don't falsify reality even if you have good intentions.
- VoodooJuJu 2y ago
  In the absence of any strong evidence, a wise man would be well-served in treating the ingestion of a novel chemical as deadly. No, the wise man doesn't have strong evidence to the contrary. And no, he's not interested in finding out either. The consequences of ingesting a novel non-Lindy chemical is an unknown unknown that the wise man is not interested in discovering. Of course, if the potential upsides are great enough, the risk of downsides might be worthwhile. In the case of the chemical spatula, the downsides are uncertain, but there's the possibility of cancer. The upsides are...greater corporate profits? The wise man is going to have to pass on that one. Moderns would do well to try and be more like the wise man. Scientific studies are not the holy grail of knowledge. New studies are coming out all the time, both negating and reaffirming old conclusions. Is this schizophrenic flip-flopping not enough to convince the modern that Scientism isn't the end-all-be-all? Unknown unknowns emerge at the tails of novel changes introduced to complex systems. Scientific studies are unable to account for these long-tail events. When it comes to your environment and your body, be more Lindy, and stop deferring to the myopicity of Scientism to guide you. >Eat no fruits from the past one thousand years; drink nothing from the past four thousand years.
  - bigmadshoe 2y ago
    I was with you until the quote at the end. What does that even mean?
    - VoodooJuJu 2y ago
      It's an aphorism suggesting the importance of the Lindy effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect The longer something has been around, the longer it will continue to be around. The longevity of something also validates its efficacy and resiliency. If people have been eating figs and drinking wine for thousands of years, then it's probably good and safe for you to do as well. If traditional salad recipes avoid the use of conium maculatum, then you should probably avoid it too. If your ancient ancestors didn't cook with margarine, then you probably shouldn't cook with it either.
      - 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago

> the carcinogen I love how threat inflation turns chemicals from innocuous to deadly in the absence of any strong evidence. No, we cannot say this chemical is a carcinogen. Read the wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether > In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. DecaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."

zug_zug 2y ago
EPA safe guidelines are changed all the time often by much more than 1 order of magnitude. E.G. lead has gone from .5ppm being safe (1995) to 20 ppb (2023). If you adopted a life strategy of "only avoid things after scientists have conclusive evidence it's dangerous for you" then you'd have unnecessarily ingested hundreds of various poisons over the last 100 years.
- 6510 2y ago
  That people with Alzheimer's cook in aluminum doesn't prove causation. 2024 https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzheimers/ https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzh... > This research has shown higher aluminium levels in the brain and the fluids that bathe the brain in people with Alzheimer’s when compared to healthy individuals. But just spotting higher levels doesn’t mean they are a cause of the disease. > [...] most scientists think that aluminium build-up in the brain is more likely to be a consequence of Alzheimer’s disease rather than a cause. Ah yes, the "most scientists" card. "more likely" is also hilarious! Most doctors are more likely to smoke camel. 2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/ > The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD. The science folk need an entirely different level of evidence than I do.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  Sure, you can avoid it if you don't trust it. But you can't claim that it is something that it has not been proven to be. Don't falsify reality even if you have good intentions.
VoodooJuJu 2y ago
In the absence of any strong evidence, a wise man would be well-served in treating the ingestion of a novel chemical as deadly. No, the wise man doesn't have strong evidence to the contrary. And no, he's not interested in finding out either. The consequences of ingesting a novel non-Lindy chemical is an unknown unknown that the wise man is not interested in discovering. Of course, if the potential upsides are great enough, the risk of downsides might be worthwhile. In the case of the chemical spatula, the downsides are uncertain, but there's the possibility of cancer. The upsides are...greater corporate profits? The wise man is going to have to pass on that one. Moderns would do well to try and be more like the wise man. Scientific studies are not the holy grail of knowledge. New studies are coming out all the time, both negating and reaffirming old conclusions. Is this schizophrenic flip-flopping not enough to convince the modern that Scientism isn't the end-all-be-all? Unknown unknowns emerge at the tails of novel changes introduced to complex systems. Scientific studies are unable to account for these long-tail events. When it comes to your environment and your body, be more Lindy, and stop deferring to the myopicity of Scientism to guide you. >Eat no fruits from the past one thousand years; drink nothing from the past four thousand years.
- bigmadshoe 2y ago
  I was with you until the quote at the end. What does that even mean?
  - VoodooJuJu 2y ago
    It's an aphorism suggesting the importance of the Lindy effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect The longer something has been around, the longer it will continue to be around. The longevity of something also validates its efficacy and resiliency. If people have been eating figs and drinking wine for thousands of years, then it's probably good and safe for you to do as well. If traditional salad recipes avoid the use of conium maculatum, then you should probably avoid it too. If your ancient ancestors didn't cook with margarine, then you probably shouldn't cook with it either.
    - 2y ago