4 ms·
> my maximum daily exposure to ingested flame retardants should be zero What does this even mean? You refuse to eat anything that could possibly put out of a f
by pessimizer 2y ago
> my maximum daily exposure to ingested flame retardants should be zero
What does this even mean? You refuse to eat anything that could possibly put out of a fire, or if included within anything else, could slow down the progress of fire when that thing burns?
I don't understand taking pride in irrationality. If you have some evidence (or even some reasonable suspicion) that the specific chemical could be harmful in the amount that you consume it, avoid it. It's weird for me to brag that I'd avoid something despite any evidence, because somebody mentioned it once and I refuse to let it go. What if what you replace it with causes cancer, but has no effect on fires?
- whatshisface 2y agoThey obviously meant halogenated, dangerous flame retardants, which are approved for use in consumer electronics but not utensils, not water... If there was a thread on the respiratory hazards of airborne micron-sized particles, I guarantee that someone in the comments section would say "I can't believe these unscientific yokels are afraid of clouds."
- Dylan16807 2y ago"Dangerous" depends on dose, and zero is impossible. If someone has a plan to inhale no micron-sized particles, their plan will not work.
- whatshisface 2y agoWhen people say "zero" they mean "negligible," because a negligible deviation for zero is negligible. :-)
- Dylan16807 2y agoWell if that's the plan, distinguishing actual zero from negligible, step one is figuring out whether the leeching from the existing products is negligible or not. No assuming that non-zero presence means much.
- raydiak 2y agoSo, taking some simple measures to reduce the amount of scientifically proven harmful synthetic chemicals a person puts in their mouth...is unscientific because you want to quibble about the statistical precision of the wording of a conversational comment. The American FDA says "it's not enough to worry about, trust us" while Americans now ingest up to a shopping bag worth of plastic each month, companies like Dow and DuPont spend literal millions per year lobbying, and the multi-trillion-dollar healthcare industry controls a double-digit percentage of the American economy and labor force. This must be the kind of thinking which results from excessive consumption of flame retardants and Brawndo.
- Dylan16807 2y agoI didn't say that, thanks for asking. I just think that going for "zero" is usually a flawed plan. Things are tradeoffs and decisions should recognize that. Everything is toxic in different ways. Some options are clearly better than others, but the analysis needs more effort than looking at a single number.
- raydiak 2y agoActually I think going for zero would be an admirable goal here, if pursued in a healthy balance stopping short of obsessive phobia-driven mania. But that aside, nobody is denying that there are other sources of various harmful substances besides kitchen utensils. In no way, shape, or form does that invalidate the perfectly logical sentiment of "I wish I could have zero synthetic plastics and flame retardants entering my body so I at least stopped putting plastic utensils in my mouth and food." You do not need more studies, measurements, thresholds, comparison of relative contribution of various sources, or a feasibility analysis of sealing yourself in a giant glass terrarium to justify every word of that basic sentiment including "zero."
- Dylan16807 2y agoStopping a single source is not going to stop you from ingesting synthetic plastics and flame retardants. And you need to replace the utensils with something else, the cost of which might be worse in not only money but possibly health too, if you make a snap decision based on a single factor instead of the entire picture. And sometimes the exposure already is effectively zero, making any action at all a waste of time. I don't know if this case is safe or not, but acting based on a single variable is a bad idea, especially without keeping reasonable expectations at the forefront.
- rthomas6 2y agoIt's not irrational to avoid exposure to unknown or poorly studied chemicals. Avoiding something for which one has no evidence in either direction is a good risk avoidance strategy. In general, when it comes to my body, I prefer a whitelist vs a blacklist approach.
- tantalor 2y agoIt is rational (you have a cogent reason for doing do) but the reasoning is specious, because you are singling out one specific thing to avoid. If you listed all such substances fitting the criteria "unknown or poorly studied" then you would have to live in a bubble to avoid them all.
- porridgeraisin 2y agoThe point is to single out and avoid whatever is realistically possible, for you. Like you said, you would have to live in a bubble to avoid them all!
- Dylan16807 2y agoThe goal should be to single out and avoid the most damaging ones, not an effectively random bunch because they were in the news.
- arcticbull 2y ago> What does this even mean? You refuse to eat anything that could possibly put out of a fire, or if included within anything else, could slow down the progress of fire when that thing burns? Brominated flame retardants. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers were called out in the study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers
- croes 2y agoHow much of the limit would you eat? Is 99% okay, or 80%, or 10%? Especially when the intake could easily be avoided by not using recycled electronic‘s enclosures. How much risk are you willing to take for a company‘s profit?