3 ms·

I already addressed your first sentence in my previous comment. Nobody suggested that replacing your utensils would reduce your intake to zero. That does not in

I already addressed your first sentence in my previous comment. Nobody suggested that replacing your utensils would reduce your intake to zero. That does not invalidate wishing for zero and doing what you can to move in that direction. If you can't afford wooden sauce spoons, a material which the human body evolved in close contact with, naturally disinfects itself for years or decades after the tree is felled, and is extremely affordable to the point that you can find endless amounts of it for free on craigslist, then you sure as heck can't afford the cancer treatments you're risking with the synthetic stuff. The exposure is effectively zero...when? Wasn't your whole original argument the exact opposite? That exposure is never precisely zero? Dividing the numbers in the study by ten does not make any of them zero. Acting on limited data is often much more advantageous than not acting on available data.

Dylan16807 2y ago
> Nobody suggested that replacing your utensils would reduce your intake to zero. That does not invalidate wishing for zero and doing what you can to move in that direction. What I'm saying is, you should make sure you're actually moving a meaningful amount. And you can't assume wooden is better when it's still coming from a big factory. > The exposure is effectively zero...when? It depends on what chemical you're looking for and where you're looking. It's a pretty generic statement, it's not just about utensils. > Wasn't your whole original argument the exact opposite? That exposure is never precisely zero? Dividing the numbers in the study by ten does not make any of them zero. There is a point where the effect is zero, but you're never going to reach actual zero. Your goal should be the former, not the latter. And sometimes you don't need to do anything to reach the former. In that situation, replacing products just hurts you by wasting time and money (and less time and money will increase stress which is bad for your health). So no, my argument has not changed. > Acting on limited data is often much more advantageous than not acting on available data. Sure, I agree. But have a realistic idea of the impacts and risks before acting.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> Nobody suggested that replacing your utensils would reduce your intake to zero. That does not invalidate wishing for zero and doing what you can to move in that direction. What I'm saying is, you should make sure you're actually moving a meaningful amount. And you can't assume wooden is better when it's still coming from a big factory. > The exposure is effectively zero...when? It depends on what chemical you're looking for and where you're looking. It's a pretty generic statement, it's not just about utensils. > Wasn't your whole original argument the exact opposite? That exposure is never precisely zero? Dividing the numbers in the study by ten does not make any of them zero. There is a point where the effect is zero, but you're never going to reach actual zero. Your goal should be the former, not the latter. And sometimes you don't need to do anything to reach the former. In that situation, replacing products just hurts you by wasting time and money (and less time and money will increase stress which is bad for your health). So no, my argument has not changed. > Acting on limited data is often much more advantageous than not acting on available data. Sure, I agree. But have a realistic idea of the impacts and risks before acting.