4 ms·
I don't like this headline that implies something but doesn't say any thing. So? What if anything are the implications on people? I skimmed the article and didn
by andy99 1y ago
I don't like this headline that implies something but doesn't say any thing. So? What if anything are the implications on people? I skimmed the article and didn't see anything about that. It sounds bad, any "toxic levels" sound bad, but is it?
- redczar 1y agoShouldn’t it be assumed that toxic is bad? We’ve polluted the whole planet. Our trajectory has obvious long term negative consequences. Are we going to say to each piece of evidence, “Is it really that bad?”.
- Edd314159 1y agoSure, "toxic" is word that means bad things. But I don't think you read the article. It only talks about the levels in the soil. It says nothing about what impact this has on the food we eat from that soil (in fact it explicitly states that the level in food was not measured). It also doesn't quite agree with your use of the word "we". The article does not conclude whether the elevated levels of metals were down to natural processes or humans (e.g. it suggests that weathering could be at least a contributing factor). I get what you're saying, if someone says something is "toxic", it means something somewhere is at a level which is dangerous in some context. But the original comment on what the article itself is saying is not wrong. There is no information on real-world implications.
- redczar 1y agoI did read the article. It’s always the same response: “Can you show this is bad?”, where this is microplastics, metals in the soil, forever chemicals, etc. At some point we will we get to the stage where the standard response is, “Yes it’s bad but there’s nothing we can do about it.”
- hilbert42 1y ago"It also doesn't quite agree with your use of the word "we". The article does not conclude whether the elevated levels of metals were down to natural processes or humans…" That point is key from the perspective that natural levels of dangerous metals act as a reference for comparison. That said, science tells us that some elements are both toxic and carcinogenic and that humans have contributed to their increased levels in the environment is not in any doubt. The dangers heavy metals from anthropogenic sources pose to human health depends on many factors, location, concentration, dispersabity, etc. The point the article makes about "chromium (in its highly toxic hexavalent form, often released by leather tanning and pigment industries)…" is particularly poignant for me. I recall seeing a documentary on WWI military archeology—a new factory was being built in Belgium over a WWI battlefield. When builders discovered soldiers' graves during construction work had to stop until all archeological evidence had been collected and documented. The grave of one soldier was particularly revealing, except for his skeleton, his boots and a small purse containg a few coins nothing much else remained. What's particularly interesting and relevant to this discussion is that his leather boots were in almost perfect condition, so too was his tiny leather purse. That these articles were still so intact after nearly 100 years buried under earth was directly because of the high levels chromium used in the tanning of the leather. The chromium was so toxic that after all that time microorganisms were still unable to attack the leather without being killed. (I found this distressing to watch because of the almost pristine condition of those leather items, especially so the purse with its tiny cache of small coins, they vividly brought home the tragedy that had befallen this poor unfortunate soldier.) Moreover, it also brought home the fact that one didn't have to know an iota of chemistry to know hexavalent chromium is highly toxic. It was so damn obvious. That said, it's clear from the nature and location of the chromium that it's been largely contained at its source, if it had been dispersed widely then the concentration would have fallen by a significant amount, by now the residual level would such that microorganisms would have been able to attack the leather. We have to use forensic evidence such as this on a wide scale to ascertain the actual danger these heavy metals pose to human health.
- ekianjo 1y agoToxicity is not a binary property.
- redczar 1y agoWould you drink a glass of toxic water?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- quesera 1y agoClean pure H₂O can be toxic, in quantity. People have died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication I believe this demonstrates GPs point.
- redczar 1y agoIt does not demonstrate their point. The discussion is about toxicity from metals in soil. We all know that toxicity is not binary. It’s a dumb retort. It’s as dumb as people saying “correlation does not imply causation” when the authors of an article have expertise in statistical reasoning. Obviously the phrase “toxic water” means water polluted by toxins. Go be a pedant to someone else.
- quesera 1y agoApologies -- you were not demonstrating your expertise in upthread comments, so I could only guess at your level of understanding.
- redczar 1y agoIt’s unfortunate for you that you seem to not comprehend that a large majority of peoples’ knowledge lies between expert toxicologist and knowing that pretty much everything is toxic in large enough doses. Saying “pure water can be toxic” is a stupid response.
- bluGill 1y agoNo. Toxic is only a factor in some cases. Water is very toxic in situations. Heavy metals in soil are harmless if the plants in that soil don't absorb them. Thus we don't even know if there is anything toxic here. At least not with the information so far. If someone can show these have toxic effect I worry but so far I'm not sure
- redczar 1y agoIf we humans have polluted vast areas of the world we’d see evidence of it. This is something we’d expect to see. It’s a snapshot; not conclusive evidence. But it is worth noting and not worth sticking our heads in the sand.
- bluGill 1y agoBut have we? Or is the toxin natural and would be there anyway?
- MartinGAugustin 1y ago[dead]
- ziddoap 1y ago>It sounds bad, any "toxic levels" sound bad, but is it? If it wasn't bad, it wouldn't be stated as "toxic levels".
- Robotbeat 1y agoAre we talking regulatory limits or LD50 limits? Usually regulatory limits are much stricter than any tangibly toxic effect. (Which isn’t necessarily irrational, because it gives a safety margin to account for measurements being sparse.)
- cess11 1y ago[flagged]
- dcminter 1y agoWell, it depends. Is the alternative the same people starving to death?
- ecocentrik 1y agoLet me direct you to a short story by Jorge Luis Borges titled "Del rigor en la ciencia" or "On Exactitude in Science". If every article contained every bit of prior knowledge required to understand the article, the average article length would be 3000 pages and all articles would be prefaced with a guide to language.
- xhkkffbf 1y agoToxicity depends upon the amount. CO2 is toxic and regularly kills humans when space heaters fail. But it's everywhere in the atmosphere in small amounts.
- barbazoo 1y agoYou probably mean CO and not CO2. CO2 can be toxic but isn’t related to space heaters.
- AlexandrB 1y agoWhen I think "space heater" I imagine one of those electric things you put in a cold room. So I'm not sure where CO or CO2 would be coming from.
- ekianjo 1y agoGas heaters exist as well. This is presumably what the above poster referred to
- zdragnar 1y agoPlenty of space heaters that burn propane are available. They're especially handy for hunting shacks and ice fishing houses. Alas, some people will occasionally use them indoors with poor ventilation, which is a Bad Idea.
- barbazoo 1y agoI gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed they meant some sort of gas heater.