31–40 of 184 posts
The precautionary principle is not a vademecum — indeed, it can be taken far too far and become an excuse for either unthinking conservatism (banning anything new out of an overabundance of precaution).
"Looking back, it seems insane. Bluntly put, we took a known poison and – for three quarters of a century – used it in machines that puffed it out in breathable form. Then we drove them millions of miles a day, all over the world, regularly dosing billions of people with the toxin." We are still doing just that, even though we are using milder poisons now.
What are the poisons of today that we allow? I general, from what I've gathered, we have been replacing substances that accumulates in nature with substances that breaks down over time. So for instance, we still do allow ozone but also watch the levels to ensure they aren't too high. I know there are issues with a lot of medication as it goes out in the sewage and there's still a big question mark on the safety of so…
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/industrial-air-pollu...
We already accept the impact of millions a year dying as a result of industrial pollution, especially from burning coal; we mostly shrug and move on.
VOC’s, microplastic, nanoparticles such as TiO2, a lot of the crap in cosmetics, and probably a lot more.
> Worryingly, the “precautionary principle” that led to the phase-out, and is enshrined in EU law, is in danger from Brexit. The precautionary principle is not a vademecum — indeed, it can be taken far too far and become an excuse for either unthinking conservatism (banning anything new out of an overabundance of precaution).
And is there any merit in "chelation" therapies, as advocated on health websites, like this one, [1]?
[1] https://www.livestrong.com/article/199912-what-natural-herbs...
I was actually pondering something related today. I worry about my cats' paws getting glass in them. Because the pavement is full of tiny pieces of glass, even worse if someone breaks a bottle outside, they won't actually vacuum and clean it up, I guess wind can help a bit..but it's just shuffling the glass around. Glass doesn't decay on a human time scale. Which brought me to the grim fact that there are so many sub…
At least broken glass doesn't stay sharp for long when exposed to the elements.
EDIT: to all those downvoting me, a fucking veteran glassblower says that glass takes forever to erode.. https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-broken-glass-take-to-bre...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
General Aviation (private planes) are STILL spewing lead into the atmosphere. It's not like they don't have the money to fix it, they just don't care about the externalities.
It's very hard to change anything in GA. Reliability is a much higher priority in aviation, if the engine in your car dies, you stop, if the engine in your plane dies, you fall out of the sky. GA planes also generally last a lot longer than cars, you have Cessnas from the 70's still flying with their original engines from the 70's.
What is still a safe lead blood value? And is there any merit in "chelation" therapies, as advocated on health websites, like this one, [1]? [1] https://www.livestrong.com/article/199912-what-natural-herbs...
That is, oral intake of lead with oral intake of garlic, means maybe you shit out more lead with the garlic chelation agent. But lots of garlic will do nothing for water you drink later in the day, or the air passing into your lungs.
There may be some additional anti-oxidant activity. Anti-oxidants are good for you across the board. Have at them.
As to a safe blood lead level: depending on your local public health department, 5 mcg/dL will or should prompt public health action. 5mcg turns into a little bit of a grey area depending on where you are, and by 10mcg your kid is getting chelation therapy. These numbers are built around children, not adults, because they're far more susceptible to the adverse effects of lead exposure.
That said, we have not identified any safe lead level - every level that has been tested has been shown to be associated with some sort of negative cognitive developmental impact (Lanphear 2000). I feel comfortable saying the safe level is "0", but that's not medical consensus, that's just my opinion.