Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#31

Post by JohnMakin »

You have to scroll an absurdly long time to find it but this is the key sentence:

> Current chlormequat concentrations in urine from this study and others suggest that individual sample donors were exposed to chlormequat at levels several orders of magnitude below the reference dose (RfD) published by the U.S. EPA (0.05 mg/kg bw/day) and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value published by the European Food Safety Authority (0.04 mg/kg bw/day).

The levels reported in this study are so negligible but it gets a lot more clicks on your study if you present this data as "chlormequat was detectable in X% of samples." Statistically significant but they don't mention the concentration at all in the abstract, which is just as an important finding.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#32

Post by alwa »

boh wrote: post #12

Excuse me if I’m reading this wrong, but less than 100 urine samples were tracked for any given year?

On the one hand, as a statistician memorably put it, “doesn’t matter how big the soup bowl is, you still need the same size spoon to taste what kind of soup it is.”

On the other hand, yeah these particular convenience samples seem almost deliberately weird. The entire apparent spike in 2023 seems to correspond to a one-off total switch to buying random bulk urine from Florida.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#33

Post by cinntaile »

jxramos wrote: post #23
LeafItAlone wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they probably worse?

presumably because they more readily transfer across membranes and various barriers in the body? That's an interesting point, is something organically derived more easily integrated into biological tissues than something of synthetic origin? I'm not sure that logic is sound but it's an intriguing thought.

> That's an interesting point, is something organically derived more easily integrated into biological tissues than something of synthetic origin?

I don't get what you mean with organically derived. Organic chemistry covers a lot of synthetic chemicals. There is no reason to assume that organic pesticides are more readily absorbed by the body. There is also no agreed upon definition of organic pesticides, they are not limited to pesticides synthesized from plants. It also includes several minerals.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#34

Post by yifanl »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #6
rtkwe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next hundred years is probably going to be grappling with how many toxic chemicals we allowed at 'safe' levels because it was inconvenient to industry to ban them the same way we're floored by the casual irradiation of the early 20th century.

Think of the shareholder value though. /s People are going to scream about the cost of remediating all of this (hundreds of billions, if not trillions), but it was just shareholders through limited liability corporations stealing from taxpayers (who will end up with the remediation bill through taxes) by way of the market and government, with enormous aggregate harm a second order effect. So long, and thanks for all…

Man, really puts into perspective how silly it is for me to be paranoid about deploying a change for a webapp with 100 DAU, while agricorp businesses have no problems accidentally poisoning the planet.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#35

Post by billfor »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #15
voakbasda wrote: post #4

Another reminder that most food produced by industrial processes is poisoning us. News of this chemical’s prevalence may be news, but the general story is not. Yet nothing has changed, nor should anyone expect otherwise. Big Ag achieved regulatory capture and can afford to delay indefinitely (if not outright stop) any meaningful change from happening.

I fail to understand why you're getting downloaded and I hope some of those who did will explain. "Don't ask how the sausage is made" predates any of us still alive by a fair margin

Because life expectancy is nearly at an all time high. Folks that are 50 or older grew up playing with all sorts of toxic chemicals and most of us are still here and fine. If anything you are more likely to become ill by excessive worrying than the actual chemicals.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#36

Post by beacon294 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #21
photochemsyn wrote: post #19

Body burning screening for toxic chemical accumulation should be a regular part of every American's yearly physical checkup with their doctor - which itself is an increasingly rare phenomenon, many people only go to doctors and hospitals after getting very sick as they can't afford to have a regular doctor or preventative health program. A body burden program would lead to the identification of the most problematic i…

> Body burning screening for toxic chemical accumulation should be a regular part of every American's yearly physical checkup with their doctor Is it just me or are yearly physicals and primary care doctors nearly worthless in practice (not in theory)? For adults, not kids. Anything truly urgent is better served by urgent care or emergency room. They are useful for referrals for specialists when you actually have a s…

Many family doctors are like this, I think they want to minimize their work and many simply don't have the experience necessary. Would recommend you find a doctor at a bigger institution that wants to be there.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#37

Post by Mistletoe »

JohnMakin wrote: post #31

You have to scroll an absurdly long time to find it but this is the key sentence: > Current chlormequat concentrations in urine from this study and others suggest that individual sample donors were exposed to chlormequat at levels several orders of magnitude below the reference dose (RfD) published by the U.S. EPA (0.05 mg/kg bw/day) and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value published by the European Food Safety Au…

>Toxicological studies suggest that exposure to chlormequat can reduce fertility and harm the developing fetus at doses lower than those used by regulatory agencies to set allowable daily intake levels.

I think they are worried about this. Perhaps the levels are set too high?

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#38

Post by snapcaster »

candiddevmike wrote: post #30
chabes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many of the chemicals approved for organic crops are even worse Could you name even one organic implement that is “worse” than the conventional alternative?

It's hard to say "worse", but for a lot of organic alternatives the problem is "more"--it requires significantly more applications/frequencies than synthetic alternatives. This can contribute to run off and groundwater contamination.

Can you name one example though? It's so hard to get information on this topic that isn't filtered through BigAg or other large interests

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#39

Post by snapcaster »

billfor wrote: post #35
readthenotes1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to understand why you're getting downloaded and I hope some of those who did will explain. "Don't ask how the sausage is made" predates any of us still alive by a fair margin

Because life expectancy is nearly at an all time high. Folks that are 50 or older grew up playing with all sorts of toxic chemicals and most of us are still here and fine. If anything you are more likely to become ill by excessive worrying than the actual chemicals.

Are they fine? What metric are you looking at that indicates the health of americans is good?

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#40

Post by zdragnar »

jxramos wrote: post #23
LeafItAlone wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they probably worse?

presumably because they more readily transfer across membranes and various barriers in the body? That's an interesting point, is something organically derived more easily integrated into biological tissues than something of synthetic origin? I'm not sure that logic is sound but it's an intriguing thought.

Take mercury for an example.

You can dip your hand into a bucket of pure elemental mercury, and you're generally fine (though I wouldn't recommend it if you have open cuts or wounds).

On the other hand, dimethylmercury (an organic compound with mercury in it) will readily absorb through your skin (and latex gloves!) and is so potently toxic that a few drops of the stuff will kill you.

None of this is tob say that synthetic, non-orhanic compounds are in any way certain to be safer. However, organic compounds certainly do have advantages in integrating in the body.

Post reply on HN