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

Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#91

Post by culot »

vixen99 wrote: post #26
maxxxxx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there will be a time in the future when we'll look back and think how crazy people were in 2018 pumping all kinds of known toxins into the environment. It will probably be the same incredulity we have when we look at people using radium toothpaste in 1920 or the mad hatters working with mercury the whole day and going crazy.

Or in 2050, wondering why in 2018, mercury amalgam (Hg is an established neurotoxin) was still in significant use (except in Norway, Sweden and Denmark) as a dental filler.

That stuff must be really super cheap, as the price difference between it and the alternatives is insane.

edit: internet searching about on this apparently shows that the price difference should not be that much??? Two different dentists want me to pay about $250+ more per tooth for non-amalgam fillings. Madness!

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#92

Post by rl3 »

vixen99 wrote: post #26
maxxxxx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there will be a time in the future when we'll look back and think how crazy people were in 2018 pumping all kinds of known toxins into the environment. It will probably be the same incredulity we have when we look at people using radium toothpaste in 1920 or the mad hatters working with mercury the whole day and going crazy.

Or in 2050, wondering why in 2018, mercury amalgam (Hg is an established neurotoxin) was still in significant use (except in Norway, Sweden and Denmark) as a dental filler.

Not to mention CFL bulbs. It's really great when something as mundane as a lightbulb breaking turns into a veritable hazmat situation.[0] The risk/reward ratio there boggles the mind, especially given the fact LED bulbs exist.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#93

Post by wmeredith »

markdown wrote: post #82
maxxxxx wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember in Germany there were lots of studies that showed mercury leaking out. Dentists fought for quite a while but I don't think they are in use anymore. I got my amalgam fillings taken out in the 90s and replaced with plastic and ceramic.

> Dentists fought for quite a while but I don't think they are in use anymore. The anti-dentites won.

The dentists fight it because the science mostly says they’re harmless. Trust me, there’s plenty of money to be made removing the old fillings (which actually is the most dangerous time for mercury contamination) and replacing them with composites. Dentists are incentivized to do so. They just don’t want to cause unneeded hysteria.

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#94

Post by patrioticaction »

Someone1234 wrote: post #42
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people appear to be down-voting you, so I'll comment instead: The standard defense is that the mercury is locked in place inside the amalgam, and does not migrate. I've never looked at the evidence either way.

In theory. But grinding teeth, chewing, or even brushing can cause flakes to break away. The biggest risk is actually during installation of the amalgam, particularly for dental professionals. The real crux of the issue is that there are safer effective alternatives. So even if we call the risk "low," it is a needless risk. It only a matter of "when" not "if" these filings are against safety regulations.

They used to mix the mercury and metals on their bare hands back in the early 20th century before placing it in the tooth.

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#95

Post by theptip »

ip26 wrote: post #83
theptip wrote: post #78

Anyone know of a QUALY-based analysis of the costs and benefits of using these fertilizers? The headline is quite hard to argue with ("think of the children!") but it would be interesting to know how much it would cost to use alternatives, and how much harm is being done by the current level of use.

You reference the logical fallacy of "think of the children", but in this case it doesn't really seem like a logical fallacy, if we are literally poisoning the children. For comparative example, lead abatement is not a fallacious "think of the children" argument- actual children are routinely poisoned by lead.

In the case of lead poisoning, it's widely believed to have been the cause of a significant and measurable increase in homicide rates in the second half of last century. There's a lot of data supporting that hypothesis, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis has:

> between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime".

In the case of organophosphates, I am open to the idea that that there could be a big win by changing regulations. But without knowing the magnitude of the harm and cost, we really have no basis for prioritization. For example perhaps the time and money we'd spend changing these laws in the US would be better spent on removing lead to prevent even more poisoning of children. Or perhaps we should stop what we're doing and redirect all of our resources to removing organophosphates. Depending on even the order of magnitude of the effect, I hope you'd accept that different magnitudes of responses would be warranted.

> in this case it doesn't really seem like a logical fallacy, if we are literally poisoning the children.

This is precisely the "think of the children" fallacy. The fallacy doesn't refer to claiming children will be harmed when in reality they won't; that would be a factual error, not a logical fallacy. (And to be clear, I'm not making the claim that children won't be harmed by this family of chemicals). The fallacy refers to making an emotional argument based imagery of harm to children, instead of making a logical argument.

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#96

Post by Tharkun »

maxxxxx wrote: post #52
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people appear to be down-voting you, so I'll comment instead: The standard defense is that the mercury is locked in place inside the amalgam, and does not migrate. I've never looked at the evidence either way.

I remember in Germany there were lots of studies that showed mercury leaking out. Dentists fought for quite a while but I don't think they are in use anymore. I got my amalgam fillings taken out in the 90s and replaced with plastic and ceramic.

Removing the filling seems like a great way to inhale more of the stuff. How do they prevent that from happening?

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#97

Post by ItsMe000001 »

culot wrote: post #91
vixen99 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in 2050, wondering why in 2018, mercury amalgam (Hg is an established neurotoxin) was still in significant use (except in Norway, Sweden and Denmark) as a dental filler.

That stuff must be really super cheap, as the price difference between it and the alternatives is insane. edit: internet searching about on this apparently shows that the price difference should not be that much??? Two different dentists want me to pay about $250+ more per tooth for non-amalgam fillings. Madness!

That is an insane price. Here in Germany I last paid 70 Euros on top of what insurance pays for (which is the very basics - and yes, they pay for amalgam fillings) for a composite fillings. Which one exactly I don't know but it was what I already had, and I never had a problem including with durability. When I still paid full - I switched from private insurance (I pay everything and get reimbursed) back into the semi-public system a few years ago (they pay directly to the dentist or doctor) - it was not much more though. Even the special procedure to remove the last few amalgam fillings including refilling were just some 3xx Euros for three teeth. That dentist is located in a big Bavarian city in the middle of the city in its most expensive shopping street, and yet prices are very sane (I saw and paid them in full for years since overall my costs were well below the high yearly deductible I had chosen for my private insurance).

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#98

Post by pvaldes »

pvaldes wrote: post #89
mitchtbaum wrote: post #44

Would diatomaceous earth be a cost effective replacement?

There are different grades of quality in diatomaceous earth, some are safer, other not so. Is a "fosil stone", so is not unlimited. Diatom skeletons are tiny silica boxes, and breathing silica dust regularly leads to silicose. Would also change the soil structure and increase the damage in the machines needed for harvest. In the other hand spiders and bats are the perfect insecticide without any bad side effect for p…

silicose -> silicosis

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#99

Post by Nasrudith »

molotovbliss wrote: post #76
Nasrudith wrote: post #32

The autism link appears very dubious and casts doubt on everything else - it doesn't map to organophosphate usage in the timeline and frankly it shows heavy signs of being genetic. Not to mention if the effects are that strong organic fanatics should show significant differences in performance - but that doesn't seem to be the case. While I doubt that even the still used organophosphates are healthy to be exposed to…

As someone with a son diagnosed officially by a professional, myself & older brother believe we are both on the spectrum but not as much as my son. He is verbal, but has quirks commonly called stimming. He hums a lot and will flap his arms when being visually or audibly stimulated. My brother & I have read up on it quite a bit, and think that it's a combo of genetics triggered by environmental sources. There is a sim…

The funny thing is that it may have also been an advantage of sorts in hunter gatherer days - as in actually able to survive alone in the wilderness without plenty of prepared tools which is actually a very hard task long term. Bands of people cooperating boost it ensure survival. Given what I know of sensory capabilities in addition to things like lost autistic children in the woods being extra hard to find - while not being prepared to survive.

Given that it is on a spectrum and a slow learning process of coping occurs underdiagnosis is likely - especially among women and girls.

I suspect the case in Silicon valley is a higher degree of traits converging and the social masking being less imbued in addition to concentration. Although if pollution was a provoking factor it would.

Tech is a pretty good setting although people with autism and they may thrive there I think it is way too fast for evolutionary impacts short of massive selective pressure - like the Black Death or pretreatment endemic malaria.

Re: Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

#100

Post by tomhoward »

Tharkun wrote: post #96
maxxxxx wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember in Germany there were lots of studies that showed mercury leaking out. Dentists fought for quite a while but I don't think they are in use anymore. I got my amalgam fillings taken out in the 90s and replaced with plastic and ceramic.

Removing the filling seems like a great way to inhale more of the stuff. How do they prevent that from happening?

I had one removed about 7 years ago. The dentist fitted a dam to avoid fragments being ingested and to minimise vapor inhalation, and (if I recall correctly) he advised me to breathe as gently as possible during the crucial stage of removal.
Post reply on HN