As usual, @guardian has probably the best take - yes, there were traces of ~potentially~ harmful chemicals found in nappies
What this means is far more complexpic.twitter.com/IAK1JSsSWB
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
They then compare the worst-case scenario estimates - the highest end of their wide confidence interval - with reference doses for these pollutants Reference dose = dose at which toxicity is likely/possible for a specific chemical
And guess what? GLYPHOSATE WAS SAFE. IT WASN'T ONE OF THE PROBLEMATIC POLLUTANTS (green = lower maximum estimated exposure than reference dose over lifetime)pic.twitter.com/3OaRwnXX5B
There were, however, plenty of pollutants that were higher - many of them only by tiny amounts - than the reference doses That's ~potentially~ an issue
The report then goes on to recommend that the substances be removed from nappies This is a fair recommendation, because although there's no evidence that they are harmful in these doses for this exposure, babies are very vulnerable and we want to be carefulpic.twitter.com/LSYZA5MGsc
Wow, that thread went on for far longer than I was expecting. Take-homes: 1. These exposures probably aren't harmful 2. They are in ~tiny~ doses, even across 4,000+ nappies 3. BUT we are careful where infants are concerned 4. This doesn't mean you should worry
All that being said, it's worth noting how truly absurd it is that a report that found that glyphosate WASN'T AN ISSUE is being reported on as an indication that we should be scared of nappies because glyphosate
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.