The report then estimates, with some very complex modelling, how much of these pollutants babies might be exposed to over the course of ~4,000 nappies used in their lifetimes
-
Show this thread
-
Without going into too much detail, the margins of error for these estimates are VERY HIGH. It's entirely possible that babies absorb far less (or far more) than the estimates
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
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
2 replies 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Assuming a nappy has glyphosate at the limit of detection, and assuming all of the glyphosate is leach able from cotton (it is not) and given that skin absorbs about 1% of glyphosate babies would be exposed to 15 NG of glyphosate per nappy so far below TDI it's not funny 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ianfmusgrave
That's basically what they found! There is even a table of results that didn't show a risk in any scenario that they were tested in which includes glyphosate!pic.twitter.com/F6Azn5xFJQ
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
To be fair on the dose that they report, they modelled the glyphosate exposure based on a 0.46% absorption from the amount that they dissolved in their tests, but over 4,000 nappies across years of use, rather than the single-use exposure, then used the highest estimate
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @ianfmusgrave
I don't think that this is unfair, because safety studies of this type are almost always extremely conservative, due to the very wide margins of error on the estimates
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.