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
-
Show 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 -
Replying to @GidMK @ianfmusgrave
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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
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.