They mention in the article that one serving a day could produce enough arsenic to be considered toxic. One serving. They dont sensationalize this which is why it got nesrly no attention. They also make similar statements as you in your blog, however they also dont down play it.
-
-
Replying to @LiveIdiotFree
Mmmm but they just lowered the dose that they consider harmful to reach that conclusion. Based on FDA or EFSA limits they'd have to eat a lot more, as I noted
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @LiveIdiotFree
HBBF argue for a lower threshold, and base their assessments of a toxic dose on that figure
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
I should say - there was one product with relatively high levels of arsenic. The point was really that most were probably fine, not that there are no products at all that might need to look at their practices
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Probably is a very uneasy statement when dealing w babies. I know there is a lot of toxic exposure already in natural environment. Thats its impossible to avoid. However is it possible that the amount of toxicity we introduce to infants purposely in the 1st yr could be dangerous?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LiveIdiotFree
Well, we're talking about very small effects here at the lower levels of exposure. The impact on any one child would be impossible to discern - there ~may~ be a risk at a population level, but that's a more complex issue
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Population level? So meaning the long term toxicity becoming something that actually has effect on our genes and changes our dna structure generations down the line? Like viruses can do?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LiveIdiotFree
Nope. Meaning the effect on individuals is basically undetectable, you have to look at entire populations to discern an effect. Worst case, individual kids might be losing a fraction of an IQ point if that at low doses
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
How would a epidemiological study detect a small IQ drop, unless by comparison to a prior generation, correct?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Nope, you'd compare between exposed and unexposed people, IQ changes between generations anyway
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
I guess I was assuming that there would be no statistically significant population of unexposed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BGLTHMND
Usually there are levels of exposure, and as with anything the dose makes the poison
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.