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?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @BGLTHMND
Nope, you'd compare between exposed and unexposed people, IQ changes between generations anyway
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
All the sudden the dose is small individually however combined its through the roof. I mentioned water bc this was in my local newshttps://patch.com/california/murrieta/cancer-linked-contaminants-found-murrieta-tap-water-report …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LiveIdiotFree @BGLTHMND
It's a question of dose again. Finding amounts of contaminants doesn't really mean anything, and usually the FDA and the EFSA set really conservative legal limits, particularly for drinking water
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Also, I'm always cautious of the EWG's 'studies', they are an industry-funded organisation that often over-hypes the fear to sell their own products instead of say tap water, which is usually the safest thing you can drink
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.