The idea is that acrylamide in coffee might be giving people cancer, because there are a number of studies where researchers gave rodents acrylamide and this caused cancer
-
-
250,000ml is 250 LITERS of coffee For reference, that's about 500 cups That is A LOT OF COFFEE
Show this thread -
I haven't even gotten to the best part yet: THIS IS A DAILY DOSEhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/981328016176328704 …
Show this thread -
To get the amount of acrylamide FROM COFFEE that this court suggested is possibly a problem, you'd have to drink 500 cups a day I would humbly suggest that this is probably impossible
Show this thread -
P.S. here's the source for those CDC figures. The important note is that it depends on which coffee brand you pick, but since I used one of the highest readings it doesn't make much difference anywayhttps://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/ChemicalContaminants/ucm053549.htm …
Show this thread -
P.P.S. the other important thing to remember is that acrylamide is found in most cooked starchy foods so you could potentially get dangerous amounts if you eat a lot of burned things but the claims from California are specifically about coffee not all food
Show this thread -
P.P.P.S forgot to mention that coffee contains caffeine, which in doses of as little as 50 cups is enough to kill you so "probably impossible" is generous here
Show this thread -
Final note: this thread doesn't talk about skin exposure to acrylamide, which is different. But unless people are rubbing thousands of cups of coffee on their skin each day, I reckon we're alright there too
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I VOLUNTEER AS TRIBUTE
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's pretty standard to divide the no effect level by 1000 or so, when extrapolating from animal studies to humans just to be safe. Your larger point may be roughly correct, but don't forget to calculate this stuff the way toxicologists do.
-
Interesting point! I wonder what conversion metric you'd be using here though, because from my understanding it's usually based on acute exposure but here we're looking at chronic low-level exposure instead
- 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.