The problem is lack of data. In Europe they have implemented a program called Reach to verify that chemicals are safe before they are widely used in consumer products. China is implement ing a similar system.
One of the main reasons for developing and adopting the REACH Regulation was that a large number of substances have been manufactured and placed on the market in Europe for many years, sometimes in very high amounts, and yet there is insufficient information on the hazards that they pose to human health and the environment. There is a need to fill these information gaps to ensure that industry is able to assess hazards and risks of the substances, and to identify and implement the risk management measures to protect humans and the environment.
In the US we are the free country, although we cannot go to Cuba and spend a penny. We are free to contaminate consumer goods with detrimental substances until it is proven to a scientific certainty it is dangerous.
Simon provided Lethal Dose 50 info. That is the dose that kills 50% of the animals exposed in a short time period. It is an acute fatal dose.
The number we need is what dose causes cancer or other harm? What dose causes cancer in those with Brca1&2. What dose epigeneticly demethylizes oncogenes? What dose is acceptable when that arsenic is mixed with all the other carcinogens we ingest? What dose changes the epigenome and passes the damage on to subsequent generations?
Anyway I look at it, feeding chicken or people arsenic is asinine.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz787@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Jordan Miller <jrdnmlr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess we can agree to disagree.
>>
>> cheers,
>> jordan
>
> Realistically/scientifically though, that isn't a valid answer, if proof exists.
>
>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Simon Quellen Field <sfield@scitoys.com> wrote:
>>
>> By 'chemicals', what exactly do you mean?
>> I don't necessarily want fewer proteins, sugars, fats, vitamins, minerals,
>> etc., and those are all chemicals.
>> In fact, the entire mass of the chicken is chemicals, so eliminating all of
>> them leaves me nothing.
>>
>> Do you want all traces of selenium removed from the chicken?
>> The LD50 is between 12 and 38 mg/kg.
>> The LD50 for arsenic is much higher at 185 to 6400 mg/lg.
>> So selenium is many times more toxic.
>> And yet it is essential to your living past the next few weeks.
>>
>> Small amounts of arsenic are recommended for the health of the chicken.
>> But because people think it is a poison, they are afraid of it in their
>> food.
>> But there is belladonna in your organic tomatoes and potatoes, and yet that
>> is OK with you. It also is more deadly than arsenic.
>
>
> Simon has a point, but only gives the LD50 for the compounds, rather
> than the recommended daily allowance (RDA, the easiest metric I could
> find for this sort of thing, it may not be up to date though)
> http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/selenium-HealthProfessional/
>
> Arsenic
> http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/arsenic.pdf
> "The acute lethal dose to humans can be about 2 to 20 mg/kg body
> weight per day (mg/kg-day)"
> "Ingesting small amounts over time produces chronic effects such as
> skin darkening and formation of corns, damage to peripheral nerves,
> cardiovascular system effects, hair and appetite loss, and mental
> disorders. "
> "Arsenic can also cause reproductive/developmental effects, including
> spontaneous
> abortions and reduced birth weights. Epidemiological studies indicate an
> association between arsenic concentrations in drinking water and increased
> incidences of skin, liver, kidney, lung, and bladder cancers"
> " Limited information is available on the joint toxicity of
> arsenic with other chemicals. For neurological effects, the predicted
> direction of
> joint toxicity of arsenic and lead is greater than additive, whereas
> the joint toxicity
> of these metals is predicted to be less than additive for the kidney and
> hematopoietic (blood-forming) system."
>
> And they've established toxicity dose-response effect guidelines
> Cancer Risk
> Inhalation UR
> 4.3 per
> mg/m3
>
> Oral SF
> 1.5 per
> mg/kg-day
>
> Non-Cancer Effect
> Oral RfD
> 0.0003
> mg/kg-day
>
>
> Sooo, what the NYT article lacks is the concentrations found.
>
>
> --
> Nathan McCorkle
> Rochester Institute of Technology
> College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
0 comments:
Post a Comment