Those darn chemicals: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Which feels like a game of semantics, much "all concepts are made up" -- technically true but not useful to what we mean to communicate. | |||
You know what I mean, stop defending putting that weird shit in my body. | |||
And yes, if that were my game here, you would be absolutely right to call it out. | And yes, if that were my game here, you would be absolutely right to call it out. | ||
'''However''. | |||
If you are saying that you know exactly what chemicals are good ones and which are the bad ones, | |||
then you are falling right into a trap that marketers have been getting away with for ''way'' too long. | then you are falling right into a trap that marketers have been getting away with for ''way'' too long. | ||
And if you pay only attention to | And if you pay only attention to last year's boogymen, then | ||
* they will continue to do so. | |||
* you are actively distracting yourself from information that will actually let you live a bit healthier. | |||
We need to be able to rank how bad things are, | |||
rank which are worst influences are, | |||
or estimate how much to care about specific ones. | |||
One dumb point to be made is that almost ''everything'' is toxic at the right dose. | One dumb point to be made is that almost ''everything'' is toxic at the right dose. | ||
' | Drink half a dozen liters of water and your body cannot compensate. | ||
(It's not common in part because you will feel terrible and stop doing it) | |||
Every healthy thing can also kill you, if you take enough, | |||
: they just happen to make it ''difficult'', often by having a large zone where the amount still won't do much | |||
Unhealthy things are just the things that do so faster, | |||
: that do so at amounts you might not immediately think of as harmful, | |||
: i.e. that skip that safe zone | |||
And for some things, the reason it won't kill you is that something else gets to you before another. | |||
For example, drink too much coffee and it's the ''water'' that kills you first, not the caffeine. | |||
| Line 404: | Line 427: | ||
--> | --> | ||
=Some things worth talking about= | =Some things worth talking about - mixed= | ||
===Volatile organic compound (VOC)=== | |||
<!-- | |||
Volatile organic compounds are those that are | |||
* organic compound - which is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound very wide category] | |||
* volatile, meaning [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility_(chemistry) it evaporates quickly] (at room temperature) | |||
This can be a feature, or entirely neutral - it describes commuication between animals and plants, and odor carriers such as perfumes, | |||
or both, e.g. just describing the thing that makes leaves or fruits or tree have a particular smell (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoprene isoprene] for oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limonene limonene] for lemons). | |||
Because 'organic' is so wide, | |||
it includes a bunch of things which are fine, | |||
but also be something you don't want, e.g. with some causing allergic, respiratory, or immune effects. | |||
So in particularly human-made VOCs are regulated. | |||
Not because they're all immediately toxic - many are not - but because of potential chronic effects. | |||
Recently, a reason you may be looking for this term is indoor VOCs, as reported by some air quality sensors. | |||
(most sensors are actually much too selective, but reporting some of them is better than none, I suppose). | |||
Indoor VOCs are starting to get regulated more, also to regulate VOCs emitted from products. | |||
--> | |||
===Pesticides=== | ===Pesticides=== | ||
| Line 411: | Line 466: | ||
-cide means kill. Pest means 'things we don't like in our crops'. | -cide means kill. Pest means 'things we don't like in our crops'. | ||
Is it really that mind-readingly selective? | |||
Is it really that mind-readingly selective? | |||
If pesticides ward off insects, why wouldn't they hurt us, or they environment? | If pesticides ward off insects, why wouldn't they hurt us, or they environment? | ||
They do. | They do hurt us and the environment. | ||
Worst case, it's basically a low level of poison, selective only in the sense that to us larger creatures it's something we can process, whereas to smaller creatures it's overwhelming. | |||
There is a grey area around pesticides, for various reasons. | There is a grey area around pesticides, for various reasons. | ||
| Line 747: | Line 802: | ||
Parabens are metabolized, so low concentrations are unlikely to contribute. | Parabens are metabolized, so low concentrations are unlikely to contribute. | ||
--> | |||
<!-- | |||
=Some bad names= | |||
Latest revision as of 12:09, 21 March 2024
✎ This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.
BIG RED TEXT HELLO: This is not health advice, or necessarily correct. Do not make health decisions based on just this. Do your own research, and not just the stuff that agrees with your opinions.
On toxicity
Everything is chemicals, and everything is toxic at high concentrations
Toxin, poison, venom
More technically
More practically
...except: bioaccumulation
LD50
Things barely worth talking about
E numbers
E numbers just means it's tested.
It is mostly things commonly used as food additives - so that we can quantify how to use them safely.
They get short codes in the process, which is an easier shorthand to refer to the substance
and the tests. This is often easier more precise and/or easier than a fancier pseudonym and/or more chemical name (things like INCI may help both ways (e.g. water is aqua) but at least tend to standardize the names used somewhat).
Such naming can also make regulation a lot easier to do, including the health testing.
While regulations apply regardless of what name you use, it can make it somewhat easier for you to recognize what's in there.
Some negative fearful snap judgment got all E numbers associated with unnatural and bad for you,
because it's largely just "the set of things we tested", it mostly isn't.
A good number of them are in fact nutrition you absolutely need, or are perfectly healthy, and/or perfectly natural.
Consider:
- E300 though E309 are vitamin C and E,
- E101 is vitamin B2 used as coloring,
- E160c is pepper extract, mostly used for coloring
- E160a is carrot used for coloring,
- E170 is calcium (basically),
- E407 comes from seaweed,
- E322 frequently comes from soy,
- E948 is oxygen
Sure, there are also a few handfuls (out of hundreds) that I don't see having a place in my food, if I have any choice.
And that was part of the point: the testing let us know we don't want it, the name lets us check more easily.
And a few that you'll probably never see - there's rarely any silver (E174) or gold (E175) in food
but they're included for testing purposes, just so that you may know how safe they are when they are used in, say, cake decoration.
See also:
What's in a name?
The things you actually probably want to be there
Some things worth talking about - mixed
Volatile organic compound (VOC)
Pesticides
BPA
✎ This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.
Phtalates
✎ This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.
PFAS
PFOA
✎ This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.