Those darn chemicals: Difference between revisions

From Helpful
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
Line 137: Line 137:




<!--
 


===LD50===
===LD50===
<!--


In toxicology, LD50 is the '''median lethal dose'': the amount that would kill 50% of the the population.
In toxicology, LD50 is the '''median lethal dose'': the amount that would kill 50% of the the population.
Line 173: Line 174:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose
-->
-->
===Bioaccumulation===
<!--
'''Bioaccumulation'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation] - chemicals building in an organism because it can't break it down or excrete it faster than it is ingested.
'''Biomagnification'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification] - Roughly: if not only you eat the thing, but lots of things ''you'' eat (plants or animals) also eats the thing, it goes faster. It's more of the food chain making things a little worse.
Things that cannot be broken down will do very little to leave. We will typically know this as "don't eat or touch, ever".
Things that ''can'' be broken down, or moved out, are only bioaccumulative only if we ingest it faster than we can break down or move out.
Your body will still have a harder time than if you never put them in you, but it is unlikely to be the thing you'll die of.
For example,
* mercury
:: has varied negative effects
:: is excreted by many organism, but not very efficiently (half-life of two months or so in people), so any consistent exposure means deposits everywhere
:: is notably bioaccumulative in certain fish[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish],
:: and therefore also in people that eat these fish regularly
:: and is why we really don't want mercury in our environment in general
* pesticides
:: most aren't bioaccumulative, meaning that they while ingesting them isn't good for you (potential interactions with the nervous system, the reproductive system, the endocrine system cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, ADHD, and in extreme cases birth defects)
:: ...they won't build up, so your levels should never be worse than what you eat in a short term
:: whether that is still enough to be bad depends a little on regulations, farming conventions, and eating habits
See also:
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17477364/ Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body]
* [https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/labs/rand/projects/methylmercury-metabolism-elimination.aspx Methylmercury Metabolism and Elimination Status (MerMES) in Humans ]
* [https://inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad50.htm Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects]
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988285/ Environmental Mercury and Its Toxic Effects]
-->


=Things barely worth talking about=
=Things barely worth talking about=

Revision as of 18:15, 20 October 2023

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.



But first

Everything is chemicals, and everything is toxic at high concentrations

Toxin, poison, venom

LD50

Bioaccumulation

Things barely worth talking about

E numbers

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.

E numbers just means it's tested

E numbers tend to mostly be things commonly used as food additives.

And that is a large part of why we tested it: to 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:

Some things worth talking about

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.



Parabens

Reading off ingredient lists