Those darn chemicals: Difference between revisions
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
The following distinctions are only really useful to those doing medicine, biology, or chemistry, | |||
''that guy'' at a party, or something else where you want to be more precise. | |||
In everyday use, the general sense of 'something you don't want in you' is enough. | |||
Poisons are any '''chemical''' substances that impact biological functions in other organisms | |||
Toxins are '''biologically produced''' chemical substances that impact biological functions in other organisms. | |||
So you can think of | |||
* poisions as general | |||
* toxins as natural naturally occurring poisons | |||
Using that definition, nothing synthesized is toxin. Chemists sometimes use '''toxicant'''s for that. | |||
Adding '''venom''' (versus poison/toxin) adds ''direction'' to the definitions: | |||
: if you bite it and it's bad for you, its poison. If it's secreted, it's poison. | : if you bite it and it's bad for you, its poison. If it's secreted, it's poison. | ||
: If it bites you and it's bad, it's venomous. | : If it bites you and it's bad, it's venomous. | ||
'''More practically''' | |||
* Venoms tend to be defensive for animals, poisons/toxins as defensive for plants, | |||
* ...and as far as biology is concerned, we humans are just another organism in the mix of many others, | |||
: our body can deal with small amounts of any, or we would not be viable to live very long | |||
* so while ''anything'' is bad in large amounts... | |||
: venoms more easily so because if they weren't, they would be pointless | |||
* ...at the same time, most of these are harmless in smaller amounts | |||
They still tax your body, so why would you do that ''knowingly'', | |||
but also you'll be okay. | |||
--> | |||
==LD50== | ==LD50== |
Revision as of 16:51, 21 December 2023
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
LD50
Bioaccumulation
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
Pesticides
BPA
Phtalates
PFAS
PFOA