Comment by ccooffee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ccooffee | Hacker News Reader

I've eaten seaweeds before in several formats, and they're surprisingly versatile. But they're "further out there" than kale, so I appreciate that the nytimes didn't want to push that angle.

And, in case you're wondering "heavy metals bio-accumulate in ocean fish to questionable levels; could heavy metals bio-accumulate in seaweed to a dangerous level?", tl;dr: probably not to dangerous levels, but not certain.

"Distribution of metals and metalloids in dried seaweeds and health risk to population in southeastern China"[0]:

> Concern about metals and metalloids, especially heavy metals in seaweeds has risen due to potential health risk. This study investigated the distribution of 10 metals and metalloids in 295 dried seaweeds (brown and red) and estimated the possible health risk via hazard index (HI). > ... > The estimate of health risk showed that there was low health risk for potential toxic elements by intake of these seaweeds.

(I've gotta say, that article doesn't seem entirely convincing. This is probably the first article of this format I've read before, so I might be totally off-base, but the error bars in their data[1] are huge. Given that the article literally has "health risk to population in southeastern China" in the title, I'm skeptical whether the article is intentional fluff/propaganda science.)

[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21732-z (full text) [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21732-z/tables/2 (data)

Consumer labs has done studies and shown excessive heavy metals from around the world. In fact I’ve never seen a seaweed in CA that doesn’t contain a prop 65 logo on it.

My push lawnmower has a Prop 65 warning label on it.

It likely contains lead or some other prop 65 chemical. I wish the warnings were a bit better and more contextual, but it maybe that your lawnmower turns bits of its heavy metals into dust you could breathe in, which is dangerous.

The ubiquity of prop 65 doesn’t mean the issue is with prop 65 warnings - the problem is the ubiquitous use of heavy metals and other nasty chemicals in manufacturing. Worse, most places don’t have such a warning so people have no idea.

I was in H-Mart last weekend and the amount of food with prop 65 was quite disturbing. A lot of it grown in Asia in areas with heavy lead contamination. They have no such warnings there.

Wood dust was added to the list in 2010, and therefore, all wood products sold in California must bear the Prop 65 warning.

At some point, it really is about the ubiquity of the warnings making them virtually useless. I think we’re past that point.

It is very important for people who are sanding or working with wood products to not inhale that directly, and instead take proper precautions. When you say wood products, I’m assuming you mean that in its raw form versus a finished table, which will not carry such a warning.

The lesson isn’t that their ubiquity doesn’t mean they’re useless; it’s that as a society we’ve allowed too much toxicity into our lives. I don’t know what percent of prop 65 warnings are for things like wood where it’s about the dust, but I do wish the warnings were improved to give specific actionable information. Like “hey wood dust shouldn’t get into your lungs. Make sure to wear a mask with certification X to prevent that”.

Do you have the link to the levels?

My understanding is that it depends a lot on the type of seaweed and where it is grown.

Here’s the article; the levels are behind a paywall (which I subscribe to - ConsumerLab is fantastic): https://www.consumerlab.com/news/metals-in-seaweed-snacks/12...

I don’t want to copy their copyrighted material to the open web. Perhaps it’s been summarized elsewhere but they give an overview. The levels were different by location, but everywhere had at least one bad level (arsenic, lead, iodine, cadmium, etc).

Yeah, I found that but couldn't find the levels. I found a larger study on pubmed that seemed to have more mixed results based on the species and location.

It’s extremely unlikely because the accumulation tends to happen in top-of-foodchain fish. When fish eat fish that eat fish that eat fish, there can we quite a bit of accumulation. Smaller fish tend to be safer. I’d imagine that plants at the bottom of the foodchain would be very safe.

This was what I was going to say, my only contribution will be to add i was taught this mechanism was called ecologic magnification, but apparently in wikipedia it's refferred to as biological magnification[0], so, some term drift in 20 years perhaps

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification

> But they're "further out there" than kale

I'm curious about this. I've seen kale being vaguely mentioned here and there, but I don't know its, for lack of a better word, cultural significance.

What is this all about?

Their seen as a liberal, left-wing food. Right-wingers will say something like "Those kale eating liberals."

Kale is a nutrient rich leafy green food in the same family as broccoli. A lot of people seem to hate the flavor, I don't mind it and I wonder if it's because I ate a lot of broccoli as a kid (didn't have any kale until decades later).

For some reason, in America, there's a cultural association with healthy food (especially if it isn't meat based) and left-wing political progressives. I think that is also playing a part here, as there's an implication that the progressive left-wing NYT would be interested in publishing more healthy food propaganda and otherwise "telling people how to live."

Thank you for the context.

> For some reason, in America, there's a cultural association with healthy food (especially if it isn't meat based) and left-wing political progressives.

I would never get used to this level of political divide. Was it always like that?

> Was it always like that?

Since at least the '80s, and probably way further back than that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com