Toxins That Threaten Our Brains | Hacker News Reader

Toxins That Threaten Our Brains

theatlantic.com

131 pointsakbarnama105 comments

The problem with many of these is that, as in everything else, the dose makes the poison. Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak & tooth decay sets in easily, too much and you get fluoridosis. Just the right amount (which is a reasonably large range) and you're healthy.

Maganese is the same, it's an essential trace nutrient for pretty much all living things, and you'll die without it, but too much will kill you.

The most dangerous agricultural pesticides are the neonicotinoids, and they're used in organic farming. They tend to decay quickly, so if the food is properly managed and they're not applied too late they won't be found in the food.

Now, not everything that is dangerous is necessary. There's no benefit from eating mercury, for example, but there are always safe exposure levels. Some compounds bio-accumulate, so the safe exposure levels have to be set for a lifetime. Most organic mercury compounds are of this sort, and due to their extreme toxicity the safe exposure levels are very low.

I think you mean 'subject to further studies, we think that .... x and y levels of these substances are safe'.

I think lead is especially nasty in that even small doses have been shown to have proportionately damaging effects.

Which organic certification are you referring to which allows the use of neonicotinoids? Looking through the Australian ones it doesn't appear any of them would allow the use of neonicotinoids[1] but I have the feeling I don't know enough about it to say so conclusively ...

[1]http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/about/contact/aco

Doesn't appear to be allowed per USDA regs either. Eventually we're going to pinpoint OP by a process of elimination.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f10...

If that fails, for a negative perspective, go to eCFR, chapter 7 Ag, part 205 USDA organic program, 205.602 "Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production" lists (i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate). Which is probably close enough to OPs claim. Or for a positive perspective 205.601 "Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production" section (e) "As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control)" and that lists 10 allowable bug killers none of which seem to be neonicotinoids.

By negative and positive I don't mean some electrical thing but words like "can if you want" vs "no you will not". Either way (edited: Both ways...) no nicotinoids on USDA labeled produce in the USA.

State regs are only allowed to be stricter than fed. So "Thats OK in California but not Wisconsin" is outright a non-starter if its already forbidden by USDA.

Now if you mean in practice, like if a chemist ran tests on randomly purchased organic produce in the USA, I'd say hell yes you'll find it in organic produce. There's like 50 layers of middlemen and shippers in the food industry, you have a personal relationship with none of them (I buy beef from a family friend and bought vegetables from a great uncle who retired into being a gentleman farmer, that's "different" than driving to a local food store), and all of them have a huge financial interest in taking visually identical apples from "Chemical McWasteland's Industrial Farm" and putting them in boxes from "Sunshine Unicorn Organic Farm". How many layers of middlemen would make about a buck a pound or more by merely accidentally selling non-organic food as organic? And how corrupt is this country? In practice the primary effect of buying and eating organic produce is almost certainly feeling better while making corrupt individuals wealthier, even if theoretically health benefits could be available from organic produce.

So the TLDR is legally wrong in the USA at the fed level both by being specifically forbidden AND by not listed as permitted, yet is also probably right that if you buy an "organic" apple at a convenience store, it probably isn't due to corruption.

The problem of middlemen is a large part of why I am involved in a food coop. Our coop buys mostly from local farmers, and if you have any questions about how something was grown, they provide contact information for the farmers. I've spoken to the people who grow my onions and mushrooms in person.

Do you think the Chinese toxic waste, aka "manufactured sodium fluoride and byproducts" that is put in public water supplies resembles anything like the calcium fluoride that the body needs?

I think you don't actually understand how ionic salts work in solution.

The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"

At which point he's free to show that the government is clearly using contaminated fluoridation equipment for the water. But that doesn't make water fluoridation a bad idea.

Conspiracy theorists need to pick one mechanism (and then actually find out about it).

No, the onus of proof is on the government that what they are doing to the water is good, or rather to provide a precise ingredients list of what they are adding to the water, where they are getting it from and how it is created... on a location-by-location basis, and at regular intervals. And that can be cross-checked by third parties if they should wish.

If there's a conspiracy, it's the one regarding what is supposedly good for my health and teeth. Who says I need "fluoride" delivered to me in this manner? Why can't I opt-in or at least have the information at-hand to make a decision as to whether I want to avoid tap water? Every water bill should have a precise ingredients list of the "product" being supplied. Why should water be different from any other thing I buy to drink.. especially in such large quantities, and as an ingredient indirectly in so many other foods I eat. It should be labelled as such.

And it will never be because the ingredients are toxic - the onus of proof is on the government to accurately label their product to prove me wrong (if that is their goal.) I can say anything I want, but I still don't need to prove or individually "find out" anything. I am not doing the tampering.

Just because you're too lazy to look up the wide body of literature on the benefits of water fluoridation, processes of water fluoridation, history and methodology...doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

But you know, guess what, you do have choices! It's called not using the municipal water supply and having it trucked in at great expense. Wouldn't be the first market where consumers are under-served due to lack of demand or apathy. I want HBO, but being in Australia can't get it.

Have you read the counter-arguments to fluoridation? And speaking of laziness, I would never sit myself in front of HBO.

Anyhow, the problem is informational I think right now. What's needed is accurate information on what's being added, where, and how much. Also, who's supplying it. I can read and believe as much as I want, from whatever source I want, but what's harder to dispute are real measurements. This sort of information should've been provided already, and the fact that in this day and age that this sort of information can't or won't be provided makes me wonder why not. In fact, in some respects I'd like to see these type of scientific measurements and ingredient lists provided BEFORE even ending fluoridation (which could serve to hide what has been added) and then people can be held accountable for what they have done in the name of science and health (or rather money and whatever other nefarious motive.)

If fluoridation is so great, then let me see measurements on what exactly is being added to the water, and then I can work out the right dose to help me with any teeth problems I MIGHT have otherwise... how is that being lazy?

If you are in the U.S., it is likely listed on the Consumer Confidence report that your municipal water supplier is required (by the EPA) to provide:

http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/

It's not monthly, but they aren't changing it all the time either.

Here's some examples of them:

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQuality...

http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtm...

Thanks. I looked at the Acton report: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/Documents/Water%20Quality%20... and it stated specifically that chlorine was being added (not fluoride.) Also, fluoride as 0.19 (before or after fluoridation?.. it wasn't specifically stated that it was being added, only that it was to help with teeth strength as a table note. NY was 1 ppm) But what I think is needed is precise analysis of ALL constituents of the actual fluoride additive used at the treatment plant. Some of those constituents could corrode pipes too (let alone one's body,) leading to further contamination. The people supplying the fluoride can provide that type of information, and it can be linked from those water websites without much effort.

Those numbers are all for treated water as it is supplied to the customers. That's the whole point. So after any treatment.

It's also not any great mystery how they are accomplishing it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Implementati...

I'm sure if you had specific concerns about one of the additives that a couple of phone calls would be sufficient to identify the treatment used for your water.

As groundwater courses over rocks, it picks up the compound Calcium Fluoride from those rocks. Once in the water, CaF releases a certain amount of fluoride ions into the water. These F ions are to what is commonly referred as being "naturally occurring fluoride".

The compound most frequently utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rock as a co-product of the process from which the other co-product, phosphoric acid, is derived.

Once HFA is added to water, the pH of that water (~7) causes the immediate and complete hydrolysis (dissociation) of the HFA. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water as a result of release from CaF, and trace contaminants in barely detectable, minuscule amounts that fall far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After this point HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever.

EPA drinking water quality standards begin at the tap, as this is the water which is ingested and/or otherwise utilized. Water from the tap must meet the stringent Standard 60 certification requirements of the National Sanitary Foundation, as mandated by the EPA, or it is not allowed. Thus, whether additives come from the US, Mexico, China, or the moon, is irrelevant. If water in which these additives are incorporated does not meet NSF certification requirements at the tap, it is not allowed. It's as simple as that.

A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of whether the source compound is CaF, NaF, HFA, or any other. Elementary chemistry.

Fluoridated water easily meets all EPA mandated NSF certification requirements. A complete listing of the minuscule trace contaminants in fluoridated water, in their precise amounts is readily available to anyone, on the NSF website:

http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-c...

A complete listing of the contents of any local public water system are readily available to anyone from the annual water quality report of the utilities departments of the respective localities.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

From the PDF:

"NSF certifies three basic products in the fluoridation category: 1. Fluorosilicic Acid (aka Fluosilicic Acid or Hydrofluosilicic Acid) 2. Sodium Fluorosilicate (aka Sodium Silicofluoride) 3. Sodium Fluoride All three product types dissociate in water to form sodium, fluoride, and in the case of the first two, silicate ions."

"The NSF toxicology review for a water treatment product considers all chemical ingredients in the product, as well as the manufacturing process, processing aids, and other factors that have an impact on the chemicals attributable to the products present in the finished drinking water. The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of the product.... These tanker trucks, transfer terminals and rail cars are potential sources of contamination. Therefore, NSF also inspects, samples, tests, and certifies products at rail transfer and storage depots...... In summary, the majority of fluoridation products as a class, based on NSF test results, do not contribute measurable amounts of arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, or radionuclides to the drinking water."

"The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of the product. For example, fluosilicic acid is produced by adding sulfuric acid to phosphate ore."

In the table presented, the current chemicals tested for are: Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Radionuclides – alpha pCi/L, Radionuclides – beta mrem/yr, Selenium, Thallium.

What else is going to be in the phosphate ore that could come into the water? To me that test range looks too small. How pure is the sulfuric acid used to dissolve the phosphate? Also, what sort of byproducts are going to occur as the fluoride additives and sulfuric acid corrode their containers?

I don't live in the USA but these are the sort of questions I'd be asking, and as mentioned elsewhere, I'd want to see realtime and comprehensive information on the additives used - and alerts if something strange or unwanted is found. I think it's going to be more difficult to test tap water itself for such additives, so I'd suggest testing and displaying the actual additives before placed in the water - and from there it's going to be straightforward to determine concentrations. Personally, I wouldn't be accepting the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 as it currently stands... from how I perceive it. It was devised in 1988. This sort of extra testing would have to come on top of it, likely on a small scale by individual plants interested.

Finally, I would start thinking about testing air quality... not final air quality... but the actual additives used in chemtrails in a realtime manner, just like with water additives. You can argue about if chemtrails are real or not, I am just asking... "whatever is coming out the back of those planes... I want to know what it contains, because I am inhaling it."

Again, water at the tap is that which is ingested and otherwise utilized, thus the only water of relevance. This is why NSF Standard 60 certification requirements begin with water at the tap. It makes no difference what additives are used, the process by which these additives are produced, or the location from where they are obtained. If the water at the tap does not meet Standard 60 certification requirements, it is not allowed.

If you want to argue with the US EPA about its standards and procedures, feel free. I, personally, have survived just fine with them for 61 years.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

tl;dr - the bottleneck to alleviating brain toxins right now is informational

To me standard 60 is insufficient. I would be happy to pay for extra testing to my water, or rather the additives used. I think many people would.

While we're on the topic of toxins for brain, I would also be happy to know more about the emf generated by smart meters, cell phone towers, and wireless equipment. But mainly smart meters. If I had one installed, I'd want very accurate readings of what is being emitted and when. Also vaccines.

The message is simple: "government/corporation: feel free to do whatever you want to my air, food, water, emf spectrum and blood that you believe or purport to be in my best interests (you already do).... but I want to know precisely and accurately what it is you're doing, changing and adding to it. I can be driven to do this for no reason, any reason, false reasons or accurate reasons. And whatever reason that may be, you'll have to accept it because you are the one tampering with long-standing internal and external ecosytems to which mine (and others') body and mind have adapted over millenia."

From there, I would either want the choice to opt-out, and if I cannot or it is not possible, then I can look for legal, political or economic (boycott) routes to address the problems I find, which could include the need for even greater informational transparency than the ones being offered.

By all means, have your water tested right down to the subatomic level if you so desire.

Obsessive demands to search for problems in the absence of valid evidence that any exist, are an integral aspect of antifluoridationist tactics. However, it is not justification to deny entire populations the benefits of a valuable public health initiative such as water fluoridation.

You have just exemplified the true root of antifluoridationist objections dating back 69 years to the very beginning of the initiative. It is not based in science, but in ideological distrust of government and authority. Thus, no matter how much valid science is presented to antifluoridationists, as long as it does not agree with this ideology, as it never will, it will be rejected by them.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Who comes to HN and starts signing their name and credentials? Steven does.

Sure, why not? I stand fully behind all my statements and see no need to hide behind pseudonyms. If you have a problem with fully disclosing my perspective by posting my dental degree, as is customary with healthcare professionals when signing their names, then you should probably seek therapy for your inferiority complex. Anyone secure, and confident with the position they present, should have no problem with it.

Steven D.Slott, DDS

I think it's great that you're here and perfectly okay to mention your degree (in your profile).

However, even if you feel you've been unfairly treated, your own words won't garner you many friends.

If your goal is to counter "antifluoridationists posting blatant misinformation", then you're totally ineffective, possibly even helping them out by making your side look bad.

I'd suggest to conform to the rules (yeah, "guidelines") here at first and find out if it's really so bad.

Or as someone I highly value once said on Usenet: if you want to transcend something, you've got to show that you're really understanding it, in order to transcend it in a meaningful way. Otherwise people will assume ignorance instead of transcendence.

"Treated unfairly"? Those are your words, not mine. I've not noted anything of the kind, nor would it be of any consequence to me if I had.

Your transparent condescension is typical fare of antifluoridationists who attempt to substitute such nonsense for provision of facts and valid evidence. I am not out to "garner friends", nor do I have a "side". There are no "sides" to the issue of water fluoridation. There is simply the valid, peer-reviewed science which fully supports the initiative, and the "junk science" of antifluoridationists who have no understanding of the difference between the two.

I just correct the mounds of misinformation posted by antifluoridationists, such that intelligent readers of these, or any other such comment sections, will understand the fallacy of such arguments.

If you have anything of consequence in regard to fluoridation, I will certainly be glad to address it. Your personal philosophy and "suggestions" are entirely irrelevant.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Your message is plain stupid. In dfact, I'm for fluoridation of tap water, even though it's not legally allowed in Germany as of now.

You're putting up a strawman. At least you've rectified my perception of you. I take my "condescending" welcome to HN back.

Ah, yes, personal attacks in lieu of facts and evidence. Another characteristic of antifluoridationists.

If you were indeed enlightened enough to be in favor of fluoridation you would easily recognize that the information I have provided in regard to fluoridation, is factual and fully supported by peer-reviewed science. That you don't is very telling.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

I think the pertinent facts for you right now is the level of mercury that you have in your body that seem (or might be) clouding your perceptions, locking you into rigid thoughts and even filling you with false accusations.

Have you done any testing or mercury chelation? From my understanding, the mercury stays in the body for a very long time and is difficult to detect in typical tests for it. Are you running a mercury-free clinic?

"The mercury content in all biological material was significantly higher in the dental workers than in the control population (p<0.0001). The geometric mean and 90th percentile mercury concentrations in the urine samples from dentists were 1.7 and 7.3 micromol mol(-1) creatinine, respectively, with only one sample having a value at around the UK's Health and Safety Executive biological monitoring health guidance level of 20 micromol mol(-1) creatinine."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15204310

So my tip is to address the issue of mercury as it is a potent neurotoxin (it completely stops neuronal growth, and kills brains cells), and dentists have been huge perpetrators of the spread of this element into people's bodies and environment for a very long time. Wouldn't you agree? Don't you feel responsible for this?

Please feel free not to sign your name again, you can put it in your profile description.. why not give it a try? And I say go get yourself checked for a superiority complex (given you've said I have an inferiority complex.)

Your concern for my health is touching, but irrelevant to the issue of water fluoridation. Certainly anti-amalgam and anti-vaccination philosophies go hand-in-hand with the antifluoridationist mindset, but can be discussed elsewhere.

Do you have any facts, supported by valid scientific evidence to support your opposition to the public health initiative of water fluoridation?

Steven D. Slott, DDS

You seem to have confused Tomte with someone else upthread. Or do you believe that anyone who tells you something contrary to what you want to hear, on any subject, is an "antifluoridationist"?

I thought your arguments were quite good and convincing but it's a pity that you couldn't take some well-intended advice about local protocols (with the exception of adrianwaj's snide remark).

http://www.meatballwiki.org/wiki/UsAndThem

I think I understand what you're saying but I don't believe you need a 3x3 matrix for this. It's just "if you aren't for me (on everything), you're against me." But to give him the benefit of a doubt, maybe he just wasn't reading carefully.

Uh, no, I was saying he's troll-like and thus HN should stop feeding it.

Yeah, you were right.

Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that prevents an enormous amount of extreme pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection in tens of millions of individuals. If any of you guys wish to discuss the issue, presenting facts supported by valid, scientific evidence, I will be glad to do so. If all you want to do is discuss "protocol" for an online comment section, you're just wasting time and space.

I simply correct the mounds of misinformation constantly posted online by those seeking to further their own, personal ideology at the expense of those who need our help the most, and for whom I have spent 3 decades advocating and providing much needed dental care. I have no interest in what you believe one way or another, your personal philosophies, or your opinions on how, or what one should post. HN is entirely free to not post my comments at any time, if deemed not to conform to whatever standards it wishes to impose.

Now, if anyone wishes to stay focused on the issue of water fluoridation, fine. If not then you are certainly free to continue whining about "protocols" amongst yourselves.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

That is a mean thing to say to a newcomer who wouldn't necessarily know that signing comments isn't customary here. Please don't be mean.

It is of no concern to me whether it is customary to post one's name, or not. I do not hide behind pseudonyms. Neither do I care whether people view my DDS as a positive, negative, or nothing. I post it as a matter of full disclosure of my perspective.

It is simply a matter of accountability. Antifluoridations flood the internet with patently false, misleading information, and an endless barrage of unsubstantiated claims, all while hiding behind pseudonyms. I make no claims of being an expert, and don't ask people to trust me on this issue. I simply urge them to trust the peer-reviewed science obtained from legitimate, authoritative sources, instead of junk found on antifluoridationist websites. I can provide evidence to support my claims and do not fear being held accountable to do so. Contrast this to antifluoridationists posting blatant misinformation for which they can provide no valid evidence, while hiding behind pseudonyms and insidiously attempting to steer readers to the filtered and edited nonsense on their biased little websites.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

The HN guidelines [0] ask you not to sign your comments. Your username is already on your comment, and people can click your username to see any further information you include. If it's directly relevant to the discussion at hand, you might say it once in the form "source: I'm a [whatever]", but please don't repeat it. Otherwise, it's just clutter.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

And, adding to 'lotharbot: in case you're feeling stung by this rather superficial and perhaps confusing subthread: we don't have a lot of input from dentists here, and it's very cool to have one commenting. We very much appreciate the injection of new expertise!

Just put what you'd put in your signature into your profile instead. :P

Welcome to the site!

If HN does not approve of my comments, it is certainly free not to post them. However, I do not hide behind pseudonyms.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Good comments.

You can edit your profile to put information there that you would normally put in your signature. For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=wglb for mine.

> Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak

As far as I know there is zero biological requirement for fluoride. Fluoride can help mask systemic problems like mineral deficiency that lead to tooth decay, but nobody has ever had a cavity due to fluoride deficiency.

Same argument for shoes? Nobody ever hurt their foot because of shoe deficiency; it was the thorn that did it.

I think its disingenuous to ignore the obvious benefits of hardening enamel, regardless of other health issues in our population.

Shoes don't present a risk to health and intelligence. And shoes aren't a band aid for a serious underlying health problem. Tooth decay is not a natural consequence of sugar consumption or a lack of fluoride. Ever hear the expression "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?" It alludes to the fact that tooth decay is a clear sign of serious deficiencies. That fluoride substitution reactions can mask the symptom is interesting but probably not a great public health approach.

To be pedantic, you can argue that shoes do all that. Soft weak feet and vitamin D deficiency are issues exacerbated by shoes. Many shoes are designed solely as band aids for foot problems.

And helping teeth stay healthy in the presence of deficiencies is NOT a public health problem; no doctor is looking at your teeth like he looks at a horse, to diagnose your health. Yet tooth problems lead to diet problems lead to more health problems.

Fluoride is easily arguably a public health benefit, because it Mitigates symptoms of other issues.

A long but very shallow article. - interviewed authors of paper that used the phrase, "silent pandemic" when claiming widespread behavioural and cognitive problems as a result of 12 compounds. Evidence presented in the article itself? "Rates of diagnosis of [autism] and ADHD are increasing..." [diagnosis is not necessarily preponderance], an increase in "subclinical decrements in brain function" [as measured how?] , and "genetic factors account for no more than 30-40% of brain development disorders" [based on what exactly?] From this thin stuff the authors then get plenty of column space to expound on their opinions. Re: the IQ experiments. If Bellinger's own lead-IQ model is correct [from the linked Environ Health Perspect. Jul 2005; 113(7): 894–89] , a decrease in blood lead concentration from >10 ug/kg [1970's] to 1.8 ug/kg [2009] should have resulted in 3 point increase in IQ scores. Where's any discussion of this? - FMRI reveals effects of methyl mercury in 3 [?] adolescents. How can you possibly determine loss of IQ points due to methyl mercury exposure on this set while controlling for other factors? Talk about small sample size. -The article asks, "Impressive as all this research investment is, the larger question remains: Why are we looking at these hazards now—instead of before we introduced these chemicals into the world?" 80k chemicals mentioned as being on "the market" although what this means isn't specified. "It would cost $5 million and 5 years per chemical to run the full battery of tests" according to quoted researcher. 400 billion dollars if done on the full set. 1) Who pays? 2) Why would any chemical company have a research presence in the USA if their product had a several year lead time for rollout due to testing requirements?

So all you have done is try to shoot down the article, without attempting to replace it with any concrete suggestions of your own. Every argument has flaws and costs but you seem to be aiming at "do nothing" or nothing that will scare away the profits and technology, health cost be damned.

If Bellinger's own lead-IQ model is correct...decrease in blood lead concentration..should have resulted in a 3 point increase in IQ scores

This is an interesting point. I haven't seen an explanation for the Flynn Effect continuing as blood lead levels rose through the 20th century. If IQ levels would have risen faster without lead then the increases should have been even more substantial since lead levels dropped.

Could be safe in agricultural use even if it wasn't safe enough in household use. Best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Cheap food with /almost no/ risk of developing a condition or losing functions of the body is better than expensive food with a marginal reduction in risk.

Even if we were "missing out on" 41,000,000 IQ points(this alone sounds arbitrary and unprovable) in the U.S., that would be 0.2 IQ points roughly per person... I'm not even sure that's statistically significant by any definition.

Then again, maybe I'm just dead wrong about that and I need to shut up and hop on the hysteria bandwagon.

I certainly don't like that Dow conspired to suppress completed research, although it is also abhorrible that people gave in to that pressure, probably through paltry bribes.

> Could be safe in agricultural use

Didn't we find that some pesticide(s) is/are (partially) responsible for bee colony collapse disorder?

I don't think so, since many of the pesticides being blamed have been in use long before CCD appeared.

Neonicotinoids, the class of chemical pesticides most commonly blamed for CCD, were introduced into widespread use around the time CCD appeared. I don't think anybody has definitely proven causation (and see the various posts, even today, about problems in deriving causation from correlation). But there appears to be neurobiological evidence for some link between the way the pesticides work and the way bees behave. As far as likely suspects for the cause of CCD go, it's high on the list.

Yes, neonicotinoids are implicated. They are certainly not the only factor, as your (partially) points out, but the evidence seems to indicate that they weaken bees in ways that interact with mites and climate stresses to lead to colony collapse.

> in the U.S., that would be 0.2 IQ points roughly per person..

These IQ points are not equally distributed. The poor and the very poor will suffer far more from these problems - they are likely a rather small minority in the U.S. Wikipedia says 13.5%: Then it would be at least 1 IQ point.

In reality a small but really poor minority will suffer far more from these problems because they don't have access to better alternatives or lack the education to even be able to assess their situation.

The problem with /almost no/ risk is that we don't know. In regards to chemical substances very small doses can also have an effect. Can't we be at least honest?

I don't know for sure if this would help or not but why don't we forbid chemicals for wider use until they are proven as not problematical? And why don't we keep an eye on pollution e.g. in flats as a requirement for renting them?

Is it unreasonable to be cautious in these matters? After learning about the history of industrialization?

As is it now it looks like a matter of class and income and education and this should really not be the case.

Understandable, but we shouldn't assume that this is the only thing that hurts the poor.

We could say that fast food is somehow predatory, causing obesity in the poor, but of course many of the poor rely heavily on fast food providers, which provide food which is no more calorie-laden, salty, or sugary than anything you pick up at a fancier restaurant. If you fuck with fast food, many people will feel it in the wallet, and these are the people who need the most not to feel it there.

You could say that these toxins unfairly target the poor(although I have a hard time believing they do), but exposure to fluoride means that their dental health is significantly better just from drinking tap water, cheap industrial pesticides mean food is cheaper, healthier, and more reliable.

You have to ask yourself, what is more important to your average impoverished american? a 50-100 dollar a month difference in family food/medical expenses, or a tenuous, debatable 0.2-1 point IQ difference out of an atlantic article talking about a single study?

It would be nice to reduce the impact of these industrial wonder chemicals on human health, but before throwing them out the window, we have to assess whether we will be doing more harm than good by doing so.

Also, most municipalities that I know have atmospheric pollution restrictions as a public health service, and they regularly test air quality, although it's rare or unheard of that there is an actual issue in my particular city that would be reasonable cause for outright evacuating people from their homes, although

I can think of one instance where ground pollution was measured and reported on by the city, causing them to shut down an area to replace the topsoil(which had traces of various things dumped decades ago by the previous users of the land: an automobile service shop).

Following that, again, who are you to say that a couple years of exposure to traces of atmospheric lead is going to cost them more livelihood than not being able to live there? The only ethically-sound thing you can do is inform them of their risks, and let them make their own decisions.

>You have to ask yourself, what is more important to your average impoverished american? a 50-100 dollar a month difference in family food/medical expenses, or a tenuous, debatable 0.2-1 point IQ difference out of an atlantic article talking about a single study?

Now, assuming for a moment that the study is right, and that this is focused on a small subset of the population and thus we are talking a one-point drop,[1] as far as outcomes on an individual's life go, you have diminishing marginal returns on IQ.[2] The point here being that a small increase in intelligence is going to help someone that is significantly below average much more than it is going to help someone that is already significantly above average, when you measure outcomes in things like income.

[1]I think speaking of IQ say, in deviation from the mean or percentile or something like that gives you a better handle on what's going on than "IQ points" though I read now that the two are convertible.

[2]http://web.archive.org/web/20060521185816/http://www.america...

You want to increase your IQ a point, do crossword puzzles.

>You want to increase your IQ a point, do crossword puzzles.

Do you have a reference for that?

In my own experience, my test scores have not significantly changed over the last 23 years.

Now, I'm not claiming that any test is perfect... but from what I have experienced and what I read, they do measure something that does not change all that much after you reach the age of reason.

Very good, I'm aware that the degrees could count more for those lacking in general. I have a fairly high IQ, 99.7 percentile or thereabouts, so honestly I have no idea what difference one point makes.

> "Cheap food with /almost no/ risk of developing a condition or losing functions of the body is better than expensive food with a marginal reduction in risk."

Precisely. Any statement like 'x is bad' should either provide a realistic alternative or discuss the cost/benefit of using x.

Frty-one million IQ points. That’s what Dr. David Bellinger determined Americans have collectively forfeited as a result of exposure to lead, mercury, and organophosphate pesticides. "

Okay, I bailed. It's rare that a lede is so bad that I'll bail -- usually I just don't click on stuff that looks like crap. But this looked interesting.

Why did I bail? First, IQ points are not cumulative. It's not like you can add them all up and get anything at all useful. It's not even like we could come to a reasonable agreement that IQ points are a useful metric, but I'll just let that go.

More to the point, the question isn't society overall, it's individual choice. Would you trade the loss of 2 or 3 IQ points for better food, a modern world, access to transportation, and so on? I would -- in a heartbeat. It wouldn't even be a tough decision to make. Live to 80 in a modern world full of modern conveniences while being a tiny bit less bright? Count me in.

So I went into scan mode for the rest of the article. For all I know, it looked good. But I'm left believing what I already believe: Yes, there probably are some statistical clusters that warrant societal intervention. Perhaps poor people living in a lead-infested housing project next to a chemical factory. But to use terms like "Silent Pandemic" is to be terribly irresponsible. Alarmist even. It does not describe the problem in enough detail for the reader to know what to do about it, and it's just a cry for attention.

Sorry. No so much.

Hm. I'm only going to talk about fluoride, because it's the easiest to pick on: yes, China does have dangerously high levels of fluoride in groundwater in some areas. Those levels are much higher than the levels added to water in Western countries, and, in fact, Western countries already implement policies to limit the concentration of fluoride that makes it into drinking water (so in, e.g., Colorado Springs, fluoride is removed):

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

>Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. [emphasis added]

Additionally, as even this week's Chicken Little proclaims:

> “Not at all,” Landrigan said. “I think it’s very good to have in toothpaste.”

--- of course! Do you really think that nobody studied the addition of fluoride to toothpaste when it was first adopted?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002278...

> "Seventy-four studies were included."

The end. Fluoride is not a routine risk to neural health in developed countries.

Not saying that fluoride is necessarily bad, but brushing and spitting toothpaste is different from drinking gallons of fluoridated water each week.

That statement is meaningless unless you know how much fluoride is in the water

This article rambled and jumped around and was too sensationalistic for my taste.

Not that it didn't contain some good points but it was unduly alarmist in tone and kept lumping all chemicals in one class. Lead is a different case from fluoride is a different case from agricultural pesticides (themselves many different classes of compounds...some more harmful than others).

Certainly there are toxins in our environment and this is an issue. Well known toxins like lead have no place in our biological system. But this is not a new realization. Measures have been taken to address lead, maybe more are needed, I don't know, but people can't freely disperse lead in the environment anymore. (Except NRA members of course).

The article contained a dash of conspiracy for good measure and appeared about as scientific as a 1980's anti-recreational drug commercial...."This is your brain on fluoride!". Exactly the same type of hysteria (albeit from a different political spectrum) as well.

Here is reality...we can't live this lifestyle without chemicals so there will be some trade offs. That's the bottom line. Want to use plastic and drive a car and buy raspberry pi's? Then there are going to be some toxins. Maybe things have been too lax and more research and regulation should occur. No argument. But all chemicals and all pesticides are not evil and we are going to need some for the foreseeable future.

Thanks for sharing, this reminded me of an article[1] in a similar vein.

Excerpt: "Today, a novel class of illnesses is on the rise, and neither theory sufficiently explains it. TILT shows how a person can have a toxic exposure and never recover. Exposures trigger a bewildering array of symptoms that many people never trace back to synthetic chemicals in their daily life. They may experience cardiac and neurological abnormalities, headaches, flu-like symptoms, bladder dysfunction, asthma, depression, anxiety, pain, cognitive dysfunction, and sleep disorders"

[1]: http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/is-the-world-making-you...

You don't actually believe that pseudo science bullshit, do you? Please tell me you jest / troll. That article / interview is just full of half-assed science and made up bullshit.

From the nautilus article: She calls her theory “TILT,” short for Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance.

TILT posits that a surprising range of today’s most common chronic conditions are linked to daily exposure to very low doses of synthetic chemicals that have been in mass production since World War II. These include organophosphate pesticides, flame-retardants, formaldehyde, benzene, and tens of thousands of other chemicals."

Given this is HN, I would like to believe that you understand what a 'theory' is. I found that it was an interesting theory and nicely parallels with the article from the OP. Whether I believe the theory or not is irrelevant. I'm sharing knowledge cause it's fascinating.

It's not sharing knowledge it's spreading "theories" that are well known to be incorrect. Spreading pseudo science, regardless of how much you believe in it, is not a good thing.

These people are great at constructing a narrative that everyone would love to believe. Wouldn't it be great if this single thing was the cause of ALL of these aliments? Unfortunately life doesn't work that way but our minds are great at drawing invalid correlations.

take your pick:

knowl·edge ˈnälij ; noun 1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. "the program had been developed without his knowledge" synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation

Prove the article wrong if you are so compelled to do so. Part of the reason I share things on HN is for the discussion it creates, which expands my knowledge so I can form educated opinions. I appreciate this aspect of HN, it's why I keep coming back so please, inform me with some links, resources, or research and relieve my of my pseudo-scientific ignorance or stop telling me I'm wrong.

The term you're looking for is a hypothesis, not a theory, as far as I can tell, because you've provided no evidence that it is correct by way of double-blind studies, and I am struggling to find anything at all of this "Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance" past "we looked at some graphs and came up with an explanation after the fact". Statistics can be used to explain anything, the trick to avoiding the issue is to come up with the explanation and an independent experiment first.

Science doesn't operate on a basis of "I'll make stuff up and make people prove me wrong". A hypothesis is worthless on its own, and is decidedly not knowledge.

Comments written in this tone have the fun property of being even more toxic when they're correct, which I'll stipulate that you are. They have a high valence, because people recognize and relate to the underlying correct argument even though it's hidden behind a cloud of snark. The force they exert realigns the thread towards meanness.

And, obviously, they're embarrassing for the correct side of the debate, which has been caricatured.

Please, please don't write like this here.

Dow knowingly spreads poison, pays a fine, withdraws a product from household use, and that product continues to be used in farming? I had to stop reading.

I mean, it's the same company that made agent orange...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange (in case anyone isn't aware)

Along with everyone's best friend, Monsanto!

Lying to the masses to make some profit off of poison you peddle is kinda part of Dow's "DNA" as a company...

Let's not stop there, it's the same country that made agent orange!

...And greenwash them away by grandiose ad campaigns such as "human element" where they portray themselves as a part of the (humanitarian) solution to potable water.

If they really cared a tiddly bit about devastating human costs caused by their wholly owned subsidiaries, they would have at least spent a miniscule fraction of what they spend on such ad campaigns to actually clean up their mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

The particular example I have in mind is the Bhopal disaster, and contamination of Bhopal's groundwater caused by the same company but prior to the disaster. Notably they dont shy away from claiming any of the assets of their wholly owned subsidiary Union Carbide, but none of their liabilities. 20,000 have died because of these causes, more have been disabled beyond the capacity to earn livelihood wages, but they do zilch about it. Well, not quite correct, they spend billions in ad campaigns, sponsor olympics and get a free pass. While Chernobyl rules the roost in western media as a prominent example of an industrial disaster (fits the narrative of "look how bad Russian technology is" very nicely) few if at all recall Bhopal although it is a tragedy of as epic proportions, I would argue that its (official) human cost was more.

I have not started on Nemagon or dioxins.

According to the Wikipedia article you linked to, 3787 deaths are confirmed as resulting from the incident and 16000 deaths are claimed in total. The page does not support the assertion that the disaster was responsible for 20000 deaths.

From the same page: "In 1994, UCC sold its stake in UCIL to Eveready Industries India Limited... Eveready Industries India, Limited, ended cleanup on the site in 1998, when it terminated its 99-year lease and turned over control of the site to the state government of Madhya Pradesh. Dow Chemical Company Purchased UCC in 2001, seventeen years after the disaster."

Dow Chemical did not own Union Carbide at the time of the incident. Additionally, EIIL had assumed, and shed, liability for the cleanup prior to Dow Chemical's acquisition of UCC. Dow Chemical is absolutely responsible for damaging the environment in various ways; however, constructing narratives to implicate the company in the Bhopal Disaster is disingenuous.

The death toll numbers vary with which source you cite. I was being conservative with 20,000. The ~4K number is of course those who dies immediately after the leak, many have perished due to long term effects and still continue to do so. It hasnt stopped.

It is irrelevant that Dow did not own UCC then, it owns it now, and not in part, wholly, that comes with liabilities too. Liability does not disappear in the thin air just because some other company buys it out. To vindicate this point, Dow has paid millions for UCC liabilities in US. Dow did not own UCC at that time either.

UCC has ceased to exist and Dow owns all of the assets, and I argue that includes UC all its liabilities liabilities. The gold standard has been that the polluter pays, the polluter was UCC, which is now owned by Dow (which means all property physical and intellectual). EIIL never assumed liabilities, it obtained the lease of the land that had been lent out to UCC by the govt, it did not buy UCC.

If you want to know the facts I would say dig around, if you want to push an predetermined opinion, continue what you are doing. As the owner of UCC, Dow has been summoned by the Indian courts which it has refused to do, so as per Indian law its a fugitive from justice.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183715.Five_Past_Midnight... does a good job, but from your tone it seems you wont be interested much.

> constructing narratives to implicate the company in the Bhopal Disaster is disingenuous.

Thats really cute, what name would you give to profiteering from human disaster by using US sovereignty to shield it from criminal and tort proceedings.

> "withdraws a product from household use, and that product continues to be used in farming?"

There are lots of things that would be potentially dangerous inside of my house that are at home on my cousin's farm. Those use cases are considerably different.

The Atlantic has great brand capital, which for some reason doesn't erode much when they regularly print sensational clickbait like this, or do things like print PR stories for the Church of Scientology (http://archive.today/vca4i). I'd take this article and most of what they print with a grain of salt.

Oh good an article about complete bullshit. I haven't read enough bullshit lately.

Edit: Oh good the pseudo science crew is here to downvote me. Good lord people read the article; you can tell by the opening paragraph it's complete bullshit. Look at the studies they reference and how shitty their controls are. Good god people try being skeptical for once.

Edit2: Today I learned Hacker News is a great venue for spreading pseudo science and quackery. That kinda makes me sad.

> Today I learned Hacker News is a great venue for spreading pseudo science and quackery.

On non-programming topics that's always been the case. HN is full of programmers who are not knowledgeable in science, and tend to trust their personal political or cultural beliefs on other subjects where science might be applied. Today's frontpage is actually great because it contains an example of that with both political valences. There's a "left-ish" pseudoscientific story about toxins, and "right-ish" pseudoscientific story about evolutionary psychology. Amazing. We're only missing a thread on weightlifting or nutritional fads to complete the bingo card.

I've often found quite the opposite. I've been amazed at how knowledgeable HNers are about random and obscure science and medicine.

It's more complicated. For each obscure subject, there are one or two users that are experts or at least have enough knowledge. The problem is that there is a big amount of enthusiastic, that are exited about the new possible result and forget to see that it's almost sure a incorrect result. In some threads the enthusiastic user overhead the experts. A typical subject (without political interest) is faster than light travel. Or in other words: http://xkcd.com/955/

Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and a soft science? I don't think you do.

Hard sciences like physics and chemistry are able to describe processes in minute detail because the systems being studied are relatively simple. As you scale the systems up, the level of detail that science produces is diminished, because there's a higher level of uncontrolled variables. This is why people make the difference between hard science and soft science, you can still try to follow scientific principles without getting a high level of conclusivity.

What soft sciences rely on is a body of observational evidence. Here's a classic example from the article... "For decades, chlorpyrifos, marketed by Dow Chemical beginning in 1965, was the most widely used insect killer in American homes. Then, in 1995, Dow was fined $732,000 by the EPA for concealing more than 200 reports of poisoning related to chlorpyrifos. It paid the fine and, in 2000, withdrew chlorpyrifos from household products. Today, chlorpyrifos is classified as “very highly toxic” to birds and freshwater fish, and “moderately toxic” to mammals, but it is still used widely in agriculture on food and non-food crops, in greenhouses and plant nurseries, on wood products and golf courses."

> Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and a soft science? I don't think you do.

Science follows a well known process. There are no hard or soft sciences. There is one that follows evidence and another that's pseudo science bullshit. With great claims comes great evidence and your soft science example not only lacks proper, vetted scientific evidence but is actually complete bullshit that simply fits with your cultural belief.

Oh dear.

Let's start from the beginning, what is this well known process that science follows?

You won't make a lot of friends here with this kind of reasoning. Please refute the article in a way that is at least somewhat open to scrutiny from the wider audience. That should at least include concrete examples and preferably sourced rebuttal of said claims.

Calling something "pseudo science bullshit" because of "science"... is a lot more similar to pseudoscience than having an actual sourced debate based on concrete examples.

Whether or not the article is true, why don't you provide more constructive information? Presumably you've read the referenced studies and seen how bad their controls are. Which studies, and why is it bad?

>Today I learned Hacker News is a great venue for spreading pseudo science and quackery.

I don't know very much about this topic but it interests me and this article looks like a quick introduction to some concerns. If you would like to inform me of why it's complete bullshit, I would love to hear. Your comment as it stands adds no value which I think is the reason why you were downvoted (I didn't personally) -- not because people "take sides" with the article.

> If you would like to inform me of why it's complete bullshit, I would love to hear. Your comment as it stands adds no value which I think is the reason why you were downvoted (I didn't personally) -- not because people "take sides" with the article.

My problem with this is I would be on HN, Reddit and other places all day. With every extraordinary claim someone makes it can take actual science a few minutes to explain (this is why extraordinary claims should always come with extraordinary evidence otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time like this article). Pseudo science is incredibly easy to generate; you just find something that makes easy correlations (regardless of their validity) and fits within a narrative people love and you're done. Science then has to go through each item and explain why each one is wrong.

I shouldn't have to go through articles like this and look up and source each piece that's incorrect; if readers simply apply some critical thinking and do a little investigation on their own (and, hey, actually READ a REAL study once in a while so you can see what a good study and a bad study looks like) they can see right through it.

I don't have much experience with HN and pseudo science articles; because this crowd is usually really smart I kinda assumed it would have been really easy to tell this was bullshit.

Find or make a website that explains the problem with detailed information, and then quickly post a link wherever needed.

Example (from a totally different issue): http://begthequestion.info

Some other good ones are http://www.badscience.net/ and http://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/index.html (I suppose both of those links are relevant versus the awfulness in this Atlantic article.)

Lol. Most of us are well entrenched into our specific scientific & empirical schools. We would be ready at any instant to defend against "Pseudo-science" the idea that synthetic chemicals causing unforeseen harms and conditions does not need forty billion pieces of evidence.

We're going to see and decide for ourselves. I know nothing of the author/etc have no allegiances.

I can only speak for myself, but I for one am not downvoting you for your opinion but for the way you chose to express it.

This is why you are being downvoted: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

See the comment guidelines halfway through. This is not Reddit.

dang, please add "Don't make snarky and irrelevant claims about Reddit and its similarity to HN" to the guidelines.

That particular guideline is already present:

> If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)

You don't seem to understand much about science. The way bad claims get dealt with in science is by providing better data and better analysis. A random anonymous dude pissing all over something doesn't qualify in either regard.

It's reasonable to think there's some cost to widespread use of various chemicals. E.g., lead's neurotoxicity is well studied. I think it's therefore reasonable to try to come up with a best estimate of the total cost. Nobody's expecting an estimate like this to be perfect. As long as it's better than the existing estimate, it's a useful contribution.

I don't even understand what your counter-claim is. That all industrial chemicals have zero neurological harm? That neurological harm exists but is entirely unestimatable? That the harm is estimatable but is significantly lower or higher?

By all means criticize, but just being a content-free dick isn't useful criticism. And following it up with name-calling isn't helping.

Both of the mentioned articles (I'd say "cited" but only one was named; I had to find the other based on author names) are specifically scoped to only developmental problems. eg: If 3 year olds are exposed to too much lead, what happens. And then the article goes on for 15 minutes, fear mongering about evil corporations putting poisonous chemicals in everything.

But that's not what the studies said. The studies were explicitly only about developmental effects. Bah science reporting is terrible

No, you're being downvoted because your comment was neither constructive nor civil. While I'm sure the reasons you stated might have been a component of that, if you look at various other threads you will note that a lot of other comments in a similar vein--ones that lament the subject being brought up again, or just expressing vague dissatisfaction with the subject matter--also get downvoted.

What threatens personal health is mostly stress and sugar. So start exercising, lower your pace every now and then and stop drinking soft-drinks.

And even this isn't entirely correct since people get older and older nowadays. Why is there so much fear about personal health when the situation actually keeps getting better?

I'd imagine it's due to us actually being able to discover what effect things have on our bodies in ways we've never been able to before.

Regardless of these 'toxins' - I'm sure if you evaluated the toxicity and exposure to chemicals in an average household it would be probably exceed that of industrial labs in the past. Think deodorants, washing-up liquid, detergents, hand-washes, shampoos riddled with obscure-and-difficult-to-pronounce ingredients, cleaning liquids such as bleach. Forget the risk of being exposed to manganese within a steel can - we are already actively polluting our households and probably breathing in higher amounts of nasty chemicals hidden in household products than the examples mentioned in the article.

I think you severely underestimate the fatality and occupational exposure rate in old industrial labs.

Here's a classic pre-OSHA example of producing tetraethyl lead with no containment whatsoever (1924): http://blogs.plos.org/speakeasyscience/2011/08/24/at-the-doo...

Madam Curie's papers are still radioactive due to lack of containment (early 1900s): http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2011/1107/Marie...

Herea re the "Radium Girls" who would lick radium-laced paintbrushes to make watches (1917): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

And don't forget that nearly all heat-related surfaces in old labs were insulated with asbestos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Industrial_era

Don't forget the countless people who played with mercury as pranks (!) in old labs, nevermind the fact that old lab thermometers used to be made of the stuff and that it was used in countless experiments of yore (today, a broken mercury thermometer will evacuate a school or lab): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)#Historic_uses

Etc. Unless you've got a small lead factory, asbestos, some radioactive liquids, and a bottle of mercury laying around your house, I'm quite certain that it is quite a bit safer than "industrial labs in the past."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com