Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

michal_hanu_la t1_jdcmyw2 wrote

Amount / concentration / dose matters.

Always.

We are, after all, not Californians.

9

GhostlyRuse OP t1_jdcnbfa wrote

Ok but the preferable concentration of lead in my chocolate is 0.

52

michal_hanu_la t1_jdcne3o wrote

Under some threshold it makes no difference to your life or to your total exposure to lead.

In practice there is no such thing as 0.

With Hersheys I would be much more worried about your life being made worse by eating bad chocolate.

0

Amazingawesomator t1_jdcut8j wrote

The threshold that is safe for human consumption when it comes to lead is zero. Yes, there is a threshold - it is 0.

No amount of lead is safe for human consumption. The amount of lead the FDA allows in food is to allow companies to sell you lead and make money, not because it is healthy.

32

SomebodyInNevada t1_jdenbjw wrote

If they actually mandated zero then there would be no food for sale. Zero is unattainable.

The basic problem is that it's in the environment, the plants pick it up as they grow. Depending on the product it might be possible to remove some of it, it will never be possible to remove all of it.

13

gerkletoss t1_jdeuo9m wrote

>The threshold that is safe for human consumption when it comes to lead is zero.

Source? And definition of safe?

I'm not saying that the level of Hershey's chocolate is unacceptable, because I don't know, but clearly absolute zero is not possible.

4

Amazingawesomator t1_jdeymvc wrote

WHO... I linked it in a different subthread here

2

gerkletoss t1_jdez8dz wrote

>There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.

Do you see how that's a difference sentence from what you said?

Do you see how how every country on earth allows a small but non-zero amount of lead in good because zero is impossible?

−9

Grostleton t1_jdiwyqr wrote

it's a different sentence with identical meaning, reading comprehension much?

1

supersecretaqua t1_jdof2a7 wrote

Unless you're making the very silly statement that because no one can do it, that it somehow changes the line of what is actually safe.. Then the same thing has been said and you're not actually arguing like you think you are.

Now, if you are saying that... Then you're having a different conversation and are either intellectually dishonest and trolling or just lacking in reading comprehension

Either way, the only actually objective safe value for consumption with lead is 0. Anything above that has risks involved period. We can't achieve 0 though, so there is nothing to do but determine a threshold that will be the most acceptable and that is determined by regulations. Since it's established we CAN'T, there is no other option. But there is still risks and is harmful regardless of regulation. Tangible evidence that any amount is still harmful and every decimal point above 0 that it is, the higher violence is in a community over decades. So...

If you're still struggling don't bother responding, I can't help you if that was too far above your head lol

0

gerkletoss t1_jdofmds wrote

Safety is relative. There is no line. There's also no lead-free. That's why "no safe amount" is a useless statement.

That's why limits get established. They're actually useful.

>If you're still struggling don't bother responding, I can't help you if that was too far above your head lol

Irony thick enough to swim in

0

supersecretaqua t1_jdohonr wrote

Lmao I love when idiots try and say you have to stop talking about something if they don't like it

Like an actual toddler screeching about vegetables

Good luck little dented skull

1

nool_ t1_jdfix84 wrote

You might not want to breath then

0

michal_hanu_la t1_jdcwi73 wrote

> The threshold that is safe for human consumption when it comes to lead is zero. Yes, there is a threshold - it is 0.

That sound wrong, please do elaborate. What is your definition of safe? Do you have any source for the safe level, matching your definition?

Notice I am not saying lead is healthy, I am saying there is some level below which it is not unhealthy enough to warrant regulation.

And if you consider chocolate, what is the difference it makes to your total amount of lead?

−6

Amazingawesomator t1_jdcylfv wrote

WHO

> There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health

16

jmlinden7 t1_jddsdx5 wrote

They can't prove that a low dose is safe. That's not the same as saying that a low dose is proven to be dangerous.

−2

michal_hanu_la t1_jdd354r wrote

And has anyone tested exposure at the levels of what's in the chocolate?

How does it compare to the impact from non-chocolate?

Edit: TODO(me): Get some numbers

−6

BirdsbirdsBURDS t1_jdd95nt wrote

Heavy metal poisoning is a thing, FYI. It’s why mercury concentrations in fish are a problem in the east. Lead is no exception. It builds up in your system because your body can’t eliminate it. “Some lead exposure” is fine, kind of like getting stabbed once or twice is ok, except the cumulation limit is lifetime, rather than over a few minutes.

9

Bedbouncer t1_jdevjzt wrote

>It builds up in your system because your body can’t eliminate it.

This is simply not true. A quick Google search shows that.

1

GhostlyRuse OP t1_jdcnhaa wrote

That's not a great comfort.

6

sprint6864 t1_jddd8mr wrote

I literally made a comment in the thread about Skittles how idiots like this argue that it's their right to be poisoned, and we shouldn't care about removing harmful chemicals where we can

7

Shizzar_ t1_jdfcbp9 wrote

You think that bad I was a kid still while leaded gas was a thing. How much damage did my generation suffer?

2

Grostleton t1_jdixe09 wrote

So what? Your generation had it worse so ours shouldn't strive for improvement over what we currently have? True boomer logic right there...

1

gtacleveland t1_jdctlc7 wrote

Bruh that's life. There is never zero probability of anything. Therecis always a non-zero probability of contamination of any element.

−8

sprint6864 t1_jddd3jt wrote

Bruh, it's literally a controllable variable. You can force companies to remove harmful chemicals from their products, almost every other nation in the world has

6

jmgloss t1_jdfbs0m wrote

Did you know that there are rat droppings in your food? You'd want 0% of that, if asked. Seems like an easy thing to just say: "no rat droppings in food, please." But there are still rat droppings in food. Why is that?

−2

sprint6864 t1_jdfct55 wrote

Bruh, just eat lead paint and let the rest of civilization actually progress

0

gtacleveland t1_jddezmg wrote

You can mandate what a specific amount, but you cannot ensure that something is 100% free of a certain chemical or defect or contamination. You can only mitigate the problem to an accepted level, whether that is set by a customer or mandated by the government. I would know, I'm an engineer who deals with quality control in a factory every damn day.

−3

manleybones t1_jddia2s wrote

Who cares what you do, you are still wrong about removing lead.

3

gtacleveland t1_jddii8x wrote

How am I wrong then? Go ahead ill wait. Either you do not understand what I am talking about or you dont understand statistics.

−4

manleybones t1_jddipb6 wrote

There shouldn't be lead, or plutonium in chocolate. If it can be 100% free of plutonium, it can be 100% free of lead. That's a good thought experiment for your feeble mind.

0

gtacleveland t1_jddk1iu wrote

No shit Sherlock, of course there shouldn't be any. But it is not physically or statistically possible to be 100% free of it. What do you not understand about this? There is no absolutes. Hell the human body naturally has lead and plutonium and other heavy metals in it. The difference is that there is an acceptable amount that won't harm you.

1

manleybones t1_jddl0p5 wrote

There is no acceptable level of lead, stop playing interference for the shitty job you do for a shitty employer.

1

gtacleveland t1_jddm7hz wrote

I understand that you moron. I'm saying it is not physically possible for any product to have 0% lead content, ie, be 100% lead free.

You yourself are not lead free. You were born with lead in your body. You will die with it in your body, and hopefully it never reaches a concentration that does serious harm to your body.

I don't understand what you don't get.

1

sprint6864 t1_jddfyns wrote

Go enjoy paint chips and leave the rest of society alone. We prefer stopping brain damage, not saying it's something we have no chance to avoid

1

gtacleveland t1_jddh0ev wrote

Are you stupid or do you not understand statistics? You can mandate a company guarantee their products be 99% free of contamination, or 99.9% free, or even as high 99.99999% free. But you can never guarantee something be 100% free of contamination. There is always risk. The best you can do is mandate a product be within safe limits. In the real world you can get functionally close to 0% or 100% but you can never achieve them.

4

idratherbeintamriel t1_jdem2yn wrote

The solution is clearly to stop eating hersheys. I don’t think Lindt has this issue

3

KaisarDragon t1_jdd12xu wrote

If you wanted 100% pure anything, without any impurities you think you want 0% of, you'd have to stop eating. Hell, you'd need to stop breathing.

−4

manleybones t1_jddhvqc wrote

The acceptable dose of lead is none. Zero. Zilch. There is no acceptable dose of lead.

6

michal_hanu_la t1_jde168m wrote

Yes, people keep saying that, but you have some distribution of lead levels across population and getting from 10th to 12th percentile is probably fine.

Clearly lots of people eat chocolate. Do you observe any ill effects?

3

gerkletoss t1_jdeuay8 wrote

Thank you for your sacrifice in making this comment

2

broad5ide t1_jdet66a wrote

People drank from disgusting water supplies back in the middle ages without consequences all the time. That doesn't mean that there weren't consequences to inadequate water supply maintenance.

−3

michal_hanu_la t1_jdexgaz wrote

Without consequences? We know the consequences of drinking suspicious water (not necessarily disgusting).

4

broad5ide t1_jdey9v1 wrote

We also know the consequences of eating lead. What's your point?

3

michal_hanu_la t1_jdeykzm wrote

Do we know the consequences of eating lead in the amounts contained in realistic doses of chocolate? Say you eat 100g of dark chocolate a day, what should you expect?

4

broad5ide t1_jdez4dq wrote

"realistic" is a relative term. The CDC says there is no known safe level of lead. That's how we should be operating until it's proven otherwise.

2

michal_hanu_la t1_jdeznwp wrote

That is, however, impossible. Some things contain lead. Including cocoa. Even if you stop eating chocolate, you have other sources of lead.

So the question becomes which of those will you focus on? I suggest those that, when eliminated, would make a substantial difference to your total exposure.

Is chocolate one of those? I doubt it.

Also, "realistic", when applied to amounts of chocolate one eats, is not that relative.

3

broad5ide t1_jdf0nv0 wrote

"worry not fellow citizens, I drink from the cistern everyday and look at me! Healthy as an ox."

0

michal_hanu_la t1_jdf0xsn wrote

Not sure what you're quoting, sounds like The Simpsons, but if most of the population drinks from the cistern every day and we do not notice it causing any trouble, maybe the cistern is mostly fine?

And this is the kind of trouble that we seem to be looking for?

1

broad5ide t1_jdf2cke wrote

It's alright, I didn't think you'd get it

1

michal_hanu_la t1_jdf2zgf wrote

Good, but maybe think about the point about observable effects of something very common. In general.

1

broad5ide t1_jdf3nth wrote

Sure, not like anything commonly accepted to be fine was ever proven extremely detrimental to your health in the past. I'll definitely consider that.

1

michal_hanu_la t1_jdf4isr wrote

What was considered perfectly fine after testing it on most of the population, when the potential effects are of the kind that we watch for?

1

broad5ide t1_jdf56xt wrote

Buddy, lead doesn't fit that description.

1

michal_hanu_la t1_jdf62j0 wrote

I'm not your buddy and you keep forgetting the dose.

Chocolate fits that description, even though we know it contains very small amounts of lead. Mostly any chocolate, the darker, the more.

You can stop eating chocolate, of course, but it does not seem to cause any trouble that we would actually know of.

1

broad5ide t1_jdf6csa wrote

Eat as much lead as you want man, I won't stop you

1

michal_hanu_la t1_jdf8u0s wrote

As much chocolate, you mean.

Notice I am not saying you should g drinking 100LL. I am saying that lead from chocolate almost definitely won't be what kills you, or even produces any noticeable effects.

I am also saying that learning to distinguish between those two things is important and you should consider it.

(Also, the "help and support" silliness gets old very fast. Don't do that.)

1

broad5ide t1_jdf9aol wrote

Chocolate, lead. Seems like you're ok with either. Have as much as you want man.

1

michal_hanu_la t1_jdf9xor wrote

Well, if you do not see the difference, maybe I should worry about you.

But I'll just hope you will get it some day. Or maybe you should just stop eating chocolate.

1

broad5ide t1_jdfagi8 wrote

Don't worry about me my dude. Just take care of yourself. Have a good one.

1

BeneficialElephant5 t1_jdgkcd1 wrote

This applies to most things. It doesn't apply to heavy metals because they accumulate over your entire life.

2

michal_hanu_la t1_jdgqsr1 wrote

I get that logic, but there is a dose at which, over a lifetime, they do not accumulate to a dangerous level.

There is also a dose which, when added or removed, does not make a difference compared to all the other sources.

Edit: One should also take into account that most people naturally stop eating chocolate before the age of 120. Now, question is, what is such a dose and how often do we see people getting dangerous cumulative amounts of heavy metals from chocolate?

3