Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

broad5ide t1_jdet66a wrote

Reply to comment by michal_hanu_la in Hershey ‘evaluating’ if it can eliminate lead, cadmium in its chocolate: CFO by GhostlyRuse

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