Activists say the research marks a growing awareness connecting everyday life to the toxic contamination of the planet and ongoing harm to the climate. More research is examining how women are disproportionately impacted.
So there’s plastic accumulating in testicles and lead contamination in the tampons. The future is insane.
In all seriousness though, when I was having the water tested at my house a few years ago, I was told there’s no safe amount of lead to have in drinking water, and everything I looked up agreed with that.
So now I’m confused. Either there’s safe levels or not. Or do they mean any amount that sets off this standardized test strip is unsafe?
I’m sure these researchers are using more sensitive tests, but corporations at least deserve the side eye and an investigation for the ‘no lead’ rule not applying to their products. Especially products like tampons…something that’s in contact with mucus membranes for hours at a time.
Microplastics are affecting both sides of the coin, well…everything to be honest. But they’re hormone disruptors on both sides as far as I know. But I haven’t given it the greatest of looks. Because while knowledge is power, there’s really only so much cack you can take in before everything seems so sad and hopeless. So, eh. It is what it is.
I think the reality is that you cannot really have mass-produced no-lead option. But I am not sure because I am not an agriculturist, a geologist, or a chemist. Because I believe a majority of crops (if not all!?) contain heavy metals to some extent. So it’s ultimately about limiting that exposure and keeping levels down I suppose. But hell if I know what happens in this situation when the chemical gains direct exposure to the body instead of being processed through the digestive system. I am guessing it’s probably a similar process as when you get a shot, but idk and I am all outta shits to give on the subject.
I guess I just expected the fda to investigate and figure out which sources of cotton have the highest contamination rates… or something.
Then finding a way to remove the lead? I don’t know… it’s fiber. We treat and process it constantly. Lead removal doesn’t seem insane to me I guess… but maybe it is?
Instead we got the fda saying it’s fine and shrugging their shoulders.
You’re probably right and this is a sign of acceptance about how fucked we are pollution wise. Damn.
Heavy metals are present in the soil/water in many regions. It’s often a natural accumulation. For example the arid production zones in California and Arizona were highly contaminated naturally (and salty). When they started irrigating the land they deep plowed it to breakup the caliche layers. They then continuously flooded it to push the salt and water soluable heavy metals lower in the soil profile. Much of it ended up in the groundwater.
Some heavy metals like lead and arsenic were used as pesticides for almost 90 years. Most productions zones were contaminated during this period. Of course once you apply them, they don’t disappear.
At this point, pretty much all production areas are contaminated to some degree. We have no good way to remediate the issue in the soil. So regulators focus on limiting the contamination from controllable sources.
There are no “safe levels of lead”, it’s toxic as-is and bio-accumulates in the body, which is the main problem. It also doesn’t matter in what chemical-compound or what route the lead comes in, it’s still toxic as a heavy element.
Why is everything laced with lead then? Well, it’s fantastically useful and cheap element, with wide applications… Paint, pipes, bullets, leaded petrol (the absolute worst incident), batteries, radiation-shielding, it was/is on everything. It’s entirely a man-made problem.
Except modern day reality is that if we keep using it we’ll all die or at least become dummer. This cost is obviously greater than banning/avoiding all uses of lead in the first place. In the science circles they are betting if a some new magic material contains lead, it’ll never (or is allowed to) exit the lab.
Hey, so I am by no means an expert but have experience in environmental public health. We talk a lot about risk mitigation. A lot of people smarter than me measure what chemicals are appropriate levels in certain products. Because while yes, it is true that no amount of lead is good for you, there are so many factors that come into play that you have to contend with the fact that there will be a number of chemicals that will be occurring within our environment that can’t always be controlled, so they end up in our products. It’s a really fascinating field, I have a textbook recommendation that’s really good if anyone is interested - it isn’t open-source, though. :/
So there’s plastic accumulating in testicles and lead contamination in the tampons. The future is insane.
In all seriousness though, when I was having the water tested at my house a few years ago, I was told there’s no safe amount of lead to have in drinking water, and everything I looked up agreed with that.
So now I’m confused. Either there’s safe levels or not. Or do they mean any amount that sets off this standardized test strip is unsafe?
I’m sure these researchers are using more sensitive tests, but corporations at least deserve the side eye and an investigation for the ‘no lead’ rule not applying to their products. Especially products like tampons…something that’s in contact with mucus membranes for hours at a time.
Microplastics are affecting both sides of the coin, well…everything to be honest. But they’re hormone disruptors on both sides as far as I know. But I haven’t given it the greatest of looks. Because while knowledge is power, there’s really only so much cack you can take in before everything seems so sad and hopeless. So, eh. It is what it is.
I think the reality is that you cannot really have mass-produced no-lead option. But I am not sure because I am not an agriculturist, a geologist, or a chemist. Because I believe a majority of crops (if not all!?) contain heavy metals to some extent. So it’s ultimately about limiting that exposure and keeping levels down I suppose. But hell if I know what happens in this situation when the chemical gains direct exposure to the body instead of being processed through the digestive system. I am guessing it’s probably a similar process as when you get a shot, but idk and I am all outta shits to give on the subject.
I guess I just expected the fda to investigate and figure out which sources of cotton have the highest contamination rates… or something.
Then finding a way to remove the lead? I don’t know… it’s fiber. We treat and process it constantly. Lead removal doesn’t seem insane to me I guess… but maybe it is?
Instead we got the fda saying it’s fine and shrugging their shoulders.
You’re probably right and this is a sign of acceptance about how fucked we are pollution wise. Damn.
Heavy metals are present in the soil/water in many regions. It’s often a natural accumulation. For example the arid production zones in California and Arizona were highly contaminated naturally (and salty). When they started irrigating the land they deep plowed it to breakup the caliche layers. They then continuously flooded it to push the salt and water soluable heavy metals lower in the soil profile. Much of it ended up in the groundwater.
Some heavy metals like lead and arsenic were used as pesticides for almost 90 years. Most productions zones were contaminated during this period. Of course once you apply them, they don’t disappear.
At this point, pretty much all production areas are contaminated to some degree. We have no good way to remediate the issue in the soil. So regulators focus on limiting the contamination from controllable sources.
There are no “safe levels of lead”, it’s toxic as-is and bio-accumulates in the body, which is the main problem. It also doesn’t matter in what chemical-compound or what route the lead comes in, it’s still toxic as a heavy element.
Why is everything laced with lead then? Well, it’s fantastically useful and cheap element, with wide applications… Paint, pipes, bullets, leaded petrol (the absolute worst incident), batteries, radiation-shielding, it was/is on everything. It’s entirely a man-made problem.
Except modern day reality is that if we keep using it we’ll all die or at least become dummer. This cost is obviously greater than banning/avoiding all uses of lead in the first place. In the science circles they are betting if a some new magic material contains lead, it’ll never (or is allowed to) exit the lab.
Hey, so I am by no means an expert but have experience in environmental public health. We talk a lot about risk mitigation. A lot of people smarter than me measure what chemicals are appropriate levels in certain products. Because while yes, it is true that no amount of lead is good for you, there are so many factors that come into play that you have to contend with the fact that there will be a number of chemicals that will be occurring within our environment that can’t always be controlled, so they end up in our products. It’s a really fascinating field, I have a textbook recommendation that’s really good if anyone is interested - it isn’t open-source, though. :/