“No safe amount” does not mean dangerous and this dumb phrase has escalated in popularity to trigger fear. For many instances it just means detectable. There is no safe amount of radiation, but it’s all around us. I’m not going to die of radiation poisoning tomorrow.
It’s why California posts cancer warnings on coffee shops and other dumb prop 65 requirements. It’s blown so out of proportion the warning has lost all meaning.
Concentration of a compound is essential information, but not taken into consideration. Post that info on these dumb warnings so we can laugh at them.
I am all for warning labels but they have to be legitimate for dangerous concentrations, not fear mongering.
I considered accumulation more pertaining to levels than detectable but, although it applies to both for some substances, concentration is just a snapshot in time.
Wow thanks. I love problems that keep me up at night.
No safe amount means that any exposure increases your risk of bad outcomes. The increase may be negligible, but if it’s detectable, it’s there. There are many compounds that do have a safe level (like water) but may be hazardous above a specific level.
A more useful metric is often the number of excess cancers (or deaths) caused by different levels of exposure. But that requires nuance which is hard to communicate effectively.
You just pointed out my problem with this. If it’s negligible, it doesn’t need a warning label. All sorts of things are detectable; we have amazingly sensitive technology. But it doesn’t mean it’s at harmful levels. I want to know harmful levels, not detectable.
We want there to be meaning behind detectable, but science simply doesn’t work that way; it is a poor indicator of risk.
It is for the very reason I have suggested the usage of micromorts should be standard in research pertaining to safe levels of exposure and government health warnings.
If I am more likely to die walking down the street, then why do I care about the radioactive potassium in bananas killing me?
“No safe amount” does not mean dangerous and this dumb phrase has escalated in popularity to trigger fear. For many instances it just means detectable. There is no safe amount of radiation, but it’s all around us. I’m not going to die of radiation poisoning tomorrow.
It’s why California posts cancer warnings on coffee shops and other dumb prop 65 requirements. It’s blown so out of proportion the warning has lost all meaning.
Concentration of a compound is essential information, but not taken into consideration. Post that info on these dumb warnings so we can laugh at them.
I am all for warning labels but they have to be legitimate for dangerous concentrations, not fear mongering.
This isn’t even a little bit true. There is definitely a safe amount of radiation
Ahh, but see you fell for the tricky wordplay. There are safe levels which is a concentration, but not a safe amount which is simply detectable.
The EPA tests and regulates safe levels of lead, but there is still no safe amount.
Level is exposure. Amount is accumulating.
There is no safe amount of lead but there is absolutely a safe amount of radiation.
Radiation is part of our biology. We are bathed in. To claim there is no safe amount of safe level is wrong.
Our biology has no use for lead. People who freak out over radiation will downplay lead.
Ohh nice rebuttal. Much respect.
I considered accumulation more pertaining to levels than detectable but, although it applies to both for some substances, concentration is just a snapshot in time.
Wow thanks. I love problems that keep me up at night.
No safe amount means that any exposure increases your risk of bad outcomes. The increase may be negligible, but if it’s detectable, it’s there. There are many compounds that do have a safe level (like water) but may be hazardous above a specific level.
A more useful metric is often the number of excess cancers (or deaths) caused by different levels of exposure. But that requires nuance which is hard to communicate effectively.
You just pointed out my problem with this. If it’s negligible, it doesn’t need a warning label. All sorts of things are detectable; we have amazingly sensitive technology. But it doesn’t mean it’s at harmful levels. I want to know harmful levels, not detectable.
We want there to be meaning behind detectable, but science simply doesn’t work that way; it is a poor indicator of risk.
It is for the very reason I have suggested the usage of micromorts should be standard in research pertaining to safe levels of exposure and government health warnings.
If I am more likely to die walking down the street, then why do I care about the radioactive potassium in bananas killing me?