You present such interesting topics in an unexpected way! I look forward to your posts.
After World War II, when the time arrived to promote certification of chemical use in our lives, the US established very good testing controls for NEW products. The large chemical companies exerted, probably through lobbying, a carve-out for all of the existing products in the marketplace to be "grandfathered" in. This, in some ways, was the power of the established chemical makers exerting their near monopoly power like you describe in the post about lobbying! We've known forever that there is no better way to kill living tissue than to use chlorine. Despite what a former President might have surmised, chlorine inside our bodies (like a little bleach for a cleaning) is universally a bad idea. Insecticides and pesticides are always based on heavily chlorinated stuff.
Interesting, what about so-called organic pesticides like copper/etc.? I always hope when buying organic produce that I'm avoiding the really toxic pesticides... but maybe not? Are lots of those old grandfathered products still in use despite decades of new (and presumably less toxic) products?
I don't know very much about copper use as a pesticide. What is amazing is how tight the bands are for metals in our bodies. So many of us take a vitamin and lots pile on the supplements. I wrote a post a long time ago and it was a bit tongue in cheek. Nuts are good for you but eating five brazil nuts a day (if that is your thing) can lead to selenium poisoning. The silly thing is selenium is probably good for you just not very much. Europe remains much more conservative with what chemicals are available, especially consumer stuff. I know at least through about 2010 those old chemicals were still available in the US and have never had to undergo human exposure testing.
In case of smoking I wonder if the fact that it is addictive and you just can’t quit despite the bad PR is a factor. I think a lot of smokers feel bad deep down that they are slowly killing themselves, but they simply can’t quit. I have seen ads on TV that make you feel awful.
I would love for you to explore the topic of green energy and and how big oil is managing the PR game while also lobbying intensely to keep the oil flowing.
Oh, green energy and big oil's interests would be a fascinating post! There's a lot of rich ground there ;-) I'll add that topic to my list.
On smoking, I agree addictiveness is a factor, but people still *start* smoking. Almost everyone who started smoking did so after the studies came out, at this point. The bad PR for them wasn't enough of a deterrent versus curiosity/peer-pressure/desire. I'm interested to see what will happen over time with tobacco-smoking rates and lung-cancer rates now that recreational cannabis is legal in 20+ US states, since to some degree that could be seen as a substitute (smoking cannabis might still cause lung cancer, though it seems unclear so far: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327230)
You present such interesting topics in an unexpected way! I look forward to your posts.
After World War II, when the time arrived to promote certification of chemical use in our lives, the US established very good testing controls for NEW products. The large chemical companies exerted, probably through lobbying, a carve-out for all of the existing products in the marketplace to be "grandfathered" in. This, in some ways, was the power of the established chemical makers exerting their near monopoly power like you describe in the post about lobbying! We've known forever that there is no better way to kill living tissue than to use chlorine. Despite what a former President might have surmised, chlorine inside our bodies (like a little bleach for a cleaning) is universally a bad idea. Insecticides and pesticides are always based on heavily chlorinated stuff.
Interesting, what about so-called organic pesticides like copper/etc.? I always hope when buying organic produce that I'm avoiding the really toxic pesticides... but maybe not? Are lots of those old grandfathered products still in use despite decades of new (and presumably less toxic) products?
I don't know very much about copper use as a pesticide. What is amazing is how tight the bands are for metals in our bodies. So many of us take a vitamin and lots pile on the supplements. I wrote a post a long time ago and it was a bit tongue in cheek. Nuts are good for you but eating five brazil nuts a day (if that is your thing) can lead to selenium poisoning. The silly thing is selenium is probably good for you just not very much. Europe remains much more conservative with what chemicals are available, especially consumer stuff. I know at least through about 2010 those old chemicals were still available in the US and have never had to undergo human exposure testing.
Another insightful post!
In case of smoking I wonder if the fact that it is addictive and you just can’t quit despite the bad PR is a factor. I think a lot of smokers feel bad deep down that they are slowly killing themselves, but they simply can’t quit. I have seen ads on TV that make you feel awful.
I would love for you to explore the topic of green energy and and how big oil is managing the PR game while also lobbying intensely to keep the oil flowing.
Keep up the good work. I love your stuff.
Oh, green energy and big oil's interests would be a fascinating post! There's a lot of rich ground there ;-) I'll add that topic to my list.
On smoking, I agree addictiveness is a factor, but people still *start* smoking. Almost everyone who started smoking did so after the studies came out, at this point. The bad PR for them wasn't enough of a deterrent versus curiosity/peer-pressure/desire. I'm interested to see what will happen over time with tobacco-smoking rates and lung-cancer rates now that recreational cannabis is legal in 20+ US states, since to some degree that could be seen as a substitute (smoking cannabis might still cause lung cancer, though it seems unclear so far: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327230)