Arsenic and old lace

My people are showing up in many places, far away from Silicon Valley.  Of course I am referring to people from India.

Today, it is another. Niranjana Krishnan, who has authored this Aeon essay.

Krishnan has a good argument there: How afraid should we be of the synthetic chemicals that permeate our world?

At one end, we might have people who reflexively are opposed to any synthetic chemical.  At the other end, there are those who are ready to embrace and ingest anything that is unnatural.

Most of us occupy the vast space in between these two ends.  How do we respond to synthetic chemicals, and how should we?

Consider water.  Natural, right?  But, As they say in my part of the old country, "அளவுக்கு மிஞ்சினால் அமிர்தமும் நஞ்சு" (the idea translates to "even the divine nectar can become a poison if one exceeds the limit.)  Even water can become toxic, which is what happened a few years ago to a contestant:

On January 12, 2007, KDND's morning show, the Morning Rave, held an on-air contest entitled Hold Your Wee for a Wii, in which contestants were asked to drink as much water as they could without urinating. The contestant able to hold the most water would win a Wii video game console; at the time, the Nintendo console was a very popular and sought-after item, but was nearly impossible to find in stores in North America. A 28-year-old contestant, Jennifer Strange, died of water intoxication hours after taking part in the contest.

Krishnan refers to "the adage ‘the dose makes the poison’."  An example  that she gives is this:

Take the example of botulinum, the most poisonous substance on Earth. Just 50 grammes of the toxin spread evenly worldwide would kill everyone. But, in very minute amounts, it is safely used for cosmetic purposes in Botox.

Eliminate Botox and the entire entertainment industry collapses!

When it comes to something new, something synthetic, one could always ban it out of an uber-precautionary principle.  But, that does not account for a fundamental fact of life--"risk exists in nearly everything."  Recall that old joke about a mother writing to her son that she and her husband moved residences because they read that most accidents happened near one's home?  Risk surrounds us everywhere.

We therefore need to understand probability: is the chemical exposure high enough for a high probability of adverse effects? We also need to know the risks of using an alternative chemical – or no chemical at all.

It is this risk and probability that tRump does not understand when he talks about most issues, especially when it comes to wind turbines. 

Or consider arsenic.  A natural chemical, right?  Not synthetic.  May I give you a glass of water spiked with only a dash of arsenic? ;)

Ultimately, though risk and uncertainty exist on all sides, people seem to be averse only to certain kinds of risks. And while we should undoubtedly work to reduce harmful chemical exposure and come up with safer alternatives, we also need to realise that our excessive phobia of chemicals, particularly synthetic ones, can often be unwarranted. 

Which is why we have the EPA and the FDA.  My worry is that the tRump administration has been rapidly gutting these agencies, and practically forcing the scientists out.  While we won't return to the bad old days of large-scale arsenic poisoning, the worry is real that synthetic chemicals might be allowed at doses that will be harmful.  This is a real risk that we should all worry about.

When nobody reads the Mueller Report, ... who cares about Azodicarbonamide!

Alexandra Petri, who writes an awesomely funny column at WaPo, has one right after the Mueller presser.  She writes as if she is Mueller talking:

My fellow Americans, it is not Mueller Time. It will never be Mueller Time. I wish you would remove my likeness from your T-shirts and steins. I, Robert Mueller, will not be fired. I quit.
First off, it is obvious that none of you has actually read the report, or you would all sound like Justin Amash. Pete Buttigieg read “Ulysses,” but you will notice how quiet he is on the subject of my report findings.
I guess I should not be surprised that people hate to read so much that they will let folks just go around willy-nilly obstructing justice. Donald Trump’s rise is general proof that people hate to read. I kind of thought that maybe one or two people would want to see if the Wikipedia plot summary matched the book, but no.

And all that is just the beginning!  Hilarious. Laugh is all we can do in these stressful times.

If we don't read books, newspapers, and all that big items, what are the odds that we will read the list of ingredients in the food stuff that we buy?  Like in the bread.  Until today, I had no idea that there is something called Azodicarbonamide.  I have often joked with students that if they see an ingredient that they cannot even spell, they should not even think about buying it leave alone eating it!

In The Guardian's series on toxic items in our lives is where I came across Azodicarbonamide, and more.  It is more about caveat emptor.  (Read that too, in case you missed it or need a refresher.)  This latest is about food. About bread:

Azodicarbonamide has been banned for consumption by the European Union for over a decade.
But despite petitions from several advocacy groups – some dating back decades – the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still considers these to be Gras or “generally recognized as safe” to eat, though plenty of experts disagree.

Insane!

For years now, I have been buying bread that is locally baked, often at prices that are way higher than the national or regional brands.  Apparently that might be a good strategy.  But, maybe I should check their label too?

But, don't we have the federal government to take care of all these?

“The system for ensuring that ingredients added to food are safe is broken,” said Lisa Lefferts, senior scientist at the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. Lefferts, who specializes in food additives, said that once a substance was in the food supply, the FDA rarely took further action, even when there was evidence that it isn’t safe.

Seriously? WTF are the taxes for then?

“In EWG’s view, it is important for companies to start removing chemicals associated with health risks, so that shoppers don’t have to have a chemistry degree in order to decipher food labels,” said Naidenko.

I agree.

If you like such information from The Guardian, you want to contribute a couple of dollars to fund them?