Please people, look into it.

Verify your information.

I'm sick of the "organic" & "autistic" communities posting unsubstantiated claims about "lead in this" and "mercury in this" when there is no research behind any of the articles they post, it's typically one doctor or organization with a catchy headline and a list of products that contain said offensive chemical.

Not Peer-Reviewed
No background on how they conducted the tests
No background on who conducted the tests
No information on who sponsored the study
No comparison to what safe levels are

I have an autistic nephew and I buy organic, I just can't stand what some people buy into trying to find "the answers".

6/17/2010 12:32:18 AM

Personally I don't think there's any "safe" level of mercury or lead consumption.

6/17/2010 1:15:07 AM

Well I hope you don't eat anything, because both are naturally occurring elements.

What I'm getting at is that some levels are to be expected, particularly if it's grown in soil, a lot of these studies don't even distinguish elemental mercury vs. Methylmercury, there's quite a difference, and more importantly they come from different sources. Most people I talk to about it can't even tell me the importance or the science behind it, only the most recent headline.

Ever eat fish or shellfish? Pretty much all of it has mercury, even if it's fresh out of the water.

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 1:30 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2010 1:22:53 AM

I don't listen to shit from anyone... facts or no facts.

6/17/2010 1:28:06 AM

I'm sorry, you must think this is Chit Chat.

6/17/2010 1:29:35 AM

I also don't need to be eating anything that has intentionally had lead or mercury added to it

Semi-related to this, I enjoyed reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/Slow-Death-Rubber-Duck-Chemistry/dp/0307397122



I could see where some people would read it and go OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE TIME TO LIVE IN A CABIN IN THE WOODS!! but for me it caused me to stop and go, "Hmm... I've never really thought about this stuff before. Maybe I should be more aware of what chemicals I expose myself to on a daily basis."

6/17/2010 1:29:46 AM

Yes, toxins are everywhere, we should be conscious of it.

But I'm not going to base my life (health) on unsubstantiated claims or studies that aren't peer-reviewed. If they can't stand up to the critics, it's probably junk science. Look in the back of the book and tell me how many studies were published in peer-reviewed journals.

It matters. Ask any medical professional if they would consider giving health advice based on a health "notification" where the sample size was 20.

I will be the first to say more research needs to be done, but let's stop believing this propaganda bullshit these communities pump out on a regular basis that have no real research or science behind them.

Quote :

"Key concerns raised in Slow Death by Rubber Duck... household dust polluting our blood. "

There's a phrase called "toxicity levels" for a reason, it's because not everything is harmful at 1ppt

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 1:41 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2010 1:33:07 AM

Actually, pretty much all of the studies in the book come from peer-reviewed journals.

That's fine if you want to live your life without paying any mind to what you're consuming and that's your prerogative. But it's also the prerogative of other people to go to the other end of the spectrum and just live in the woods naked to avoid anything "unnatural." Who cares what their reasoning is for their actions? It doesn't affect you. There's a group of Southern Baptists that only drink raw milk because of a passage in the Bible. That's their choice and there's nothing wrong with them making that choice.

Personally, I try to find that middle ground between limiting exposure to chemicals and using the things I deem necessary for day-to-day life. Will I ever completely rid my body of pollutants. Of course not. Doesn't mean there aren't benefits to lowering the levels of said pollutants in my body.

6/17/2010 1:51:07 AM

I'm sick of people spreading information that isn't validated.

People read books and assume the assumptions & claims the authors' make are true or fact, without any expert critical review.

I have a BIG problem with that.

I don't have a problem with people who can find a middle ground, so long as your choices are based on facts and not assumptions.

Religion is a HUGE exception as it's faith based and spiritual, not physical. You're bringing supernatural into a natural discussion. I believe in God, yet science gives us great insight into the little things we can understand. This food science is something we can understand when studied and spreading misinformation about certain foods can cause a public health issue by scaring people away from foods that probably have more benefit than harm. Vaccines are a great example. They've been proven over and over and over again, yet there's no study that links Thiomersal to autism. Oh wait, there was one, but it was retracted and the doctor was banned from practicing in the U.K. in part because the bad science involved. Yet this study was widely circulated among certain groups as "the truth".

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 2:19 AM. Reason : ,]

6/17/2010 2:04:18 AM

But you just as readily assume that there is zero validated information out there that shows there are reasons to question what we are putting into our bodies. That's no better than someone who assumes everything they read has sound science behind it.

6/17/2010 2:07:13 AM

Nope, didn't say that. Basically the two scenarios you described are the people that bother me the most, neither look into the research behind what they read.

My stance is, I wait until there is validated supporting evidence, before I believe it's truth. Until there is supporting evidence, it's just speculation.

Case in point:

-I know HFCS is linked to obesity, it's been studied, and experts agree the research is solid that shows this link, stands up to peer review

-On the other hand, I saw a study being spread around that 20 or so "randomly" selected products were taken off the shelf (1 sample of each) and tested for mercury. Some came back positive. It was then used as a headline that all products that had HFCS in them "could" have mercury in them. Interpretation by some communities, HFCS products contain mercury. Yet there were so many holes in the study it wasn't even funny, anyone with a critical eye and common sense could see the errors, not only that but the study even said it wasn't to be used to give advice to the general public, yet the general public took it and ran with it and was shot down by pretty much every expert. Basically the levels of mercury that came back in the study were borderline non-detectable (trace amounts) and would require eating or drinking obscene amounts of each before it would even be close to toxicity levels.

My point is simple. Don't just read the headlines or assume something is true because someone told you it was. Do the research yourself, look for industry peers to validate the information before sharing it with everyone you know.

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 2:17 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2010 2:14:36 AM

That is asking for way too much effort on the part of the average consumer

Again, what someone else buys to shove in their pie hole doesn't affect you in any way, unless you're secretly the CEO of Kellogg's or something. Even if their reasoning is complete bunk, like my grandmother who still believes people shouldn't eat mustard when pregnant because it will give the baby "the shakes." Makes no goddamn sense at all but it also doesn't matter if she wants to hold onto that belief.

6/17/2010 2:18:23 AM

Quote :

"That is asking for way too much effort on the part of the average consumer"

I'm talking about certain communities who share this information back and forth on a daily basis and treat headlines as facts. They take time out of their day to read blogs and articles on organic and healthy living, yet their sources are completely bunk and share that misinformation with other people.

Health is a serious issue and should be taken seriously by everyone. People think vaccines only affect their child, but it doesn't, it's indeed a public health risk, particularly the sharing of false information about the danger of vaccines.

If one wants to believe everything they read, fine, just don't share it to the world and claim it as fact. (physical realm)

If you believe in absolute truth than you'd know there is a right and a wrong and just because it doesn't impact me, doesn't mean it's harmless.

6/17/2010 2:25:38 AM

Ok, I'm done ranting.

6/17/2010 2:27:20 AM

Food and vaccines are two very different things though.

That said, you can choose to not vaccinate your child, but I don't think unvaccinated children should be allowed to attend school or daycare without being vaccinated first. What you're talking about is a public health threat.

6/17/2010 2:38:30 AM

Yeah it's fun when sensationalist headlines grab attention and then people start ranting and raving about what's the new "in" food or "out" food(s).

I agree that a lot more people should do more research.. about food and things in general.

Remember when eggs were OK? Then they were bad. Then they got OK again... it's like, eh?

Recently I ran into this:
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_news/332/the-new-dirty-dozen-12-foods-to-eat-organic-and-avoid-pesticide-residue.html
and I read it and wonder where the end resource is. The links to, say "all 62 of them" (with regards to pesticides), sends you to another website, which cites the USDA pesticide data program

Here's a similar page, showing items you don't have to buy organic, but.. I haven't yet found out their sources of info (a bit lazy, I admit): http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/Save-on-Sustainable-Gallery-44032808?link=rel&dom=yah_green&src=syn&con=slide&mag=tdg

Now, I admit I don't worry too much about what I eat, in a way. I do buy organic when I can, but don't go too far out of my way (and it's a bit hard to find organic in Korea, though it has gotten better). They also have various designations here, such as "organic" and "clean environment" (suggesting less pesticides but I don't know yet what their standards are), etc.

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 2:47 AM. Reason : yo ]

6/17/2010 2:41:14 AM

Quote :

" Remember, wine is made from grapes, which testing shows can harbor as many as 34 different pesticides."

I don't know why, but I've never really thought of this before.

6/17/2010 2:46:04 AM

part of the problem to which Prospero is referring is one of the general problems humans have. That is, they tend to believe things that people in a close relationship with them (i.e. family, friends, close acquaintances) say more readily than they believe what an expert (who is likely to be farther away from them in terms of "degrees of separation") says. The anecdote a relative says about "I ate this and it gave me a stomach ache so I won't ever eat it again" seems to hold more sway than an admonishment that "well, the user didn't wash said fruit/veggie sufficiently and got sick; there's nothing wrong with eating said fruit/veggie." (to just give a generic example)

Of course, one might say that religious figures are often excluded from this problem, and well, that's true, but religion seems to have hijacked itself a rather sacred place in the human psyche.

I try to be aware of this kind of behavior in my own life and always ask myself, "Am I being rational about this? What evidence is available?"

6/17/2010 2:54:01 AM

I agree with the OP.

But that's an easy horse to whip, and academics think they're above such stupidity.

They need to realize that slapping "peer-reviewed" on something may be worthless. You can shout the term all day long and that doesn't make it magic.

Where did the study get its funding? Just as importantly, where do these peer-reviewers get their funding? Is it the same organization or a related one? Very often, it is. How strong is the professional pressure / career risk for a dissenter? There are a hundred other ways that peer-review can be compromised, and many areas of research violate every single one of them.

In engineering, chemistry, physics, and math peer review is worth quite a lot. These areas often have diverse sources of funding and have proven their willingness to follow the data.

Medicine, environmental science, and others are thoroughly polluted with politics, organizational conflicts of interest, very little funding diversity, stigmatized dissent and a lot of intellectual in-breeding.

Not all peer-review is equally valuable.

6/17/2010 4:56:32 AM

That's true there are varying degrees of reputable journals in which peer-review can not always mean it's fact, but what I'm getting here is a full research study that is independently funded and critically reviewed by peers who have no vested interest other than that of the public health.

There ARE reputable journals out there, and don't assume all journals are "peer-reviewed" they are NOT.

6/17/2010 10:53:50 AM

^^ http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM. Reason : that is, case in point]

6/17/2010 11:00:36 AM

without going too far down the slippery slope, let me just say ID is a tricky subject because it entails information that scientists do not have any explanations for, so it's a bit tricky to review. also because a lot of it is just theory and presented as such.

i do not care so much as to if different peers have different opinions on the theories being suggested, what i have issue with is studies that do not use proper scientific methods or processes, these can be easily dismissed.

6/17/2010 11:22:19 AM

Quote :

"That's true there are varying degrees of reputable journals in which peer-review can not always mean it's fact, but what I'm getting here is a full research study that is independently funded and critically reviewed by peers who have no vested interest other than that of the public health."

I agree, flying unicorns would be pretty sweet, if they existed.

6/17/2010 12:20:53 PM

Quote :

"I agree with the OP."

Especially working in the fitness/nutrition industry, you should see some of the bullshit I get from people.

6/17/2010 12:45:46 PM

I agree but I'm a chemist so yea.....

6/17/2010 1:40:12 PM

Quote :

"I agree with the OP."

^and along those lines, im a biochemist working on becoming a pharmacist

6/18/2010 2:47:27 PM

Quote :

"I'm sick of the "organic" & "autistic" communities posting unsubstantiated claims about "lead in this" and "mercury in this" when there is no research behind any of the articles they post"

you don't need a peer-reviewed study to believe that some vaccines contain mercury. The manufacturers of the vaccines flat out tell you that they contain thimerosol, which is mercury containing compound.

What you need to be arguing about is whether or not the mercury in vaccines is enough to cause harm or if that particular form of mercury will accumulate in the body. It doesn't accumulate like elemental mercury does, and the studies done in the 90's to get thimoserol banned turned out to be flawed and overly conservative.

6/18/2010 8:14:52 PM

Quote :

"you don't need a peer-reviewed study to believe that some vaccines contain mercury. The manufacturers of the vaccines flat out tell you that they contain thimerosol, which is mercury containing compound."

incorrect, thirmerosal hasn't been in vaccines since 2001, except flu vaccines, and even those you can request to have thirmerosal free flu vaccines.

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm#t1

i agree with you though, there isn't any evidence to even say that thimerosal is toxic in low doses shown in vaccines:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

[Edited on June 18, 2010 at 11:25 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2010 11:23:12 PM

I just prescribe to the theory of common sense.

We buy everything possible from the local farmers market because it a) supports local ag, b) is about the same price as the grocery story and c) is non-frozen, fresh, pesticide free, almost entirely organic (in WA they actually show their license in the booths).

Everything else is using your brain and reading the ingredients list.

I actually don't put a whole lot of validity behind peer-reviewed studies alone. Unless it's a major study that has been reviewed AND validated by further studies AND has been upheld for a considerable period of time in an active field, there's still not a lot of certainty.

Hell, the world thought caloric was a chemical substance that measured heat for nearly a century, because a famous chemist came up with the theory and as such the entire scientific community shot down every theory that opposed it (including much more correct ones). Scientific study is littered with peer-reviewed experiments that weren't found incorrect for years or even decades later. Human-cause global warming anybody?

6/19/2010 12:16:28 AM

^^Incorrect. You need to scroll down on that link a little bit.

DT (Diphtheria/Tetanus) from Sanofi Pasteur, TT (Tetanus Toxoid) from Sanofi Pasteur, JE-VAX (Japanese Encephalitis) from Research Foundation for Microbial Diseases of Osaka University, and Menomune (Meningitis) from Sanofi Pasteur still contain the same ~25 micrograms of thimerosal per dose that was controversial in the first place. Many vaccines have indeed had it removed, but there is still plenty of it out there, and that link directly states as much.

But you are right, thimerosal was never a significant contributor to autism or anything else, despite the fact that it is true that those vaccines cause a child to exceed EPA recommended mercury dosage limits for their body weight. But there is no real science behind the EPA's guideline, nor behind the thimerosal-autism alleged link.

I think both sides in this case are overstating the science that has actually been done. Yeah, Jenny McCarthy is full of it, and the accusations are baseless.

But, the chest-thumping, bow-to-my-authority FDA scientists and their studies are really horrendously bad. I have reviewed, in great depth, every study cited by every side. And I have yet to find one the FDA did that doesn't have massive holes and poor experimental design.

So where does that leave me? Disenchanted, in general, because everybody is full of shit and I'm tired of wading through it.

[Edited on June 19, 2010 at 12:35 AM. Reason : g]

6/19/2010 12:34:49 AM

i was under the impression that the FDA only commissioned studies and did not do that type of stuff itself

6/19/2010 1:04:28 AM

^That is true. But, in light of the conflicts of interest, politics, lack of diversity of funding sources, etc. I just call all of them FDA scientists and FDA studies. Sometimes it comes from an agency that might technically have different initials, but the situation is the same.

[Edited on June 19, 2010 at 1:11 AM. Reason : a]

6/19/2010 1:11:08 AM

Quote :

"incorrect, thirmerosal hasn't been in vaccines since 2001, except flu vaccines, and even those you can request to have thirmerosal free flu vaccines. "

I'm pretty sure that they didn't make any H1N1 vaccine that didn't contain thimerosol, and I still think a few childhood vaccines still contain it. Regardless, any link between autism and thimerosol is a bunch of bullshit that needs to be squashed with a quickness.

[Edited on June 19, 2010 at 1:27 AM. Reason : I pity the people that would rather their kids die of measles than risk getting their immunizations.]

6/19/2010 1:22:07 AM

Quote :

"I pity the people that would rather their kids die of measles than risk getting their immunizations."

Amen, brutha

That is some junk. Anyway, when I hear that junk, I always have to look up to Temple Grandin
http://www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds.html

6/19/2010 12:03:48 PM

^^sorry i should have clarified, childhood vaccines. there is not a single required childhood vaccine given that isn't either thimerosal-free or has a thimerosal-free alternative.

Quote :

"We buy everything possible from the local farmers market because it a) supports local ag, b) is about the same price as the grocery story and c) is non-frozen, fresh, pesticide free, almost entirely organic (in WA they actually show their license in the booths). Everything else is using your brain and reading the ingredients list. I actually don't put a whole lot of validity behind peer-reviewed studies alone. Unless it's a major study that has been reviewed AND validated by further studies AND has been upheld for a considerable period of time in an active field, there's still not a lot of certainty."

i buy from a farmer's market as well for the same reasons. common sense is only common for the average person. not everybody has it. and to reference your point, what was common sense 100 years ago, might not be common sense now.

i 100% agree with you, but peer-reviews give us at least a standard starting point for discussion. it means the information has at minimum been researched and the studies have been critically reviewed to be of sound science and proper research procedures.

[Edited on June 19, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 19, 2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ,]

6/19/2010 12:52:14 PM

Quote :

"it means the information has at minimum been researched and the studies have been critically reviewed to be of sound science and proper research procedures"

Common misconception. Not necessarily true at all. The requirements for journal publication vary wildly from journal to journal, and even within the same publication they change over time. Just in research I've done during graduate school it surprised me how varied the quality of the protocols, experimentation, and rigor of various studies were.

6/20/2010 2:26:14 AM

Quote :

"Health is a serious issue and should be taken seriously by everyone. People think vaccines only affect their child, but it doesn't"

Amen.

This is a *HUGE* issue for me as a parent. As most of you know, my son was born with a severe immune deficiency that renders him unable to receive live vaccines. Transplant patients and the immune deficient have to rely on what immunologists refer to as "herd immunity" to protect them from illness. Herd immunity only works when nearly all of the population is vaccinated. With large numbers of parents refusing to vaccinate or delaying vaccination, it renders herd immunity ineffective and puts innocent people at risk. The current popularity of some ideas really makes me afraid to send my son to daycare and one of the reasons that I stay at home with him.

6/20/2010 8:49:28 AM

Quote :

"Common misconception. Not necessarily true at all. The requirements for journal publication vary wildly from journal to journal, and even within the same publication they change over time. Just in research I've done during graduate school it surprised me how varied the quality of the protocols, experimentation, and rigor of various studies were."

no, the common misconception is that all journals are peer-reviewed, i mentioned that before. yes, standards and approaches are different, but all that is taken into consideration when the studies are reviewed.

[Edited on June 20, 2010 at 11:31 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2010 11:27:44 PM