[PREV - JILL_AND_YOKO] [TOP]
CHEMISTRY
July 21, 2010
November 20, 2013
November 24, 2013
I like the boy http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/21/lead_in_lipstick_coal_tar_in
better than
the girl. Stacy Malkan, co-founder of
"Campaign for Safe Cosmetics"
The girl has that earnest, vs. John Bailey, chief
alarmist, rapid-fire spew scientist at "the Personal
of factoids going that I Care Products Council"
learned to hate in the
anti-nuclear debate.
Example: she rattles off
the types of trace
contaminates and tosses Bruce Ames (molecular biologist
in "nitrosamines": at Berkeley, famous for the Ames
test for mutagens) pointed out
"So, formaldehyde, long ago that the natural levels
1,4-dioxane would of things like nitrosomines in
be examples, fruits and vegetables completely
nitrosamines. Those dwarf any artificially
are carcinogens." introduced traces. If you made
cosmetics using plants, you'd
Leading off with end up with some nitrosomines.
"formaldehyde" is
good too: most
people recoil at
the word because it's
used in embalming.
The boy has a more calm and
reasonable style going, he talks And despite my suspicions
about the commonalities between of my own gender biases here,
the two bills in front of I should make it clear that
congress, and talks about the many a male activitst registers
FDA really does do scientific on my ears much as Malkan does.
evaluation of risks, and so on:
And Bailey is capable of
"The FDA has many times analyzed raising my prejudice against
products in the marketplace. Most old white guy industry flacks.
recently, they published a very
comprehensive and thorough
analysis of lead in lipstick and
concluded that the levels being
reported do not present a health
risk. And this is consistent with I like that remark:
what happens in other parts of "consistent with what
the world. With 1,4-dioxane, it’s happens in other parts
the same situation. The levels of the world".
are very low."
It sounds like he's trying
But my boy Bailey has his to reassure us that the
problems in presentation: United States is not so
far gone that there's no
Amy Goodman pops a really check on industrial practices
nasty, but excellent question: left whatsoever.
"Do you think any chemical
should be banned?" Hey, the FDA does just
the kind of stuff they
Bailey stumbles around and do elsewhere, *even in
sounds like he's deflecting Europe*!
the question with his oh so
calm, reasonable spiels... (It could be that
though what he says really he was trying to
is reasonable if you read the say you don't need
text: to worry about
imports either.)
"Well, you know, I think that
the levels should be set and
controlled so that everyone
knows what is safe and what
levels the suppliers and I might try re-writing that
product manufacturers should (but maybe my version has
test to to make sure that problems, too):
they are controlled."
"Many chemicals need to be
What Bailey doesn't say controlled, but banning them
and what I always think is usually too extreme-- even
needs to be said: if there's no immediate need
for them, a use may be found
Banned? Do you want to later."
reduce the allowed level
of contaminants to (At a guess, you need to lean
"undetectable"? That's on words like "safe" more...
a completely ridiculous, "Many chemicals need to be
unnecessarily tight *safely* controlled--".)
standard: our detection
techniques are *really
good*. We can detect an
angel fart on the head
of a pin.
It's absolutely necessary
to estimate allowable
"safe" levels of *nearly If you set the safe level at
everything*. "zero", for example, you would have
to remove "sea salt" from the
shelves of health food stores,
because there are detectable levels
of *everything* in ocean water--
it's the "universal solvent" and
*everything* is dissolved in it.
It's one of the major differences
between the two cultures:
The technically trained understand
that uncertainty is inevitable, and
are comfortable living with it.
The humanists are prone toward
quests for absolute certainty and
they frequently demand absolute At least from from
safety. technical products...
Most know it isn't
achievable in the
social realm.
So why wasn't my boy willing
to go there? At a guess, he
has a better feel for what a
popular audience is capable of There's a real problem
grasping, and he's come to the with stupidity... you
rather depressing conclusion need to be pretty
that they'll never get it. smart to appreciate
being called out when
you're being stupid.
Most people respond
better to flattery.
Malkan (our girl) brings up one Republicans love it when you
really Nasty point of her point out how stupid you'd
own... I wouldn't call it a have to be to buy they're
*good* point, exactly, but it's bullshit-- then they can
tough enough to deal with to be call you "elitist", and blow
interesting: even more smoke.
She understands that the Other Side
always wants to argue that the
quantities of the contaminants
she's talking about are just
traces, and there's not enough
there to worry about.
Her claim is that it's not just
a single chemical that's the
problem, it's this cocktail of
chemicals, this soup that
we're swimming in that taking
altogether has (or is capable
of having?) some bad effects.
This is really nasty, because
our dearly beloved scientific
method almost always proceeds
by using reductionist techniques. There are, however, whole
We try to isolate the effects population studies which
of single chemicals, typically take some careful
first on animals, and then on statistical analysis to
humans. Only later, if at all, comprehend, but are much
do we start to wonder if we more "holistic".
need to look at the effects of
*two* chemicals applied at the
same time, or perhaps *three*
chemicals, and so on.
The trouble is that there's
a combinatoric explosion in
the tree of possible
experiments that can be
conducted.
If you expect Science to prove that
there are no combinations of trace
contaminants out there with some of If you attempted to do
negative synergistic effect -- this in your own life,
that's pretty much an impossibility. you'd quickly see the
problem.
And Malkan (our girl)
does not seem to have I don't have any
any actual evidence problem eating
that her cocktail of cheese, or eating
contaminants does have blueberries, but
some negative synergy. how do I know I
don't have trouble
But then, there *are* some with both together?
strange things happening
out there in the modern What if there's
world that really are not a problem with eating
well understood. For both together while
example, young women are talking on a cellphone?
hitting puberty at a Or watching television?
younger age, and this is Or doing both at the
presumably because of some same time? While
environmental contaminant sitting on a vinyl
or contaminants. chair?
(I've heard some theories
that at least sound good:
commonly used plastics
that release estrogen-like http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/02/07/puberty-at-the-age-of-8.aspx
compounds.)
So this particular spook that
she's raising is a relatively
nasty one all right... could it be
that some particular plastic
packaging, plus a touch of lead
from that cosmetic, plus a little
dose of cellphone radiation, and a
touch of coca leaf by-products in
your Coca-Cola all combine to hit The whole population
your endocrine system in a studies can be helpful
slightly deleterious fashion at estimating the
that's hard to track down? size of such effects,
but they're rarely
completely unambiquous.
And people have a
way of ignoring
them when they say
something they don't
want to hear.
E.g. in the
realm of diet.
DIETARY
Stacy Malkan also wrote a
book, which I might look
up sometime for purposes
of keeping myself honest:
"Not Just a Pretty Face" (2007)
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/not-just-a-pretty-face-stacy-malkan/1100626902?ean=9780865715745
http://books.google.com/books?id=7x5ViSZlmqoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=stacy+malkan+%22not+just+a+pretty+face%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8U-SUrfiA6mZiQLw74G4CQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=stacy%20malkan%20%22not%20just%20a%20pretty%20face%22&f=false
http://notjustaprettyface.org/
Hm: Chapter 11 on "Green Chemisty"
The intro doesn't look good... heavy on
alarming factoids (sheer numbers of
detectable chemcials), low on key
specifics like whether the quantities
get near safe limits.
"Nobody can say what effect, if any,
the chemicals will have--"
Actually, there probably are people who
can say, she's just decided a priori not This cherry-picking
to listen to them. of Scientific
Evidence to fit
preconceptions is
all too common...
--------
[NEXT - GASOLINE_DIET]