• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists Detect 55 Chemicals Never Before Reported in People – 42 “Mystery Chemicals” Whose Sources Are Unknown

Schism

Schism

Destroyer of Propaganda
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
14,242
Reaction score
7,597
Location
Seattle, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scientists Detect 55 Chemicals Never Before Reported in People – 42 “Mystery Chemicals” Whose Sources Are Unknown
Scientists at University of California San Francisco have detected 109 chemicals in a study of pregnant women, including 55 chemicals never before reported in people and 42 “mystery chemicals,” whose sources and uses are unknown.

The chemicals most likely come from consumer products or other industrial sources. They were found both in the blood of pregnant women, as well as their newborn children, suggesting they are traveling through the mother’s placenta.


The study was published on March 16, 2021, in Environmental Science & Technology.
Click to expand...

Chemists are sociopaths.
 
The researchers report that 55 of the 109 chemicals they tentatively identified appear not to have been previously reported in people:

  • 1 is used as a pesticide (bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidini-4-y) decanedioate)
  • 2 are PFASs (methyl perfluoroundecanoate, most likely used in the manufacturing of non-stick cookware and waterproof fabrics; 2-perfluorodecyl ethanoic acid)
  • 10 are used as plasticizers (e.g. Sumilizer GA 80 – used in food packaging, paper plates, small appliances)
  • 2 are used in cosmetics
  • 4 are high production volume (HPV) chemicals
  • 37 have little to no information about their sources or uses (e.g., 1-(1-Acetyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-4-yl)-3-dodecylpyrrolidine-2,5-dione, used in manufacturing fragrances and paints—this chemical is so little known that there is currently no acronym—and (2R0-7-hydroxy-8-(2-hydroxyethyl)-5-methoxy-2-,3-dihydrochromen-4-one (Acronym: LL-D-253alpha), for which there is limited to no information about its uses or sources
“It’s very concerning that we are unable to identify the uses or sources of so many of these chemicals,” Woodruff said. “EPA must do a better job of requiring the chemical industry to standardize its reporting of chemical compounds and uses. And they need to use their authority to ensure that we have adequate information to evaluate potential health harms and remove chemicals from the market that pose a risk.”
Click to expand...
 
Weird that they left two chemicals off the list. I really think they should be added. One is used to sterilize commercial concrete surfaces, the other actually reacts explosively on contact with water. Lots of food production companies use these as additives, including most franchised restaurants. (can't really speak to individual mom and pop food sourcing, but since many of those use outside food supply companies they are probably using these chemicals too)

Schism, how come these weren't on the list? Do you think they were kept off deliberately?
 
Covid 19 vaccines contain microchips so big tech can control our minds.

download.jpg
 
It would take YEARS for such small doses to poison you............. oh, wait........ "years later" is when most people will develop cancer.......hmmmmmmm

you do know you eat about a credit card size dose of plastic every week? It's in your food....in your air..... it's everywhere.
 
Waddy said:
It would take YEARS for such small doses to poison you............. oh, wait........ "years later" is when most people will develop cancer.......hmmmmmmm

you do know you eat about a credit card size dose of plastic every week? It's in your food....in your air..... it's everywhere.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You also don't eat 3 spiders a year.
 
Deuce said:
No you don't. You also don't eat 3 spiders a year.
Click to expand...
yes, it's entirely possible you do eat a credit cards worth of plastic every week. Can't say how many spiders you eat.

A new study by the University of Newcastle, Australia suggests that an average person could be ingesting approximately 5 grams of plastic every week. The equivalent of a credit card’s worth of microplastics.
Click to expand...

 
Deuce said:
Weird that they left two chemicals off the list. I really think they should be added. One is used to sterilize commercial concrete surfaces, the other actually reacts explosively on contact with water. Lots of food production companies use these as additives, including most franchised restaurants. (can't really speak to individual mom and pop food sourcing, but since many of those use outside food supply companies they are probably using these chemicals too)

Schism, how come these weren't on the list? Do you think they were kept off deliberately?
Click to expand...

I didn't write the study or communicate with the University, Deuce; but you already knew that.
 
Threegoofs said:
Chemicals exist.

And with Mass Spec, you can find them in tiny, tiny part-per-billion quantities everywhere.

It doesn’t really mean anything, as any toxicologist knows ‘the dose makes the poison’, and these doses are likely way way too small, by multiple orders of magnitude, to do anything physiologically.
Click to expand...

Our bodies and planet are polluted with man-made chemicals, and your comment is, "It doesn’t really mean anything"?

Interesting.
 
Schism said:
Our bodies and planet are polluted with man-made chemicals, and your comment is, "It doesn’t really mean anything"?

Interesting.
Click to expand...
If you actually comprehended my reply, you’d understand the ‘parts per billion’ piece was kinda important in the context.

Are you deliberately ignoring it, or don’t you understand my point? It’s one or the other.
 
Maybe they should analyze the plastic that everything comes in, water bottles first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom