I also want strong regulatory bodies doing those analyses, but I also would like to see them using reasonable Bayesian priors on safety. I think assuming the Bayesian prior that: compounds that occur naturally in our environment at concentrations and particle sizes similar to what we'd be exposed to in a proposed new product are likely safe to use. The opposite just is not a good Bayesian prior, and such compounds should require greater assurance of safety before being allowed to be used in novel ways.

The above is particularly true for organic compounds.

I'd also like to see regulation of analogs like they do with drugs. Swapping out BPA for other analog chemicals with very similar shape/composition is something most people with a decent background in biochemsitry would be extremely skeptical of. Let's say they banned BPA entirely. I'd like to then see regulators step in and ban analogs by default for the same use until proven otherwise.

The industrial age has brought many good things and many bad things. To acknowledge the bad things is not to discredit the good things. It's quite simple.

Higher life expectancy is a good thing. Infertility, cancer, and obesity are bad things.

More of each was brought by the industrial age. I'm not saying the industrial age as a whole was bad.

Again, all of this is just overintellecualizing it.

There have been a number of papers from China showing that phthalate exposure from household dust is a real concern (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35508265/).

Phthalate exposure overall has been shown to have an adverse impact on reproductive health and infertility, metabolic and oxidative stress, cancer risk, cardiovascular health, the immune system (including children’s asthma), and neurodevelopment. Unlike dietary studies which often have mixed results, the conclusions on phthalate exposure are consistently negative.

No idea what the FDA is doing here. I understand government inertia but they seem asleep at the wheel.

Phthalates and Their Impacts on Human Health (2021)

> phthalates are more likely to enter the body through absorption via the skin and the polluted air due to fugitive emission [10]. Phthalates are semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). DEHP and DBP are the main compounds in both indoor and outdoor air phthalates [11]. Dermal absorption also occurs from the daily use of PCPs containing phthalates via plastic package. Infants are exposed to phthalates by drinking breast milk with their mothers exposed to DEHP and DiNP, and sucking on toys containing DEHP, DBP, and BBP [10]. Phthalates are also found to cross the placenta-blood barrier, which is the major exposure route of the fetus [12].

> Studies found that low molecular phthalates, such as DEP, can acutely irritate the skin, conjunctiva, and mucous membrane of the oral and nasal cavities [20]. Phthalate exposure is associated with adverse developmental effects in terms of increased prenatal mortality, reduced growth and birth weight, skeletal, visceral, and external malformations in rodents [6]. Experiments on male rats found that the nervous system is rather sensitive to low doses of DEHP exposure during puberty [21]. The impacts of phthalates on human beings vary from gene expression to physiological changes. High molecular weight phthalates exposure is found to cause methylation status of imprinted genes, which could be directly related to androgen response, estrogen response, protein secretion, and spermatogenesis [22,23]. Human epidemiological studies have shown a significant association between phthalates exposures and adverse reproductive outcomes in both women and men, for instance, type II diabetes and insulin resistance, overweight/obesity, allergy, asthma [24].

Exposure to the plasticizer dibutyl phthalate causes oxidative stress and neurotoxicity in brain tissue (2024)

> The induction of oxidative stress in the brain subcellular fractions was proved by alterations in the activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione reductase, and glutathione peroxidase along with the reduction in the total antioxidant capacity. Meanwhile, the levels of hydrogen peroxide and lipid peroxidation were increased. Neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, dopamine, adrenaline, noradrenaline, and serotonin were altered in all subcellular fractions suggesting the disruption of the neurotransmitter system in the fish brain. These results indicate that DBP induces oxidative stress, which correlates with neurotoxicity in Pseudetroplus maculatus brain tissue.

Microplastics and phthalate esters release from teabags into tea drink: occurrence, human exposure, and health risks (2023)

> DEHP showed the cancer risk (CR) for children and adults. The findings of this research indicated that high MPs and PAEs levels are released from teabags into tea drinks. Considering a daily drinking of a volume of 150 and 250 mL tea by children and adults, 486 and 810 MPs may enter their bodies, respectively. Thus, tea prepared with teabag-packed herbs may pose a significant health risk for consumers.

Preconception Phthalate Exposure and Women's Reproductive Health: Pregnancy, Pregnancy Loss, and Underlying Mechanisms (2023)

> Results: An interquartile range (IQR) higher mono-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [fecundability odds ratio(FOR)=0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78, 1.00], mono-butyl phthalate (FOR=0.82; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.96), and mono-benzyl phthalate (FOR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.98) was associated with lower fecundability. No consistent associations were observed with pregnancy loss. Preconception phthalates were consistently associated with higher hsCRP and isoprostanes, as well as lower estradiol and higher follicle-stimulating hormone across the menstrual cycle.

> Discussion: Women's preconception exposure to phthalates was associated with lower fecundability, changes in reproductive hormones, and increased inflammation and oxidative stress. The pre- and periconception periods may represent sensitive windows for intervening to limit the reproductive toxicity of phthalate exposure.

Maternal phthalate exposure promotes allergic airway inflammation over 2 generations through epigenetic modifications (2018)

> Results: In LINA maternal urinary concentrations of mono-n-butyl phthalate, a metabolite of butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), were associated with an increased asthma risk in the children. Using a murine transgenerational asthma model, we demonstrate a direct effect of BBP on asthma severity in the offspring with a persistently increased airway inflammation up to the F2 generation. This disease-promoting effect was mediated by BBP-induced global DNA hypermethylation in CD4+ T cells of the offspring because treatment with a DNA-demethylating agent alleviated exacerbation of allergic airway inflammation. Thirteen transcriptionally downregulated genes linked to promoter or enhancer hypermethylation were identified. Among these, the GATA-3 repressor zinc finger protein 1 (Zfpm1) emerged as a potential mediator of the enhanced susceptibility for TH2-driven allergic asthma.

> Conclusion: These data provide strong evidence that maternal BBP exposure increases the risk for allergic airway inflammation in the offspring by modulating the expression of genes involved in TH2 differentiation through epigenetic alterations.

From Oxidative Stress to Male Infertility: Review of the Associations of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (Bisphenols, Phthalates, and Parabens) with Human Semen Quality (2022)

> Higher levels of urinary bisphenols showed correlation with impaired semen quality and increased DNA damage. Considering phthalates and their metabolites, all studies found a positive association between urinary levels of phthalates and at least one semen parameter indicative of low semen quality; some studies also revealed sperm DNA damage. The studies on parabens less often revealed correlation of urinary parabens concentrations with a decrease in sperm count, as well as motility and DNA damage. Moreover, EDCs can elevate ROS production and lipid peroxidation, increase apoptosis, induce epigenetic modifications, and change the Y:X sperm chromosome ratio and sperm protein composition. Our review revealed detrimental effects of EDCs on semen quality and sperm DNA integrity—especially in BPA and phthalates, but also in parabens.

Can phthalates impair liver function? (2019)

> Conclusions: The ubiquitous exposure to phthalates may be related to the impairment of normal liver function

Even Andrew Huberman, who was held up as the most science-y podcaster before people caught on that he doesn't know what he's talking about on many topics (not to mention, it turns out he's kind of a bad person) made a big deal about sunscreen for a long time.

At one point he said he was "as scared of sunscreen as melanoma", which triggered a lot of his listeners to start reducing their sunscreen use and debating the merits of sunscreen. Combine this with other podcasters like Joe Rogan pushing Vitamin D as a miracle mineral and a lot of people who think they are science-driven in their health choices are eschewing sunscreen. It's a maddening turn of events.

EDIT: Aaaand of course I'm getting downvoted for calling out Huberman. This is a good time to remind everyone that he has numerous positions like this one, such as avoiding Bluetooth headphones due to "heating effects" of their wireless signal. It's impossible for Bluetooth headphones to even emit enough power to warm your skin, but it's something he believes is true. He's very charismatic and charming, but he frequently strays from the science when he senses a good story that will engage his listeners.

The scary ingredient is not your biggest health concern...

If you care about future generations you should care about anything we create that's harmful and that doesn't break down naturally.

Throwing your hands up and running around like a headless chicken is probably an over reaction, but rolling your eyes and sticking your head in the ground to ignore it is also equally not good.

In the absence of concrete evidence of harm from phthalates I'm not convinced mandating yet another label would do more good than harm—it would potentially just further reduce the signal that labels provide by watering it down with yet another mandatory compliance label.

The ridiculousness of this claim is basically self-evident. The obvious reason for impoverished and short life spans was a low level of technological development, not conversative social attitudes. It begs the question, how exactly could modern liberal attitudes even exist in an era that lacked the technology required to have a modern liberal society?

Our digital footprints are becoming more telling of our real lives, as more of our lives are mirrored digitally.

And in many ways that’s great - not only is booking a flight easier but my eating habits when combined with millions of others can reveal what epidemiology of yesteryear could only dream of

But I think this is where the privacy debate falls down - privacy is not real (secrecy is real, privacy is the politeness of our neighbours). What is concerning is what do others do with our information - and I think the best answer is the medical ethics answer - nothing unless it is in the individual’s best interests.

Yes there is a lot of wriggle room in those words but still

I read that article in NY Mag prior to my comment, and then again after this comment. That wasn't my take-away. Sounded like a guy who got real famous and started to play the field, albeit badly. There was no evidence (that I recall) that Huberman acted this way in previous relationships, and no evidence that he will continue to act this way.

Not great behavior, not going to excuse it, but hardly the behavior I would say makes him a bad person. My opinion is philandering is relatively common behavior for people (men in particular) who achieve a certain level of fame and/or status.

Otherwise, we get vendors poisoning us for decades, and then whoopsie-daisies pleading ignorance. And even when they get held accountable (almost never), the value that remains in the vendor is insufficient to compensate for the damage inflicted on us.

Heads I lose, tails they win.

such extreme caution is entirely compatible with liberal post-enlightenment beliefs, but not with technological progress, which was indeed largely driven by shifts in public attitudes about technical innovations, including but not limited to novel materials. when newton was inventing modern physics he had to keep his chemistry experiments secret because chemistry was illegal, and the catholic church specifically prosecuted people (via the inquisition) for practicing chemistry: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30134775/

this problem continues to the present day, where it continues to retard technical progress in many places; and, of course, hatred and even legal prosecution of chemists in particular has returned in places like the usa. but the problem is much broader than this; for example, william kamkwamba relates in his autobiography how his neighbors believed the windmill he had built in malawi was causing a drought through witchcraft, after having ridiculed him as a lunatic for years when he was hanging out in the junkyard to salvage the parts to build it

Maybe... but many more either kill you or they don't. Lets take your whales-getting-the-bends example. That gives us a dimension: pressure. Suppose you're whale.

- Let x be a randomly chosen pressure

- Let y be a pressure that your parents lived through

You have to spend a few minutes at x or y, which pressure do you chose? y would be a safer choice.

The same goes for potentially hazardous chemicals: the safer bet is to pick the one that comes with evidence that things like you can survive contact with it, and that'll be the one that was in your environment when you were born. Otherwise you wouldn't have been born there.

If somebody wants to sell us something that our parents never came in contact with, the evidence that it is safe should be stronger than the effect described above. I'm not a statistician, so I can't quantify that effect, but it exists, and the naturalistic fallacy distracts from it.

It also requires a risk/reward assessment, as everything has tradeoffs. Without some sort of assessment of concrete risks, making tradeoffs is also a wild guess.

Using asbestos in oven mitts? Probably not worth it, safety wise. Plenty of good and safe alternatives, and nobody is going to die if it’s 25% more or less effective.

Using it in firefighter turnouts? Maybe, depending on shedding characteristics and effectiveness of alternatives.

Using it in encapsulated hard paneling for specialized industrial furnaces? Quite safe.

But only if you have some sort of stats on cancer rates vs exposure rates. But that takes a lot of time and exposure (for almost anything except FOOF anyway), and requires actually using it.

Or a lot of guessing and inconclusive/misleading lab tests anyway.

And if you can’t use something until you can prove it’s safe, the whole situation is a Catch 22.

High short term exposure apparently isn’t a cancer risk (but is a ‘you’ll be miserable and have a hard time breathing’ risk), and low grade exposure below a threshold is also apparently fine.

And just sand itself (except for certain specific rare types) is also apparently fine.

Weird eh?

Shellac or traditional varnish are probably the only things you could put on your floor that aren't produced with an industrial process. Shellac in particular is the harvested secretions of a beetle that have been cleaned and dissolved in alcohol. But it's water-soluble and so probably not appropriate for use on a wood floor. You could also use tung oil or boiled linseed oil but you'd have to sand down to #0000 steel wool to get it to shine like urethane. Tung oil is a nice coating because it doesn't turn orange like BLO, but either one you will have to keep applying every few years or the floor will stop repelling water.

Obviously we'd end up with huge Tung plantations or Shellac plantations if we tried to replace all of our floor coverings with this stuff.

Additionally polypropylene degrades under sunlight, becoming brittle. The process takes several months.

also, though i didn't realize this, natural sources of phthalates include coconuts, poppy seeds, grapes, and kidney beans. see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8310026/ and https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Phthalic-acid#sect...

ionic cobalt and ionic zirconium are both of fairly moderate toxicity; they aren't in the same ballpark as things like lead and mercury, but they also aren't as relatively harmless as calcium or zinc

i think that normal 'boiled' linseed oil does have stand oil in it, as well as the siccatives we're talking about here and other additives like antiskinning agents