How about being professional for a change. Present yourself as a reasonable person and talk logic but dumb down the population with broad generalizations without mentioning the harmful levels. Go back to sleep America. Everything is working out fine.
Although this is 100% correct, its got a tiny bit left out.. to complete it there should have been a segment about exposure over time resulting in poisoning. Continuous intake of a "safe amount" of pesticides over a given amount of years will eventually result in poisoning from it regardless if the repeated "doses" were "safe amounts".
Well put! You quite clearly protrayed the difficult message to get accross that it is not the compound that is important, but it is the dose. Responding to some of the commenters, the "safe level" most often used by regulators is called a predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC). Once established, these are usually divided by 100 for humans, to be conservative. Many environmental agencies have such lists. Another issue is bioavailability - i posted a video response on this.
Ignoring the fact that some toxins build up in your system and that many, even in what are considered safe levels, consumed (or contacted or inhaled) for prolonged periods can cause cancer and other ailments. Just because it exists on the planet does not make it necessarily safe, even in low doses.
well, i know for a fact that the oceans are so toxic that fat-soluble toxins concentrate in dolphins. Male dolphins die early because of it, only female dolphins have one way to get these toxins out of their body: by producing milk. When a dolphin has its first baby, the milk is so toxic that it will die. When it has its second baby a year later, the milk is less toxic and the baby has a chance to survive.
So unfortunately some toxins are above save levels in th ocean.
@kurtilein3 "So unfortunately some toxins are above save levels in th ocean."
Can't agree with that right out the gate. Even if the first bit is true it doesn't mean that our oceans themselves have above safe levels of toxic chemicals. It could be something the dolphins are eating that is causing them reach unsafe levels, while the oceans themselves remain safe. Furthermore if it is "toxins" in the ocean then what produced them is a living organism not a chemical made by man.
Here is how it works: we (humans) polluted the sea with quite a lot of fat-soluble toxins, and with plastic as well. The fat-soluble toxins stick to the plastic as it is in contact with sea water. Then fish eat these tiny toxic pills, they pass through the fish unchanged, get eaten again. Now some of the toxins are in fatty tissues of fish, and finally accumulate at the end of the food chain, in dolphins and tuna.
@kurtilein3 Again if everything you said was true but that would not make the oceans toxic. A bad environment situation sure, not disagreeing there but that does not make the ocean toxic.
And again I must add toxins are created by organic processes, so environmental mercury and say BPA are NOT toxins, but poison in fugu or the venom of a snake, and the "organic" pesticides used in organic farming ARE toxins.
@LastNickNameOnEarth This is true, but in the interest of keeping things simple, I used the technically inaccurate but colloquially best-known definition which is "anything dangerous". :-) Thanks!
maybe that situation is safe for humans, but if it kills dolphins, and even threatens to drive sea-water dolphins into extinction if it gets worse, i consider it above safe levels. And if fish in the sea are getting too toxic for dolphins to eat, guess whats next? they might soon be too toxic to eat for us. Then its definitively above safe levels, if you cant eat seafood and fish anymore, i consider the oceans toxic, i mean, noone drinks sea water.
Just one question... how do I evaluate the safe and dangerous levels of various substances? In other words, is there any publically available table or something that shows the ranges?
@TheMalcore its not (just) synthetic. There are several naturally occurring variants of plutonium in nature - and this has been the case since the earth was formed. You can synthesize it from other elements yes (from uranium for example) but plutonium exists naturally also.
@TheStigma looked a couple up beacuse i didnt belive you. apperntly uranium next to a neutron emiter or alpha emitter. (germanium is the model example)
HE'S BACK! Dunning my man, you are far too well educated and logical. I wish my measly Taco Bell paycheck let me donate more, but I gave what I could to your website. Please keep the videos coming! The topics you choose have been great so far, and even if you were spewing nonsense (the truth is quite the opposite obviously) you would still be quite fun to listen to. Support from Santa Cruz, California. Keep up the good work!
While I do agree, there is still relatively little data on interactions between these compounds. If we were more aware of these interactions we could make much better decisions. Not to mention, toxins need to be filtered out of our bodies. 10 toxic compounds together, although each below their safe levels can still cause damage. Acetaminophen and alcohol for instance is now known to cause liver and kidney damage.e
I appreciate the vids though. People tend to panic when their not educated!
Well, some things are validly cumulative. We have every reason to believe that both natural background radiation is causing cancer and that natural Mercury is damaging our brains. While safe levels exist, that is largely a matter of semantics, in addition to the fact that small quantities of a large number of carcinogens (since there are so many chemical actors on Earth) could result in a large relative risk factor. While I like this video, the EWG has some well-argued counterpoints.
huh? 20 million Pu atoms in our bone marrow? I doubt that.
vmelkon 3 weeks ago
How about being professional for a change. Present yourself as a reasonable person and talk logic but dumb down the population with broad generalizations without mentioning the harmful levels. Go back to sleep America. Everything is working out fine.
joshuadc82 1 month ago
This guy is to skepticism the way William Lane Craig is to logic.
ZeerosFate 1 month ago
This is some great stuff, but I think everyone would live this message better if it came from a hot chick
adamdxpt2 2 months ago
Although this is 100% correct, its got a tiny bit left out.. to complete it there should have been a segment about exposure over time resulting in poisoning. Continuous intake of a "safe amount" of pesticides over a given amount of years will eventually result in poisoning from it regardless if the repeated "doses" were "safe amounts".
hohohoho578 3 months ago
@hohohoho578 I was just going to write that :(... I already had typed out a DDT reference... SCREW YOU!
Alpinex105 2 months ago
"Dose makes the poison" So many people forget this simple thing
shadowmax889 3 months ago 2
Well put! You quite clearly protrayed the difficult message to get accross that it is not the compound that is important, but it is the dose. Responding to some of the commenters, the "safe level" most often used by regulators is called a predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC). Once established, these are usually divided by 100 for humans, to be conservative. Many environmental agencies have such lists. Another issue is bioavailability - i posted a video response on this.
hanspeterarp 3 months ago
Ignoring the fact that some toxins build up in your system and that many, even in what are considered safe levels, consumed (or contacted or inhaled) for prolonged periods can cause cancer and other ailments. Just because it exists on the planet does not make it necessarily safe, even in low doses.
Killedkennyagain 3 months ago
talk about homeopathy.
euzebiogb 3 months ago
@euzebiogb he has in his skeptoid podcast. look it up in itunes or online
27meter 3 months ago
well, i know for a fact that the oceans are so toxic that fat-soluble toxins concentrate in dolphins. Male dolphins die early because of it, only female dolphins have one way to get these toxins out of their body: by producing milk. When a dolphin has its first baby, the milk is so toxic that it will die. When it has its second baby a year later, the milk is less toxic and the baby has a chance to survive.
So unfortunately some toxins are above save levels in th ocean.
kurtilein3 3 months ago
@kurtilein3 "So unfortunately some toxins are above save levels in th ocean."
Can't agree with that right out the gate. Even if the first bit is true it doesn't mean that our oceans themselves have above safe levels of toxic chemicals. It could be something the dolphins are eating that is causing them reach unsafe levels, while the oceans themselves remain safe. Furthermore if it is "toxins" in the ocean then what produced them is a living organism not a chemical made by man.
LastNickNameOnEarth 3 months ago
@LastNickNameOnEarth
Here is how it works: we (humans) polluted the sea with quite a lot of fat-soluble toxins, and with plastic as well. The fat-soluble toxins stick to the plastic as it is in contact with sea water. Then fish eat these tiny toxic pills, they pass through the fish unchanged, get eaten again. Now some of the toxins are in fatty tissues of fish, and finally accumulate at the end of the food chain, in dolphins and tuna.
(i need a second comment)
kurtilein3 3 months ago
@kurtilein3 Again if everything you said was true but that would not make the oceans toxic. A bad environment situation sure, not disagreeing there but that does not make the ocean toxic.
And again I must add toxins are created by organic processes, so environmental mercury and say BPA are NOT toxins, but poison in fugu or the venom of a snake, and the "organic" pesticides used in organic farming ARE toxins.
LastNickNameOnEarth 3 months ago
@LastNickNameOnEarth This is true, but in the interest of keeping things simple, I used the technically inaccurate but colloquially best-known definition which is "anything dangerous". :-) Thanks!
volleybrian 3 months ago
@LastNickNameOnEarth
... second comment
maybe that situation is safe for humans, but if it kills dolphins, and even threatens to drive sea-water dolphins into extinction if it gets worse, i consider it above safe levels. And if fish in the sea are getting too toxic for dolphins to eat, guess whats next? they might soon be too toxic to eat for us. Then its definitively above safe levels, if you cant eat seafood and fish anymore, i consider the oceans toxic, i mean, noone drinks sea water.
kurtilein3 3 months ago
Just one question... how do I evaluate the safe and dangerous levels of various substances? In other words, is there any publically available table or something that shows the ranges?
boenrobot 3 months ago
Lol plutonium isnt natural its man made. The first thing he went to is a synthetic
TheMalcore 3 months ago
@TheMalcore Trace amounts of plutonium-239 and 244 can be found in nature, normally around concentrated ores of uranium.
XodusFTW 3 months ago
@TheMalcore Except Plutonium is a "Primordial Element" meaning it has existed since the Earth's creation.
Evnyofdeath 3 months ago
@TheMalcore its not (just) synthetic. There are several naturally occurring variants of plutonium in nature - and this has been the case since the earth was formed. You can synthesize it from other elements yes (from uranium for example) but plutonium exists naturally also.
TheStigma 3 months ago
@TheStigma looked a couple up beacuse i didnt belive you. apperntly uranium next to a neutron emiter or alpha emitter. (germanium is the model example)
TheMalcore 3 months ago
Humans have reached dangerous levels on planet Earth
AnonaThetan 3 months ago
Made before Skyrim, or did you manage to tear yourself away from it?
KaerFyzarc 3 months ago
HE'S BACK! Dunning my man, you are far too well educated and logical. I wish my measly Taco Bell paycheck let me donate more, but I gave what I could to your website. Please keep the videos coming! The topics you choose have been great so far, and even if you were spewing nonsense (the truth is quite the opposite obviously) you would still be quite fun to listen to. Support from Santa Cruz, California. Keep up the good work!
DonFuego1 3 months ago 15
DUNNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I stopped listening to my awesome music to hear your sexy logic.
AtheistKharm 3 months ago
@AtheistKharm I as well...
Darkchipper07 3 months ago
There is no toxic level of Dunning.
smaakjeks 3 months ago 44
I stopped playing Skyward Sword to watch this...
Evnyofdeath 3 months ago
@Evnyofdeath
You should probably get back to that; Zelda's waiting on you, and Impa says you're late.
Fordi 3 months ago
While I do agree, there is still relatively little data on interactions between these compounds. If we were more aware of these interactions we could make much better decisions. Not to mention, toxins need to be filtered out of our bodies. 10 toxic compounds together, although each below their safe levels can still cause damage. Acetaminophen and alcohol for instance is now known to cause liver and kidney damage.e
I appreciate the vids though. People tend to panic when their not educated!
enlightenedone676 3 months ago
Well, some things are validly cumulative. We have every reason to believe that both natural background radiation is causing cancer and that natural Mercury is damaging our brains. While safe levels exist, that is largely a matter of semantics, in addition to the fact that small quantities of a large number of carcinogens (since there are so many chemical actors on Earth) could result in a large relative risk factor. While I like this video, the EWG has some well-argued counterpoints.
zassounotsukushi 3 months ago
yay more episodes. liked, fav'ed and shared to spread the word
kapwns 3 months ago
Hmm, never thought about it like that. Thanks!
tjv323 3 months ago
more material from this channel please!
stiimuli 3 months ago
I'm so excited!
Gezab 3 months ago