It's from the soil in which the cotton grew. And the levels were low.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
300 points (98.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5289 readers
539 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Makes sense, its also how microplastics are getting everywhere.
Still a big concern though, even if it is low levels
So there's plastic accumulating in testicles and lead contamination in the tampons. The future is insane.
In all seriousness though, when I was having the water tested at my house a few years ago, I was told there's no safe amount of lead to have in drinking water, and everything I looked up agreed with that.
So now I'm confused. Either there's safe levels or not. Or do they mean any amount that sets off this standardized test strip is unsafe?
I'm sure these researchers are using more sensitive tests, but corporations at least deserve the side eye and an investigation for the 'no lead' rule not applying to their products. Especially products like tampons...something that's in contact with mucus membranes for hours at a time.
Hey, so I am by no means an expert but have experience in environmental public health. We talk a lot about risk mitigation. A lot of people smarter than me measure what chemicals are appropriate levels in certain products. Because while yes, it is true that no amount of lead is good for you, there are so many factors that come into play that you have to contend with the fact that there will be a number of chemicals that will be occurring within our environment that can’t always be controlled, so they end up in our products. It’s a really fascinating field, I have a textbook recommendation that’s really good if anyone is interested - it isn’t open-source, though. :/
Microplastics are affecting both sides of the coin, well...everything to be honest. But they're hormone disruptors on both sides as far as I know. But I haven't given it the greatest of looks. Because while knowledge is power, there's really only so much cack you can take in before everything seems so sad and hopeless. So, eh. It is what it is.
I think the reality is that you cannot really have mass-produced no-lead option. But I am not sure because I am not an agriculturist, a geologist, or a chemist. Because I believe a majority of crops (if not all!?) contain heavy metals to some extent. So it's ultimately about limiting that exposure and keeping levels down I suppose. But hell if I know what happens in this situation when the chemical gains direct exposure to the body instead of being processed through the digestive system. I am guessing it's probably a similar process as when you get a shot, but idk and I am all outta shits to give on the subject.
I guess I just expected the fda to investigate and figure out which sources of cotton have the highest contamination rates... or something.
Then finding a way to remove the lead? I don't know... it's fiber. We treat and process it constantly. Lead removal doesn't seem insane to me I guess... but maybe it is?
Instead we got the fda saying it's fine and shrugging their shoulders.
You're probably right and this is a sign of acceptance about how fucked we are pollution wise. Damn.
Heavy metals are present in the soil/water in many regions. It's often a natural accumulation. For example the arid production zones in California and Arizona were highly contaminated naturally (and salty). When they started irrigating the land they deep plowed it to breakup the caliche layers. They then continuously flooded it to push the salt and water soluable heavy metals lower in the soil profile. Much of it ended up in the groundwater.
Some heavy metals like lead and arsenic were used as pesticides for almost 90 years. Most productions zones were contaminated during this period. Of course once you apply them, they don't disappear.
At this point, pretty much all production areas are contaminated to some degree. We have no good way to remediate the issue in the soil. So regulators focus on limiting the contamination from controllable sources.
I hear you, I used to expect the government to protect the people as well. But I think it's kinda been shown it's more so operating from a stance of economic strength leading to more prosperity overall for its citizens. But also through out the years of meeting distraught statisticians and scientist and they have all seemed to have a common theme in that their findings have always either been stolen and fudged or they themselves have been forced to fudge their own work in order to continue having a job.
Also I know that a lot of tampons are bleached. So I think they are being treated (typically) in some way. But also cotton as a whole is a really fucked up crop when you think about it. Because it's full of stickers and the cotton is covered in pods and stuff. As for the acceptance. I think like, in general - I really don't have much power over how things are going because I seemingly never had much power over the way things have gone. I know it sound defeatist, but I'd rather say it's realist. I try my best to do the least harm I can do. But I'm no angel, and I'm not perfect. But if I sit around and eat all the doom and gloom in the world I think I'd kill myself tomorrow. So instead, I think you know - take off little bites here and there. Give it a think. But realize that there's very little influence you have over all this stuff. Unless you're hob-nobbing with someone who hob-nobs with others and you create a chain reaction to shift rich individual's focus towards it.
But that's also hard because I think a lot of rich people actually believe super hard into eugenics and lean heavily into whatever logic formed stuff like manifest destiny and what not.
Also on eating organically (and I thought about this because I do have some organic cotton bads for "cup out" days) I am not sure it's any better than non-organic. Although in theory it should be. And it's highly pushed among people who have excess wealth. But I also know (from when I was living a different kind of life) some organic farmers who would straight up cheat to get pests off their crops. But also watched this Vice doc on how farmers being given free compost (I believe it was) were actually poisoning their lands. And I know this can't just be an isolated thing, because waste management (even with farms) is really dodgy and that same kind of free-dirt stuff (is it run off? I can't remember) is offered all over the US. So eh. Damned either way? Eh.
Just keep trying to be a decent person, I guess? I always wonder what Lord of the Flies persona I'll take on if shit goes south. But I always figured I'd probably end up pill-bellied or dead pretty early on into all the chaos >_>...!
There are no "safe levels of lead", it's toxic as-is and bio-accumulates in the body, which is the main problem. It also doesn't matter in what chemical-compound or what route the lead comes in, it's still toxic as a heavy element.
Why is everything laced with lead then? Well, it's fantastically useful and cheap element, with wide applications... Paint, pipes, bullets, leaded petrol (the absolute worst incident), batteries, radiation-shielding, it was/is on everything. It's entirely a man-made problem.
Except modern day reality is that if we keep using it we'll all die or at least become dummer. This cost is obviously greater than banning/avoiding all uses of lead in the first place. In the science circles they are betting if a some new magic material contains lead, it'll never (or is allowed to) exit the lab.
I can't wait to lose arguments on the Internet in 50years from kids calling me a zoomer with microplastic poisoning. Karma for all the boomers with lead poisoning I've made fun of 😭
Lol.
In 50 years you'll be dead from the earth is on fire and uninhabitable poisoning.
Honestly I am of the opinion that climate change is far less of an existential threat to humanity than mutually assured destruction was. Ecosystems are gonna collapse and lots of people are going to die. I think the true climate change doomer pill isn't that it's too late and the world is doomed, it's that the people living in the global north will not make the sacrifices needed to stop the climate catastrophes that will happen in the global south. We could all go vegan tomorrow and cause the largest single decrease in greenhouse emissions. We could all stop buying products that are made unsustainably and unethically in countries that are supposedly no longer colonised. But we won't. No one will pay higher prices for the same products. No one will make an effort to change their lifestyle. And no one will care that other people, far away, will die because of it. Entire cultures will be erased and we will not lose sleep over knowing that we let it happen because it was easier than doing something about it.
Actually there is a serious risk that Earth turns into Venus. Perpetually self-reinforcing green house effect. All life on Earth, fried, for all eternity.
Edit: Well, until the sun blows.
Actually there is a serious risk that Earth turns into Venus.
I'm sorry, but no. There's not. Not only is there not a serious risk, there's not even a slight chance. Even if we burned every drop of oil and bit of coal and released all the methane deposits, the earth still wouldn't even be close to reaching the conditions required for runaway greenhouse effect. Not for about 2 billion years, when it's estimated the sun's output will have increased sufficiently to vaporize much of our oceans.
I get that climate change is serious - my graduate thesis centered around it and carbon cycling - but please don't spread bullshit. We have enough issues to deal with already without making up more. Please fact check yourself and others.
Relevant articles you should read:
Scoping of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report Cross Cutting Issues
Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates
Can Increased Atmospheric CO2 Levels Trigger a Runaway Greenhouse?
Thank you. Wow. I was basing that on something I saw or thought I saw in Cosmos (the 1980s version with Carl Sagan). Perhaps I was stoned when watching it. There is little better than to watch one of the Cosmos series while stoned - or the autotuned versions by Melodysheep (on YouTube).
For anyone who wants a quicker read on the above: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
I shall have to revise my world view now. 🤯🤯🤯 Wow. I feel optimistic.
Tardigrades - they will likely survive then. And cockroaches, and other life. So even if we all + most animals die out, we will be like the dinosaurs, and life may indeed bounce back.
I mean... A shadow has been lifted from my soul.
Goddamn. I know it seems like I am joking but I am not.
Good news.
No worries! I get corrected on things all the time. Thanks for taking it constructively instead of saying choice things about my mother.
Want even better news? The earth totally isn't fucked! Humans might be, but life on earth will probably be alright.
Edit: I got in trouble with crazies when I said "fine" before, so let me elaborate - I mean life will likely survive and in sufficient variety to have no issue rebounding.
The last big extinction event we had was the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event. Almost 90% of species died out. We're not quite sure what caused it (probably volcanoes), but CO2 levels were nearly 6x higher than now, the oceans were sulfurous, acidic, and oxygen starved, and global warming was leagues beyond where we're at now. Life bounced back and we're not even close in severity.
So should we keep fighting climate change? Hell yeah! But it's not as dismal as it seems.
Isn't the carbon were releasing now from fossil fuels carbon that used to be in the atmosphere? What self reinforcing mechanisms will allow for temperatures roughly beyond what has already occurred, which still sustained life?
Briefly, they're wrong. I responded in detail above.
You are correct, what we're burning as fossil fuels is largely the remains of millions of years of vegetative and microbial life, altered due to heat, pressure, and time. Millions of years of time.
All that carbon making up those organisms was fixed from the atmosphere. While biological functions have been busy fixing CO2, volcanoes, the Earth's mantle, and even some geochemical processes release CO2. If not for biological fixation, the atmosphere's CO2 content would be higher.
I don't believe you
Well, the Irish do call them bullets. Guess they're ahead of the curve.
Yes, it's a huge issue. We need to ban use of vehicles in fields as soon as we are able to wean off them. Tires and exhaust all leave heavy metals and other carcinogenic compounds in our fields which get taken up into our food/crops itself. We need to bioremediate all of our fields and use drone fleets in the future to reduce pollution.
I am always so baffled at how highways are allowed to run next to things like say...great lakes or entire farms and people think "that's the produce I wanna eat!" It also makes gardens in a city feel so sad. But you gotta grow what you want, with what you've got.