Well if that's the plan, distinguishing actual zero from negligible, step one is figuring out whether the leeching from the existing products is negligible or not. No assuming that non-zero presence means much.
So, taking some simple measures to reduce the amount of scientifically proven harmful synthetic chemicals a person puts in their mouth...is unscientific because you want to quibble about the statistical precision of the wording of a conversational comment. The American FDA says "it's not enough to worry about, trust us" while Americans now ingest up to a shopping bag worth of plastic each month, companies like Dow and DuPont spend literal millions per year lobbying, and the multi-trillion-dollar healthcare industry controls a double-digit percentage of the American economy and labor force. This must be the kind of thinking which results from excessive consumption of flame retardants and Brawndo.
I just think that going for "zero" is usually a flawed plan. Things are tradeoffs and decisions should recognize that. Everything is toxic in different ways. Some options are clearly better than others, but the analysis needs more effort than looking at a single number.
Actually I think going for zero would be an admirable goal here, if pursued in a healthy balance stopping short of obsessive phobia-driven mania. But that aside, nobody is denying that there are other sources of various harmful substances besides kitchen utensils. In no way, shape, or form does that invalidate the perfectly logical sentiment of "I wish I could have zero synthetic plastics and flame retardants entering my body so I at least stopped putting plastic utensils in my mouth and food." You do not need more studies, measurements, thresholds, comparison of relative contribution of various sources, or a feasibility analysis of sealing yourself in a giant glass terrarium to justify every word of that basic sentiment including "zero."
Stopping a single source is not going to stop you from ingesting synthetic plastics and flame retardants. And you need to replace the utensils with something else, the cost of which might be worse in not only money but possibly health too, if you make a snap decision based on a single factor instead of the entire picture.
And sometimes the exposure already is effectively zero, making any action at all a waste of time.
I don't know if this case is safe or not, but acting based on a single variable is a bad idea, especially without keeping reasonable expectations at the forefront.
I already addressed your first sentence in my previous comment. Nobody suggested that replacing your utensils would reduce your intake to zero. That does not invalidate wishing for zero and doing what you can to move in that direction.
If you can't afford wooden sauce spoons, a material which the human body evolved in close contact with, naturally disinfects itself for years or decades after the tree is felled, and is extremely affordable to the point that you can find endless amounts of it for free on craigslist, then you sure as heck can't afford the cancer treatments you're risking with the synthetic stuff.
The exposure is effectively zero...when? Wasn't your whole original argument the exact opposite? That exposure is never precisely zero? Dividing the numbers in the study by ten does not make any of them zero.
Acting on limited data is often much more advantageous than not acting on available data.
> Nobody suggested that replacing your utensils would reduce your intake to zero. That does not invalidate wishing for zero and doing what you can to move in that direction.
What I'm saying is, you should make sure you're actually moving a meaningful amount.
And you can't assume wooden is better when it's still coming from a big factory.
> The exposure is effectively zero...when?
It depends on what chemical you're looking for and where you're looking. It's a pretty generic statement, it's not just about utensils.
> Wasn't your whole original argument the exact opposite? That exposure is never precisely zero? Dividing the numbers in the study by ten does not make any of them zero.
There is a point where the effect is zero, but you're never going to reach actual zero.
Your goal should be the former, not the latter.
And sometimes you don't need to do anything to reach the former. In that situation, replacing products just hurts you by wasting time and money (and less time and money will increase stress which is bad for your health).
So no, my argument has not changed.
> Acting on limited data is often much more advantageous than not acting on available data.
Sure, I agree. But have a realistic idea of the impacts and risks before acting.
