>Research a hormone that seems to reduce fertility in mice
>Get promising results
>First reaction: put it in the drinking water
Why do Jews think like this? I understand the odds of them doing this for this specific hormone are small, and first they would have to do a lot of testing, and get FDA approval, and blah blah blah. But why even risk it?
Studies can miss things. Sometimes side effects can take years or even decades to manifest. Most importantly, by constantly adding more and more additives to our food, water, etc. we're adding more variables into the equation for anyone who wants to study the effects of these chemicals on the human body. For example, if someone wanted to study the effect of BHA on the human endocrine system, they wouldn't really be able to conduct an effective study with any sort of control, because even if they could get their subjects to limit BHA consumption, there are probably so many chemical analogs of BHA that it would be practically impossible to identify and control for all of them.
The problem is that this effect compounds over time. The more and more additives and micro-additives we add to our food, medicine, and water, the harder it becomes to experimentally assess the effects of these chemicals on human physiology. Moreover, at this point, a population survey would basically be impossible. Society has become so pumped full of chemical additives, that it's actually impossible to determine whether chemical additive actually are affecting us, because we can't even be sure we actually have an accurate baseline. The position we're left in is one in which the only tests we conceivable can perform are highly contrived experiments, with (relatively) small populations, and no reliable controls.
Just some thoughts I was having earlier about experimental design in the science of food safety, and physiology in general.
>Get promising results
>First reaction: put it in the drinking water
Why do Jews think like this? I understand the odds of them doing this for this specific hormone are small, and first they would have to do a lot of testing, and get FDA approval, and blah blah blah. But why even risk it?
Studies can miss things. Sometimes side effects can take years or even decades to manifest. Most importantly, by constantly adding more and more additives to our food, water, etc. we're adding more variables into the equation for anyone who wants to study the effects of these chemicals on the human body. For example, if someone wanted to study the effect of BHA on the human endocrine system, they wouldn't really be able to conduct an effective study with any sort of control, because even if they could get their subjects to limit BHA consumption, there are probably so many chemical analogs of BHA that it would be practically impossible to identify and control for all of them.
The problem is that this effect compounds over time. The more and more additives and micro-additives we add to our food, medicine, and water, the harder it becomes to experimentally assess the effects of these chemicals on human physiology. Moreover, at this point, a population survey would basically be impossible. Society has become so pumped full of chemical additives, that it's actually impossible to determine whether chemical additive actually are affecting us, because we can't even be sure we actually have an accurate baseline. The position we're left in is one in which the only tests we conceivable can perform are highly contrived experiments, with (relatively) small populations, and no reliable controls.
Just some thoughts I was having earlier about experimental design in the science of food safety, and physiology in general.
