i like the part where they say "well, we haven't been doing that for a few years now"... uh, they KNEW? and did it anyway. you know how much ketchup kids eat? ouch.
oddly, i'm told that most of the sodas tested had no detectable mercury. sigh of relief?
then again, i'm of the opinion, that human beans shouldn't be eating HFCS *at all*, but it's apparently quite useful in SOME recipes that one eats occasionally, if at all (sorbets for instance).
I read a better version of this article at the Washington Post a few days ago. I notice neither has the most important part of such studies: how many parts mercury per billion or trillion were found?
Without such numbers, the reports don't convey a meaningful level of risk. If a power plant releases a couple barrels of radioactive water but the measurements are in tens of milliREMs, then the risk is lower than a chest X-ray. The risk would be lower than background radiation from hanging around planet Earth all day.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brynndragon
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-29 03:53 pm (UTC)oddly, i'm told that most of the sodas tested had no detectable mercury. sigh of relief?
then again, i'm of the opinion, that human beans shouldn't be eating HFCS *at all*, but it's apparently quite useful in SOME recipes that one eats occasionally, if at all (sorbets for instance).
#
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:From what I remember...
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-29 07:26 pm (UTC)Without such numbers, the reports don't convey a meaningful level of risk. If a power plant releases a couple barrels of radioactive water but the measurements are in tens of milliREMs, then the risk is lower than a chest X-ray. The risk would be lower than background radiation from hanging around planet Earth all day.