• 96 Posts
  • 1.26K Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2024

help-circle
















  • From the first link:

    One epidemiologic study looked at a population exposed to chloramine in its drinking water and used the disease risk as a baseline for comparing the risk in a population exposed to chlorine in its drinking water. These findings will be addressed only briefly as they are not directly relevant to this document.

    Have you looked through the second link? It’s all about EPA methods. If I felt further discussion with you might be productive I might investigate some of the citations. I just think you’re accusing me of one thing and I’m saying something entirely different.

    Don’t forget some studies on the benefits

    Are you suggesting chlorine is actually good for you, not that it has antibacterial properties that makes the water safer for consumption?

    I’ll skip the chlorine safety stuff because I asked for a study.

    As far as the toxicity stuff I’m not concerned because you’re still talking about concentration (see. Dilution).

    If you had any tact you would understand that I’m not trying to say chlorine is unsafe for human consumption I’m saying that the goal of science isn’t to determine every possible outcome of consuming it.

    Anyway. You’ll just have disregard me because we aren’t communicating on the same level.







  • There is nothing inaccurate about stating poison is poison. You’re arguing the poison will not have an effect. That does not mean anything about its chemical structure or toxic properties have changed.

    There is a reason the LD50 is listed. It shows a what concentration will kill a species of animal, usually mice. This is not entire analogous to humans but we accept this is the only practice that is maybe acceptable.

    We do not test on humans and there is no blind study to show there are no longterm effects of consuming trace amounts of chlorine in water.