I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.

The diesel fumes you get from walking along any road will probably be high on the list.

One reason why that VW scandal was so morally objectionable is that diesel emissions are fairly local pollutants. Skimping on filtering them offloads an extreme negative externality to every person who gets near your customer/product; it's like poisoning a well. And of course, VW sure isn't alone in cutting inconvenient corners for cash.

Lead solder will probably also be up there. Yeah, yeah, ROHS and REACH and whatever, but there are plenty of exemptions and the barrel-scrapers just ignore them anyways.

Funfact: The highest concentration of NO2 is not found around pedestrians but inside the cars. Most models don't have suitable filter in the standard issue outside of Europe and Japan (and there only the higher-class private ones).

Are we talking about the cabin air filter? and do you know of any 3rd party suitable replacements?

Post append: According to [1], a simple activated charcoal cabin air filter is better than the stock one in removing diesel exhaust particles.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24621126

Thanks, I didn't know this paper. We just measure the NO2.

edit: Seriously, how did they get that through the ethics committee.. I'm astonished and a little bit appalled. There is a second study too.

Yes, the issue is the cabin air filter. The simple paper pollen filters don't do anything against NO2 - we measure the same values inside and outside.

Most filters with active charcoal will reduce the NO2 concentration a lot. It is recommended to replace them after 1-2 years or a certain distance, but we don't have numbers on this - still, it is clear the filters degrade after a while.

Good, exactly where it should be highest.

Sometimes I can't help but think so too, but many people are not on the road by choice. Many commercial vehicles don't have filters.

Nanoparticles. They irritate your lungs in ways that are very similar to asbestos irritation. And of course, it's your body's reaction to the irritation that kills you.

Example: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b01873

So I'm assuming that includes zinc oxide sunscreen, which is touted as the "least harmful sunscreen" there is.

Well, that a cream, not dust. So is more of a skin issue, so then the question there is whether it penetrates the skin and turns out to do stuff to the tissue underneath.

I guess that the problem with a lot of these things is that we don't have good (enough?) predictive models for long-term damage.

I sure hope not, as it's the only type of sunscreen that really works for me.

Do you get burned when using other sunscreens?

I have to use at least SPF 50, and if I'm out in the sun all day, even that is definitely reaching its limits, I need the physical sunscreen as well.

I expect the practice of of "sous vide in plastic bags" to be shown as long-term unhealthy sooner or later.

It's one of those things where I wonder if the plastics really are as safe as claimed, or just "safer than the standard we set (and we didn't set it high, and our way of measuring is flawed)".

It's a good point. I can't remember the last time I saw a plastic bag that gave a safe temperature range right there on the bag or package containing the bags.

You'd think they would say Safe for food up to 200 degrees F or something.

My Mom feels guilty that she used those "sterile" plastic bags in our baby bottles when we were little. Of course they were BPA.

Some years ago (and I mean decades) my teenage self read somewhere or heard someone talking of the unknown dangers of some gas being released by motherboards (think: silent killers).

That is usually flame retardant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant

Thanks, that looks like it.

Interesting - found this https://ask.slashdot.org/story/02/09/09/1828240/gassing-off-...

The manufacturing process might not have been completed, the solders etc.

I thought it was common knowledge that you don't want your skin to come in contact with gasoline, and if it does to wash it off relatively quickly.

I dunno, we used to use gasoline to scrub off oil-based paint and stains...

I predict you can put your screen based electronic devices at the top of that list.

I think we are about to go through a change in how flame retardants are classified and handled. The chemicals in use today (in clothing, mattresses, lounges and other fabrics) are known toxic and carcinogenic.

Gasoline is absolutely already on that list. It's a little bit crazy that we're allowed to interact so casually with such a potent solvent and known carcinogen (mostly due to the benzene content) on an everyday basis.

I was shocked to discover that my apartment had lead flashing around the roof and balcony, so I researched it a bit, and read some reassuring stuff claiming it was safe (and has less toxic run-off than zinc), and some other less-than-reassuring stuff, so I'm not totally convinced it's safe for my cats to sit in contact with on the balcony.

Of course workers installing it must be careful, but it's claimed to be not harmful to people using the building, or to the environment (from run-off). Just don't lick it or let kids play with it.

On principle, I'd rather have flashing that's ok to lick, and safe for kids to play with and cats to sit on, but that's just not an option at this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashing_(weatherproofing)

Not only flashing, but entire roofs can be covered in lead sheeting! https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/381680137144209527/?lp=true

Lead Flashing: Is it Dangerous? http://bestqualityroofingandchimney.blogspot.nl/2015/01/lead...

Are lead roofing and flashings a problem? https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz22.htm

Lead roofing and flashings are much more likely to be a health hazard for people working with the materials than for people using the building.

Lead has been used for roofing for centuries and is one of the oldest flashing materials. It is durable and soft enough to be formed into complex shapes. Lead roofing and flashings can last over 200 years. Generally speaking, lead roofing or flashing that is in good shape may safely be left in place.

Lead can be used safely if worker exposure is monitored and lead is handled properly to avoid skin contact, ingestion, and exposure to lead dust and fumes.

Lead Sheet Goes Full Circle: https://elsia.org.uk/sustainability/other-research/

This document sets out to provide a scientifically sound appraisal of the use of lead sheet in construction applications.

Research findings in the document show that lead sheet poses no risk to the environment, even when water run-off is taken into account, and does not present any risk to human beings. Providing simple hygienic precautions are observed people who handle significant quantities of lead do not expose themselves to health risks.

Low environmental impact of lead sheet on buildings

A study conducted in 2005 looked at the environmental impact of lead sheet used in the building industry. With the following conclusions:

There is no risk related to emissions of lead sheet into the environment. These conclusions are still valid even if it is assumed that all building roofs are disconnected from the sewer system and that the runoff enters the environment directly.

Chemical hazards: Lead: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.ns...

Surveys of rainwater from domestic tanks have identified lead contamination as a potential problem. Results have been variable with exceedances of the ADWG health-related guideline value of 10 µg/L (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004) ranging from 0% to 15% of samples collected (SA Health unpublished results 1999-2009; Simmons et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2006 and 2008; Morrow et al. 2007; Huston et al. 2009; Rodrigo et al. 2009). In addition to these results a survey in Melbourne recorded a particularly high exceedance frequency of 33% (Magyar 2008).

As discussed in other sections the reduction of lead concentrations in paint and the introduction of lead free petrol have decreased the risk from paint and general traffic emissions. However, roof materials and uncoated lead flashing in particular remain a potential source of contamination (Simmons et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2006; Magyar et al. 2008; Huston et al. 2009), as rainwater tends to be acidic and may mobilise lead, and possibly other metals, into solution. The increasing availability of lead-free or coated lead flashing is expected to reduce future concentrations of lead in rainwater tanks.

Roof catchments used in the collection of rainwater for drinking should not include uncoated lead flashing. Alternative materials should be used in new roofs or when renovating or extending roofs. In existing roofs, painting of uncoated flashing will reduce the risk of contamination. Lead may also enter rainwater from lead washers for roofing screws. These can be replaced with plastic washers.

Leaching of lead into roof run-off may be more of a problem from poorly maintained roofs and gutters, where the process could be increased by the action of water made acidic with organic substances from materials such as leaf litter.

Sunblock I bet. Rubbing that cream into your skin multiple times per day can't be good. In the hiking community, many hikers are moving to sun blocking clothing. There are even sun gloves now.

Why is sunblock bad while moisturizers ok?

Presumably sunblock is more chemically exotic and thus is more likely to be harmful due to greater variance in harm, lack of knowledge about the mechanisms of harm, inability to fully characterize the harm using current tests, etc.

Not really withheld, but I think underestimated is air pollution.

"Worldwide, ambient air pollution contributes to 5.4% of all deaths" source - http://www.who.int/

That's a meaningless statistic on its own. Does it shorten 5.4% of people's lives by 5 minutes each? or does it kill 5.4% of people while they're children? The reality will be somewhere between those extremes but the number alone tells us nothing interesting.

You can use something like years of life lost instead: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006YearsOfLifeLost.pdf

I wouldn't be surprised if evidence comes out that changes alcohol consumption drastically. Yes people have been drinking alcohol for centuries, but it was originally as a way to preserve calories, avoid drinking unsafe water, and as a crude medical treatment.

Today the main reason people drink is to get merry and drunk, and forget about life's problems. The alcohol we drink is (usually) no longer natural, it's processed and refined on an industrial level.

I'm sure everybody knows someone who was an alcoholic and the issues it caused them. On the other hand, it's common knowledge that smoking causes major health issues, yet people still do it...

I've already changed my alcohol consumption. Firstly, I cut down on my overall consumption: most days I don't drink any alcohol at all, and at events I try to stick with 4-5 beers maximum. I sometimes stretch that a bit at festivals, but those only happen once every ~3 months or so and the intake is usually spread out over 8-10 hours.

Secondly, I very much prefer less processed types, such as wine, whisky and unfiltered beer. I stay far far away from alcopops and similar drinks.

It may be anecdotal evidenece, but I get far fewer hangovers now, even if I drink to the same amount as I used to.

The obesity code by Dr. Jason Fung gives some great insights into what we know, and in the end it's quite simple. Our body regulates weight through insulin, so try to keep the insulin levels as low as possible and have extended periods every day where you don't eat.

Non-stick coatings on cooking implements and flame retardants.

I've made a complete switch to stainless steel, cast iron (both enameled and bare) and carbon steel.

I particularly enjoy using my inexpensive carbon steel pan that I got from a local kitchen supply store, I find it even better than an actual cast iron pan. It's made from 3mm plate steel and it's smooth like old-fashioned cast iron pans, so after about a month of regular use, I would honestly call it nonstick. Certainly nonstick enough for eggs or fish.

As an added bonus, it will last basically forever as long as you don't warp it from thermal shock or let it sit while wet, so it rusts. You can take away most other items in my kitchen and I wouldn't be too upset, but don't ever touch my carbon steel pan and wood spatula!

Teflon is chemically inert though, as long as you don't overheat it.

The problem is it starts breaking down at around 250C, and if you leave a pan on a stove it can easily get above that temperature. The chemicals it breaks down into are known neurotoxins, and are especially lethal to birds.

In Europe (especially Italy where I believe Teflon is banned in cookware) ceramic coatings are becoming the standard for non-stick cookware.

I hope the silicon stuff is OK; I prefer that as it's point of thermal breakdown is way past anything I want in my kitchen anyway (aside from direct open flames which I don't currently use but know some cooking does).

I also prefer the ceramic linings, since those are more likely to be OK in my mostly uneducated opinion. (However the type of material is different, and hopefully less likely to leach).

Aka don’t cook with it

There are a lot of environmental and societal factors that would get you rather than anything that we probably don't know about yet.

Sugar and Tobacco are probably outliers simply because of the sheer quantity in which humans consume them (or used to, for smokers). That itself increases greatly the chances that they will directly cause some kind of cancers.

Now if in the future, we change our society and progress medical science far enough that we live well past 100 years, that is when we should be worried about dangers from materials that we only occasionally come into contact with. Even then, cancer treatments would probably be a routine thing by then...

I guess my point is that you would more likely die in a car accident than from something we're not aware of just yet.

Also, asbestos is all over the place in a lot of homes. Plus many locations also have Radon gas seeping in. These things are known about, but mostly ignored because of the cost to fix them.

Most Western countries have banned the use of asbestos so the problem isn't getting any worse. But not America!

What's worse is that we've known about the dangers for more than 100 years.

Hang on, Asbestos is still used in America?

Woah, TIL: https://www.asbestos.com/blog/2012/09/17/why-isnt-asbestos-b...

Here in the UK if traces of asbestos are found the entire building is quarantined while a team of workers in hazchem suits and breathing apparatus removes it!

Yes. Permitted uses include brake pads and clothing!

Perhaps it is superstition, perhaps not, but I try to avoid TV dinners or meals which involve microwaving plastics.

That's a good idea. But I think the TV dinner itself might be worse for you than ingesting whatever the by-product of microwaving the dinner's plastic container might be.

It's likely that engineering a lifestyle that does not result in eating TV dinners is healthier. Sure, it's getting cause-and-effect backwards, but I'm certain there is something there... :)

Plastics is my guess, even though quite a bit has come out.

But then, maybe, that's the price we pay for convenience.

The effects of vehicular pollution? If sitting in your garage with a running car kills you, obviously being surrounded by traffic all day in the cities we live in must be absolutely terrible for you.

"For older women, breathing air that is heavily polluted by vehicle exhaust and other sources of fine particulates nearly doubles the likelihood of developing dementia, finds a study published Tuesday."

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-air-poll...

Yep. And a congested street is just like a pipe with holes every 4-5 meters, that distributes poison.

Facebook

Radio signals causing cancer, probably.

Myth. There's much more estrogen in dairy. Milk is packed with hormones. It comes from a female cow after giving birth for heavens sake.

"The bullets from handguns."

"Myth. There's much more 'bullet' to a rifle round."

Just because there may be more estrogen in milk, how does that take away from the estrogen in soy?

Soy doesn't contain estrogen, it contains phytoestrogens. This is a common misunderstanding.

Phytoestrogens include isoflavones in soy, which can have a wide variety of effects, (including decreasing estrogen levels) depending on gut flora, age, sex, hormone levels https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/

Aspartame.

I only upvoted you because Aspartame is such an interesting case - no other food that I can think of has had such vitrol thrown at it, yet every single scientific study has shown no effect on blood sugar, the chemical is simple, the two compounds it breaks down to in the liver are already present in the body and its properties are well known.

Yet people still hate it.

From my limited life experience:

It tastes bad to the average male, it leaves a bad after taste that is really noticable. Females don't seem to notice the after taste.

I used to feel that way and I am male, but I've found that now that I've consumed a lot, it no longer has that effect.

I don't notice any bitterness, but I've been drinking Diet Pepsi for something like 20 years.

Wait what? No. "Average" and "me and my buddies" aren't the same.

It is if you preface the discussion by saying in my experience. That limits the group to people I've had contact with that the word average would apply.

Aspartame has been extensively studied and no adverse effect has been found. Why do you think that? Is it because "scary chemical"? And is it worse than sugar?

http://www.cibr.es/ka/apps/cibr/docs/aspartamo-opinion-efsa-... is a European Food Safety view.

If I'm reading that correctly, they say there's no problem at the current doses, no?

I don’t know about the chemical itself, but it’s sold as a substitute for sugar without the ill effect, and likely has a similar metabolic effect to sugar.

It can't have a similar metabolic effect to sugar. For one, it's a peptide, not a carbohydrate. Also, in the quantities it's consumed in, there are very few calories.

Now, for phenylketonurics it's problematic, but they have severe dietary restrictions anyway.

The only problem I'm aware of with aspartame is that consumption of any sweetener is associated with weight gain, possibly due to changes in the brain's association between taste and calorie intake.