turdcollector69

I actually had it backwards, unsaturated fats are horrendously bad.

Their molecular shape makes them more grabby than saturated fats.

This grabbyness makes them clog your arteries faster than saturated fats.

It has to do with the availability of hydrogen binding spots, unsaturated fats have room for more hydrogen bonds, saturated fats don’t.

Lmao a carcinogen tier list would unironically be fantastic because it would help me gauge the relative risk.

I just feel like putting evering into one big bucket is lazy as fuck and doesn’t really help anyone.

Exactly, just slapping a “warning cancer” label on literally everything does absolutely nothing to help me actually protect myself.

Yes!! Thank you for getting it. I have no issues with labeling carcinogens but we really need to distinguish between agents that are harmful at the ppm and the ppb levels.

There’s an entire axis that differs by orders of magnitude that is being ignored and it’s incredibly detrimental to the whole system.

This list sucks because it lacks meaningful information and is just eventually going to be a list of every compound in the known universe.

Clearly not well, reading comprehension is important

That’s what I’m saying, putting nitrates next to hardcore carcinogens like asbestos makes the hardcore carcinogens look less harmful than they actually are.

They need to differentiate the levels of harm or else it’s just another warning that people will ignore because it’s on literally everything.

How can you not see how putting in the same category implies the same level of harm.

I hate these fuckin reddit brained Lemmy users who intentionally misread comments just to argue some adjacent point.

Whatever if you all want pointless warning labels go for it, just know you’re not doing anything useful.

Everyone knows bacon isn’t good for you, nitrates aside the un*saturated fats are horrendous for you.

If you’re eating bacon you’re already doing it knowing it’s bad for you.

We should save the prop65 warnings for things that actually need it. They’re already way oversaturated and have lost all meaning to the vast, vast majority of consumers.

We may as well flatten the whole planet to eliminate the risk of falling down stairs.

I hate how far people go to safety pad the whole planet when an ounce of personality responsibility is all that’s needed.

I never said they weren’t in the same category. To act like implying the risks of nitrates are identical to asbestos is insane and just makes people ignore these warnings.

There is a need to differentiate the level of risk because if you don’t people are going to think the 10,000kg bomb is the same danger as a Glock when in reality they abso-fucking-lutely not.

It’s disingenuous, you’re right that context matters because displaying the two as if they’re the same strips the risk assessment of its context.

It’s pointless because California standards are so stringent that literally everything has a prop 65 warning on it.

It’s completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.

Putting nitrates in the same category as fucking asbestos is literally insane.

It’s like putting a Glock and a 10,000kg bomb in the same category, it’s utterly disingenuous.