Hacker News Reader

> > sodium nitrate-laden

> Every preserved meat in the world. Also found naturally in Chile.

Just because it's common or "natural" doesn't mean it's not bad for you. There are legitimate health concerns about nitrate use in foods.[1][2]

>> heats up frozen soup in a plastic bag

> Again, most plastics are rated for this. Also helps cut down on glass shards in your food, or badly sanitized cookware giving you the runs.

How do you know which plastics are being used by the restaurants you eat at? And what does "being rated" for heating actually mean? Does it mean that no plastic or other chemicals from the bag actually gets in to the food? As a consumer I have no way of knowing.

> I'd tell you to stock up on tinfoil for those hats, but I heard that causes alzheimer's.

This sort of snark is really not welcome on HN. Please try to be civil.

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-pr...

[2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16510960

> How do you know which plastics

This is regulated by the FDA. See [1] for a link to their hub which goes into far more detail. Obviously a restaurant can violate the regulation, just as they can slip glass shards into your food or not wear gloves.

> Just because it's common or "natural" doesn't mean it's not bad for you

You're correct in this regard at large, see Sharks, Lions and Bears. However nitrates (especially sodium nitrate, not to be confused with potassium nitrate) have been used for a very very very long time in human history for preserving meat. The guardian article is extremely disappointing in that it makes no reference to published material and seems to make several bad claims, including to the reference of salting meat as an "alternative". That being said like all chemicals too much of it will cause adverse side effects, and there are people with genuine reasons (migraines) who want to watch their consumption of it.

> This sort of snark is really not welcome on HN

I'm mostly surprised to see blatantly conspiracy theorist level "there's fluoride in the water man!" kind of nonsense here. It's one thing to discuss your favorite nitrate-free red wine or have a preference on bacon, it's another to suggest that flouridated tap water is a negative.

There was recently a town near me, in Texas, that voted to de-flouridate their water supply. This kind of non-logical fear is backed by comments like this that suggest anything with a vaguely scientific name is bad for you or should be avoided.

We have already seen this happen with vaccines and already kids have died from measles - MEASLES. A disease that should never pop up again in the industrialized world. We shouldn't be wasting resources to convince educated adults in a first world country to get their vaccines, we should be helping to bring life saving basic medicine to everyone.

So yes, that was snarky and sharp. However I don't think it's okay to spew blatantly alarmist non-scientific nonsense and pretend it's "just an opinion". (And sorry for the rather long rant.)

[1] - https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/Packag...

I think you're clearly downplaying some of the risks the original poster notes, simply to make a point.

Nitrates, for example, are in fact quite bad for us. They're carcinogens according to the WHO (1)

It's also well known that plastic does indeed frequently leach into our food and drinks.

I agree with previous poster, less snark would be appreciated considering you are also incorrect in some of your points.

1. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo...

Processed meat itself is basically a carcinogen according to the WHO:

> Furthermore, processed meats can also contain other carcinogenic compounds such as PAHs which can be formed during smoking of meat (e.g. salami). Processed meats, particularly those containing red meat also contain heme iron, which can enhance the formation of carcinogenic compounds (NOCs) in the body.

I'm not opposed to specific, verifiable claims - "Non-foodsafe plastics are likely to leech into food especially when heated", etc. I'm entirely opposed to vague claims - "plastics are in your food and killing you!"

If you have a specific claim, then by all means make it. Don't make the claim "but nitrate laden meats!" because that is meaningless.

Ignoring conspiracy theory gibberish (in this case the fluoridated water rubbish) is MUCH worse than calling it out. You want HN to eventually be populated solely by ‘science proves immunization causes autism’ fruit-cakes? Then keep doing what you’re doing, which is ignoring their lunatic conspiracies and attacking anyone who calls them out with petty sanctimonious appeals to the rules.

Instead of calling you out, I'll just leave these here...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433161/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144112/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11275672

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17097768

>> fluoride water

> So... tap water? Most countries add flouride to their tap water because it improves dental health. Unless you're a redneck screaming about alien mind control, that isn't some crazy scary chemical compound.

There are legitimate sources [1] today that are questioning the utility of adding fluoride to tap water. Questioning the utility and healthfulness of chemicals added to tap water should not be taboo or related to conspiracy theories.

[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluor...

Shame on that source for splitting up those two graphs and giving them different axes. Furthermore it doesn't give us the actual incidence rate of cavities between the two groups numerically, or account for differences in dental care.

But yes, unsurprisingly, dental care has improved since 1975. I would be horrified if that were not the case.

Let's follow that link at the bottom of the story, the one that lists "Letters in response".

> On behalf of the American Dental Association and its 159,000 member dentists, I am writing to express sincere concern over the article entitled, “Is fluoridated water safe,” by Nicole Davis that appears in Harvard Public Health, Spring 2016. The article overlooks critical facts about community water fluoridation that must be shared with your esteemed readers and the public at large.

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/201...

> I am writing to express concern that Harvard Public Health would publish an article titled “Is Fluoridated Drinking Water Safe?” in the Spring 2016 issue and to share the reasons why the American Academy of Pediatrics stands behind the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/201...

I'm going to stop there, despite there being MANY more letters. Flouride in water is safe. That doesn't mean we can't still research it, ask specific questions and continue being informed, but if you are petitioning to remove flouride from water currently, you are acting irrationally and with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Note the "...respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says..." in the site guidelines. Calling parent a "redneck screaming about alien mind control" is definitely not this. Many developed countries have either stopped fluoridating their water or never chosen to add fluoride to their tap water supply, for various reasons.