The West collectively shrugs.

The reason we like MSG is that it indicates presence of protein. We like protein.

I get that logic, but there is a dose at which, over a lifetime, they do not accumulate to a dangerous level.

There is also a dose which, when added or removed, does not make a difference compared to all the other sources.

Edit: One should also take into account that most people naturally stop eating chocolate before the age of 120. Now, question is, what is such a dose and how often do we see people getting dangerous cumulative amounts of heavy metals from chocolate?

Well, if you do not see the difference, maybe I should worry about you.

But I'll just hope you will get it some day. Or maybe you should just stop eating chocolate.

As much chocolate, you mean.

Notice I am not saying you should g drinking 100LL. I am saying that lead from chocolate almost definitely won't be what kills you, or even produces any noticeable effects.

I am also saying that learning to distinguish between those two things is important and you should consider it.

(Also, the "help and support" silliness gets old very fast. Don't do that.)

I'm not your buddy and you keep forgetting the dose.

Chocolate fits that description, even though we know it contains very small amounts of lead. Mostly any chocolate, the darker, the more.

You can stop eating chocolate, of course, but it does not seem to cause any trouble that we would actually know of.

What was considered perfectly fine after testing it on most of the population, when the potential effects are of the kind that we watch for?

Good, but maybe think about the point about observable effects of something very common. In general.

Not sure what you're quoting, sounds like The Simpsons, but if most of the population drinks from the cistern every day and we do not notice it causing any trouble, maybe the cistern is mostly fine?

And this is the kind of trouble that we seem to be looking for?

That is, however, impossible. Some things contain lead. Including cocoa. Even if you stop eating chocolate, you have other sources of lead.

So the question becomes which of those will you focus on? I suggest those that, when eliminated, would make a substantial difference to your total exposure.

Is chocolate one of those? I doubt it.

Also, "realistic", when applied to amounts of chocolate one eats, is not that relative.

Do we know the consequences of eating lead in the amounts contained in realistic doses of chocolate? Say you eat 100g of dark chocolate a day, what should you expect?

Without consequences? We know the consequences of drinking suspicious water (not necessarily disgusting).

Honestly, I prefer Läderach, even though Lindt is just over the hill.

But https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/ (and I don't know how trustworthy a source that is) claims it has some, too.

Yes, people keep saying that, but you have some distribution of lead levels across population and getting from 10th to 12th percentile is probably fine.

Clearly lots of people eat chocolate. Do you observe any ill effects?

And has anyone tested exposure at the levels of what's in the chocolate?

How does it compare to the impact from non-chocolate?

Edit: TODO(me): Get some numbers

> The threshold that is safe for human consumption when it comes to lead is zero. Yes, there is a threshold - it is 0.

That sound wrong, please do elaborate. What is your definition of safe? Do you have any source for the safe level, matching your definition?

Notice I am not saying lead is healthy, I am saying there is some level below which it is not unhealthy enough to warrant regulation.

And if you consider chocolate, what is the difference it makes to your total amount of lead?

Why?

Under some threshold it makes no difference to your life or to your total exposure to lead.

In practice there is no such thing as 0.

With Hersheys I would be much more worried about your life being made worse by eating bad chocolate.

Amount / concentration / dose matters.

Always.

We are, after all, not Californians.

(Which works out to a about 25l/s, or the equivalent of a small creek.)

For samples with the same number of atoms (and undergoing the same type of decay) yes.

The activity means the number of times an atom decays per unit of time and the half-life is the time in which half of the atoms in a sample decay.

And that is why one usually uses nice headphones at work.

One can listen to one's own music and also signal that one is not to be talked at.

Well, who doesn't love an insane murderous dictator?

Blancolirio has a hypothesis about going off autopilot (for which there are many possible reasons) and spatial disorientation (which happens a lot when one is hand-flying in extreme IMC).

Of course we're all waiting for the actual investigation.

It seems to be a place of contradictions --- named both Milton and Keynes, a place where Marshall 1962 comes from, but also Milton Keynes.

Also:

> Crowley took Glasgow, Aziraphale had Edinburgh (neither claimed any responsibility for Milton Keynes).