• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle






  • That’s interesting, I didn’t know that before, so I did a bit of research on this, and while you are right that Cacao seeds do absorb some lead naturally when growing, a couple studies have shown that most of the lead that ends up in cacao likely comes from after the farming stage,

    Because of the high capacity of cocoa bean shells to adsorb lead, contamination from leaded gasoline emissions may occur during the fermentation and sun-drying of unshelled beans at cocoa farms. … However, the much higher lead concentrations and larger variability in lead isotopic composition of finished cocoa products, which falls within the global range of industrial lead aerosols, indicate that most contamination occurs during shipping and/or processing of the cocoa beans and the manufacture of cocoa and chocolate products. source

    So most lead contamination came from processing the chocolate rather than from the tree absorbing it. Also, the same article says that the lead is likely from gasoline vapors, not from the soil,

    One source of contamination of the finished products is tentatively attributed to atmospheric emissions of leaded gasoline, which is still being used in Nigeria. Because of the high capacity of cocoa bean shells to adsorb lead, contamination from leaded gasoline emissions may occur during the fermentation and sun-drying of unshelled beans at cocoa farms. Source (same as before)

    I haven’t read the whole article, but I think this is good enough to serve as a counter-argument. Also, I know the article says “cocoa” instead of “cacao”, but it seems “cocoa” is basically just processed “cacao”, according to this article on healthline. So basically, the use of cacao and cocoa is inconsistent and may just refer to cocoa beans and/or processed cocoa beans.

    Also, I found this article, which seems like the abstract to this source, but I can’t figure out if it really is or not. If anyone has any idea of the relationship between the two articles I’d be happy to hear it.


  • You’re confusing freedom of access to knowledge with the application of said knowledge here. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the rest, but I don’t like you calling this “freedom of information” when it’s clearly not, and is much better described as a kind of technological progressivism. What I mean is the idea that technology always progresses forwards, improving society as it goes forward. So, all technology ought to make people’s lives better, even though that’s not always true. I’ve been reading “The evolution of technology” by George Basalla for a philosophy course, and in it Basalla makes it clear that a lot of things that are commonly thought of technology, like that it necessarily comes from science and that it’s most times revolutionary, arguing that they aren’t always inspired by science, and isn’t always discontinuous. So I don’t think that this is as straight forward as you make it out to be. (it’s actually a good read and I definitely recommend it. Basalla actually draws upon many different examples to showcase his points, and even accepts when no general theory can be proposed, for instance, to describe how novelty arises) I understand that AI has its place, but I would argue that AI isn’t being used in the right way most times. Rather than being something used as a tool, it’s being used as a replacement for artists. Again, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you here, it’s just I think you’re being harsh and making wild accusations, like claiming “These people just refuse to advance their own skill sets”, which makes me want to try to refute this.

    Anyways I’m done with my stupid rant, I guess.