Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So is there a straightforward solution to keeping this out of our system and we just...don't?

"Where is this diethanolamine coming from? Well, it's not known to be a natural part of either human or bacterial biochemistry. Instead, it is an industrial contaminant, sadly, whose ability to be incorporated (at low levels) into animal and human lipids through the apparently-not-so-picky enzyme cardiolipin synthase has been confirmed for decades now."



Welcome to my hell of understanding. All these molecules were "deemed as safe" not because me knew everything about them but because we did not care.

This surfactant, diethanolamine, may also prevent the healthy function of lipids in the mitochondrial membrane, namely Omega 3. When you mess with the mitochondrial membrane you start to have issues with oxidative stress and a whole range of metabolic disorders.

For example: Cardiolipin synthase deficiency is a condition that results in abnormal mitochondrial function and morphology. It can be caused by mutations in the cardiolipin synthase (CLS) gene. Symptoms impaired viability, decreased mitochondrial membrane potential, and defective oxidative phosphorylation.

What you can do: Drink reverse osmosis or deionized water and eat as whole and fresh food as you can. Wash your dishes by hand and rinse them very very well using the most natural detergent you have.

Here is a way to find some DEA free products:

https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/search/products?products_by...


To nitpick slightly, DEA is not a lipid, it's an organic amine. It can be inadvertently incorporated into a lipid instead of a glycerol, creating a ... weird lipid.


Isn’t there also something about cancer cells being more likely due to metabolic defects in the cells?


Yeah, any change in oxidative balance could promote cancer.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7392807/


Well, most shampoos have a warning label about external use only so there is at least some effort to keep it out of a person's system.


It's absorbed through the skin, so that doesn't actually solve the issue of having it in your body.


the people down voting the idea of skin absorption as a meaningful vector for getting things into your body remind me of the people a hundred years ago who thought animals cannot feel anything.

I'm wondering if the plastics in modern clothing are similarly exposing our systems to microplastics -- maybe not as bad as cooking in plastic, but a constant light abrasion all day, every day, for your whole life.

Our biologies didn't evolve with these synthetics. Not a big stretch to think our biologies won't handle them well.


>I'm wondering if the plastics in modern clothing are similarly exposing our systems to microplastics

I bet we inhale a lot of it via lint.


I'd say more nano-plastics. And pathway is more oral ingestion or breathing them in when they get loose from clothing. For sure, form time to time we breathe in one of those super thin 'hair'.

Home dust is visibly composed out of those too and it takes just a bit of sunlight to see them dance mid air in non-small numbers. It would be impossible to not breathe them in, or swallow some on food.


https://ceh.org/latest/news-coverage/do-your-workout-clothes...

Looks like plastics can enter the body through sweat glands. I threw away all my polyester workout clothing (which I loved to use) because of this concern.

Call me paranoid but I'm going 100% cotton and linen. Not keen on getting my hormones disrupted by inhaling and absorbing microplastics!


> If and how our workout clothes are leaching microplastics and endocrine disruptors directly into our bodies is theoretical, though

From the linked article.

Also, I'd love to hear this from an article that isn't published by goop


Polypropylene seems to be a fairly biologically safe plastic. It makes a great base layer. And we serve hot foods in it.


Differently from simple chemical substances, microplastics absorption through the skin is kind of an extraordinary claim.

Until we get any evidence of it, I'd say the answer is no, it doesn't.


The dose makes the poison. And the phrase "absorbed through the skin" admits a very wide range of absorption rates.


Interestingly there are some materials the absorb through the skin far faster than you'd expect. ie. they soak in just like a tissue soaks up water.


hydrofluoric acid. Get some on your skin, and you don't even feel a burn. But within minutes or hours, you may have demineralized your bones, causing them to go beyond brittle


Dimethylmercury, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylmercury


True...but Hg(CH3)2 is so much of a "MSDS from the 11th circle of hell" corner case that only expendables in heavily armored moon suits should ever go near the stuff.


Yet a German synthesized it in his basement and used it to poison a colleague: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/07/german-who-poi...

A crime as heinous as the substance that was used. It's a miracle that he didn't kill himself or one of his family members with it.


The paper seems to conclude that we do not know the safe dose. And we are not talking death, but suffering.

So taken together, there would seem to be good reason to continue to continue to unravel the long-hypothesized inflammation/depression connection, and particularly in regards to possible exacerbating factors such as higher levels of M. morganii infection or even higher environmental exposure to diethanolamine. We seem to have a lot to learn here!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: